ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Closed Thread
Old 31st January 2017, 03:11 PM   #241
Methos
Muse
 
Methos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Two out of three ain't bad.
True. But justice in Italy isn't a "best of three" game.
__________________
"Found a typo? You can keep it..."
Methos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 03:32 PM   #242
Briars
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 997
John Kercher probably was dismayed at having to read about Sollecito's latest interview . How many has he done? As usual he was restrained and made no mention of Sollecito's latest FB fiasco . Sollecito asked for the interview no doubt wanting to do a little damage control after his disastrous week before. So when called for his opinion, John Kercher said enough already why this again? Seems more than reasonable. The Kerchers put up with Sollecito announcing he visited Meredith's grave against their wishes, as well as his latest FB jokes referencing the murder.
Briars is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 03:45 PM   #243
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,894
Originally Posted by Briars View Post
John Kercher probably was dismayed at having to read about Sollecito's latest interview . How many has he done? As usual he was restrained and made no mention of Sollecito's latest FB fiasco . Sollecito asked for the interview no doubt wanting to do a little damage control after his disastrous week before. So when called for his opinion, John Kercher said enough already why this again? Seems more than reasonable. The Kerchers put up with Sollecito announcing he visited Meredith's grave against their wishes, as well as his latest FB jokes referencing the murder.

Yeah........no. The words and tenor of John Kercher's interview were very clear. Shall I repeat the quote used as the headline? OK, I will:

"They've been set free - so why keep going on?"

Now, whichever way one twists in an attempt to re-parse this, it's inescapable that John Kercher is here stating that, in his opinion, Knox and Sollecito lost the right to "keep going on" once they were "set free". Does Mr Kercher think that Sollecito does not have the right to apply for financial compensation for the years of incarceration and crippling legal costs the Italian State put him through (and, when this compensation hearing made the news, to give an interview to a UK TV programme on their request about it)?

In my opinion, Mr Kercher should probably not have said what he said. Of course he and his family get deserved sympathy for all that they've been through. But I'm afraid that simply doesn't give them the right to say anything they like about the case, especially when it's about two people who were wrongly accused and subsequently correctly acquitted and exonerated. Unfortunately, the situation appears to be magnified in this particular instance owing to John Kercher's ready access to the print media through his work connections. This has, IMO, turned out to have often regrettable consequences.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 03:50 PM   #244
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,619
Originally Posted by Briars View Post
John Kercher probably was dismayed at having to read about Sollecito's latest interview . How many has he done? As usual he was restrained and made no mention of Sollecito's latest FB fiasco . Sollecito asked for the interview no doubt wanting to do a little damage control after his disastrous week before. So when called for his opinion, John Kercher said enough already why this again? Seems more than reasonable. The Kerchers put up with Sollecito announcing he visited Meredith's grave against their wishes, as well as his latest FB jokes referencing the murder.
Agreed. Mr. Kercher showed remarkable restraint given the circumstances.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 04:15 PM   #245
Briars
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Yeah........no. The words and tenor of John Kercher's interview were very clear. Shall I repeat the quote used as the headline? OK, I will:

"They've been set free - so why keep going on?"

Now, whichever way one twists in an attempt to re-parse this, it's inescapable that John Kercher is here stating that, in his opinion, Knox and Sollecito lost the right to "keep going on" once they were "set free". Does Mr Kercher think that Sollecito does not have the right to apply for financial compensation for the years of incarceration and crippling legal costs the Italian State put him through (and, when this compensation hearing made the news, to give an interview to a UK TV programme on their request about it)?

In my opinion, Mr Kercher should probably not have said what he said. Of course he and his family get deserved sympathy for all that they've been through. But I'm afraid that simply doesn't give them the right to say anything they like about the case, especially when it's about two people who were wrongly accused and subsequently correctly acquitted and exonerated. Unfortunately, the situation appears to be magnified in this particular instance owing to John Kercher's ready access to the print media through his work connections. This has, IMO, turned out to have often regrettable consequences.
I don't buy your twist on things. The Kerchers declined to appear in the made for entertainment Netflix film of their daughter's murder. I believe Stephanie was asked to participate and made a comment she had no interest. The filmmakers wanted to send her a copy anyway. So books , movies endless interviews. Why do an interview and not just appear for your court date? The tone of his interview complaining about his public image was ill timed given his exposed FB activity the week before. Don't you think John knew about his sick FB jokes? Are you a father? Perhaps you might step back a little and understand John Kercher is justified in hoping they will lead more private lives now they are free.He made no mention of the compensation as you suggest he just doesn't need to read about Sollecito and Amanda monthly.
Briars is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 04:25 PM   #246
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,894
Originally Posted by Briars View Post
I don't buy your twist on things. The Kerchers declined to appear in the made for entertainment Netflix film of their daughter's murder. I believe Stephanie was asked to participate and made a comment she had no interest. The filmmakers wanted to send her a copy anyway. So books , movies endless interviews. Why do an interview and not just appear for your court date? The tone of his interview complaining about his public image was ill timed given his exposed FB activity the week before. Don't you think John knew about his sick FB jokes? Are you a father? Perhaps you might step back a little and understand John Kercher is justified in hoping they will lead more private lives now they are free.He made no mention of the compensation as you suggest he just doesn't need to read about Sollecito and Amanda monthly.

Unfortunately, he's going to have to reconcile himself with reading about them until all the legal and civil processes have ended (and he could look at the salacious, voracious tabloid press in the UK, within which he was an active participant for many years, to blame for much of that). And he's also going to have to reconcile himself (and I recognise that this might be difficult and the cause of great cognitive dissonance) with the twin facts that there never was any credible/reliable evidence that Knox/Sollecito participated in his daughter's murder and that Knox/Sollecito are both almost certainly factually innocent - and that therefore Knox and Sollecito were also - albeit to a far, far lesser degree than his daughter - victims in this sorry tale, and they have rights too.

As an aside: was John Kercher so moved to comment similarly when, for example, the Perugia police brought the action against Knox? Was he in the papers saying "the police messed up in this case, so why keep going on"? Erm. No. Funny, that.........

Last edited by LondonJohn; 31st January 2017 at 04:27 PM.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 04:44 PM   #247
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,894
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Agreed. Mr. Kercher showed remarkable restraint given the circumstances.

I agree with the "restraint" angle. What I take some issue with is his fundamental premise: that Knox and Sollecito should somehow be grateful that they were acquitted and maintain some form of penitent silence in perpetuity as a result.

There are two matters at play here, IMO. The first is that the legal and civil cases are still very much ongoing. Sollecito has, IMO, every right to speak to the media soon before and soon after his compensation hearing. Likewise, Knox will, IMO, have every right to speak to the media in the aftermath of the ECHR ruling/judgement. And likewise, Knox (again IMO) had every right to speak to the media after she was acquitted in the police criminal slander trial. On top of all of that, both Knox and Sollecito have every right (IMO) to talk to the media if they like about how their lives are now.

And that leads into the second matter at play. And that's the bottomless appetite of a certain sector of the media - most especially the UK tabloid and mid-market newspapers, but plenty of other media outlets too - for stories about Knox and Sollecito. If, for example, the BBC hadn't contacted Sollecito (or his lawyer) for an interview about his compensation hearing, and if the BBC hadn't felt there was "mileage" in conducting and running such an interview, then that interview would never have happened. The exact same is true in every other instance: a media outlet (or outlets) feels there's a newsworthy story that its readers/viewers would like to read/see.

The irony (as I've also mentioned) is that John Kercher is intimately knowledgable about the way this all works. I wonder if he was making similar points to his editors when, for example, the Daily Mirror or Daily Mail were camping outside the houses of families of murder victims and making endless harassing phone calls to them to try to "sign them up"? Or when the same papers were writing endless inconsequential stories about the life in prison of Yorkshire Ripper Peter Sutcliffe, to the obvious distress of the families of those he'd murdered? Or when the same papers were (much more relevantly), writing endless stories about the freed Birmingham Six bombers (who were victims of a miscarriage of justice) and their new lives outside prison - how did Mr Kercher think the families of those actually killed in the Birmingham pub bombs would have felt about that? Or is it only when Mr Kercher was on the other side of the equation that he felt it was so very wrong........?
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 04:52 PM   #248
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,894
By the way, and for full context, I believe the precise words used by Mr Kercher were these:

'What fascinates me is why they keep going on about it. They've been let free - so why keep going on? It's bizarre.'

When asked about Sollecito mentioning he is in debt, Mr Kircher (sic) said: 'I think his father paid didn't he? And what about what we've paid out?'



So it "fascinates" Mr Kercher that Sollecito is "still going on about it" (while Sollecito is pursuing a civil claim for compensation for false imprisonment....), and Mr Kercher thinks "it's bizarre" that Sollecito should "go on about it". And Mr Kercher dismisses Sollecito's claims of being in debt with a wave-away of "I think his father paid, didn't he" (as if that would even make any difference - the family would still have incurred those losses), then mentions his own (sad but, here, irrelevant) legal costs as some form of "counterargument".

There you go.......
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 05:08 PM   #249
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 10,914
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
By the way, and for full context, I believe the precise words used by Mr Kercher were these:

'What fascinates me is why they keep going on about it. They've been let free - so why keep going on? It's bizarre.'

When asked about Sollecito mentioning he is in debt, Mr Kircher (sic) said: 'I think his father paid didn't he? And what about what we've paid out?'



So it "fascinates" Mr Kercher that Sollecito is "still going on about it" (while Sollecito is pursuing a civil claim for compensation for false imprisonment....), and Mr Kercher thinks "it's bizarre" that Sollecito should "go on about it". And Mr Kercher dismisses Sollecito's claims of being in debt with a wave-away of "I think his father paid, didn't he" (as if that would even make any difference - the family would still have incurred those losses), then mentions his own (sad but, here, irrelevant) legal costs as some form of "counterargument".

There you go.......

John Kercher is not the cause of the situation Amanda and Raff got themselves into.

They are the authors of their own misfortune.

Not the Kerchers.

Not Nick Pisa.

Not Mignini.

Not Stefanoni.

Not Napoloeoni.

Not Novelli.

Not Crini.

Not Comodi.

Not Lalli.

Not Rinaldi & Boemia.

Not Massei.

Not Nencini.

Not Chieffi.

Not Maresca.

Disgraceful attack on a grieving father. Shameful. Beastly and distasteful.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 05:15 PM   #250
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,364
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Unfortunately, he's going to have to reconcile himself with reading about them until all the legal and civil processes have ended (and he could look at the salacious, voracious tabloid press in the UK, within which he was an active participant for many years, to blame for much of that). And he's also going to have to reconcile himself (and I recognise that this might be difficult and the cause of great cognitive dissonance) with the twin facts that there never was any credible/reliable evidence that Knox/Sollecito participated in his daughter's murder and that Knox/Sollecito are both almost certainly factually innocent - and that therefore Knox and Sollecito were also - albeit to a far, far lesser degree than his daughter - victims in this sorry tale, and they have rights too.

As an aside: was John Kercher so moved to comment similarly when, for example, the Perugia police brought the action against Knox? Was he in the papers saying "the police messed up in this case, so why keep going on"? Erm. No. Funny, that.........
There is a sizable amount of disingenuous hypocrisy going on by the Kerchers and by many commenters. Both Amanda and Raffaele have been vilified in the press and in social media. They were unjustly deprived of their freedom for 4 years and they have had a cloud over their heads for a decade. While I feel for Kercher and his loss, he has no reasonable justification to ask that Knox or Sollecito stop fighting to be compensated.

In fact, if anything Kercher should now be on their side.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 05:27 PM   #251
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,894
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
There is a sizable amount of disingenuous hypocrisy going on by the Kerchers and by many commenters. Both Amanda and Raffaele have been vilified in the press and in social media. They were unjustly deprived of their freedom for 4 years and they have had a cloud over their heads for a decade. While I feel for Kercher and his loss, he has no reasonable justification to ask that Knox or Sollecito stop fighting to be compensated.

In fact, if anything Kercher should now be on their side.

Agreed.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 05:40 PM   #252
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,894
Vixen: were you arguing that the families of the Yorkshire Ripper's victims shouldn't have have to keep seeing programmes about Sutcliffe's crimes, complete with graphic descriptions of their relatives' murders and in some cases partial film of their corpses? Or were you watching those programmes without even a thought as to whether the relatives had a right to ask people to "stop going on about it"?

Were you arguing that the poor parents of Christa McAuliffe - the teacher who perished in the NASA Space Shuttle tragedy of 1986 - should not have to endure the stream of programmes about the disaster that have appeared since (I happened to see a new one just last night) which featured the footage of the shuttle exploding and the crew capsule - probably with many of the crew members still conscious - plummeting over a mile to the ocean below where they were all instantly killed upon impact? Or were you watching those documentaries without even thinking for one moment that her parents might have had a right to ask people to "stop going on about it"?

It's extremely sad that the Kercher family, through horrible happenstance, has found itself the family of a murder victim in a high-profile crime which received widespread, lengthy and ongoing international media coverage. It's doubly sad that the Kercher family has had to endure a botched and mendacious judicial process, which resulted in the correct conviction of the actual perpetrator and the (initially) wrongful convictions of two others - against whom there was zero credible, reliable evidence, and who were almost certainly innocent of anything to do with the murder. But the plain - though unpleasant - fact is that the Kercher family has no control over the media reporting of this case (and no right to control it either).

Funny, though, how some constituencies leap upon this issue with faux-morality - when it suits their agenda to do so. Yet it's absolutely the norm in notorious, high-profile crimes - especially when there turn out to be miscarriages of justice. Selective outrage is just so intellectually honest, isn't it.......?
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 05:56 PM   #253
Briars
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
There is a sizable amount of disingenuous hypocrisy going on by the Kerchers and by many commenters. Both Amanda and Raffaele have been vilified in the press and in social media. They were unjustly deprived of their freedom for 4 years and they have had a cloud over their heads for a decade. While I feel for Kercher and his loss, he has no reasonable justification to ask that Knox or Sollecito stop fighting to be compensated.

In fact, if anything Kercher should now be on their side.
Did John Kercher mention the request for compensation or not ?
Briars is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 06:07 PM   #254
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,364
Originally Posted by Briars View Post
Did John Kercher mention the request for compensation or not ?
Don't you think John Kercher is suggesting that Raffaele and Amanda should be satisfied with just not being in prison? Or do you believe I am misunderstanding his statement?
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 06:12 PM   #255
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,894
Originally Posted by Briars View Post
Did John Kercher mention the request for compensation or not ?

John Kercher was contacted by a media outlet and specifically asked for his observations in respect of the interview Sollecito gave BBC News. Sollecito's interview with BBC News was explicitly in regard to his (Sollecito's) forthcoming hearing for compensation - and the whole thrust of the interview was about the compensation hearing, Sollecito's reasons for believing he deserved compensation, and his experiences which underpinned his claim for compensation.

So while I expect you know full well that John Kercher did not explicitly mention the compensation hearing, he can have been in no doubt whatsoever that he was being asked what he thought about Sollecito's interview, which itself was entirely related to the compensation hearing.

And, as his observation, he offered: "What fascinates me is why they keep going on about it. They've been let free - so why keep going on? It's bizarre."

QED.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 06:22 PM   #256
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,894
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Don't you think John Kercher is suggesting that Raffaele and Amanda should be satisfied with just not being in prison? Or do you believe I am misunderstanding his statement?

Frankly, I don't think his statement can be interpreted any other way (in broad terms). It might of course have been ill-chosen words when he was surprised by a phone call from the newspaper. But....

I will entirely agree - and find it wholly appropriate - if John Kercher makes public remarks along the lines of "I hate that we have to keep hearing about matters related to Meredith's death" or "I wish this case were no longer in the public spotlight" or similar. But I simply do not think he has the right, as of this current moment in time, to criticise Knox or Sollecito for giving media interviews - given that aspects of the case are still very much live and important, and given that this is a media-led interest.

Once Sollecito gets his compensation and Knox's application to the ECHR is wholly successful (leading, in turn, to the quashing of her criminal slander conviction and her own successful claim for compensation), then I will totally agree that the decorous thing for Knox and Sollecito to do will be to get on with their lives and refrain from bringing up the murder to the media for broadcast dissemination (though they will still, IMO, have the unconditional right to talk about their experiences to private groups in workshops etc, and to talk about their experiences in occasional documentaries etc.). If Knox or Sollecito were still regularly appearing in print or broadcast media a number of years after the last parts of their miscarriages of justice have been resolved, then I would fully agree with Mr Kercher's sentiment. But absolutely not in January 2017.

Last edited by LondonJohn; 31st January 2017 at 06:26 PM.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 06:37 PM   #257
Briars
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
John Kercher was contacted by a media outlet and specifically asked for his observations in respect of the interview Sollecito gave BBC News. Sollecito's interview with BBC News was explicitly in regard to his (Sollecito's) forthcoming hearing for compensation - and the whole thrust of the interview was about the compensation hearing, Sollecito's reasons for believing he deserved compensation, and his experiences which underpinned his claim for compensation.

So while I expect you know full well that John Kercher did not explicitly mention the compensation hearing, he can have been in no doubt whatsoever that he was being asked what he thought about Sollecito's interview, which itself was entirely related to the compensation hearing.

And, as his observation, he offered: "What fascinates me is why they keep going on about it. They've been let free - so why keep going on? It's bizarre."

QED.
John Kercher was asked what he thought about Sollecito's interview. The bulk of the interview was about how he is viewed today by others. Half of Italians see him as guilty, which makes it difficult for him. John Kercher was well aware of the FB murder and racist jokes circulating the news the week before. He made no mention of it but could have considering only Sollecito was to blame with this bad publicity. John expressed his frustration mildly and with great restraint as usual.I have never heard John Kercher mention the passage in the motivational report which places Amanda and probably Sollecito at the cottage. What stopped him from being interviewed and puzzling over what that meant? I'm glad you have to agree he didn't say Sollecito shouldn't ask for compensation. The man is remarkable he says so little.
Briars is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 06:39 PM   #258
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,619
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
John Kercher is not the cause of the situation Amanda and Raff got themselves into.

They are the authors of their own misfortune.
I beg to differ. For pete's sake..
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 06:41 PM   #259
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,619
Originally Posted by Briars View Post
John Kercher was asked what he thought about Sollecito's interview. The bulk of the interview was about how he is viewed today by others. Half of Italians see him as guilty, which makes it difficult for him. John Kercher was well aware of the FB murder and racist jokes circulating the news the week before. He made no mention of it but could have considering only Sollecito was to blame with this bad publicity. John expressed his frustration mildly and with great restraint as usual.I have never heard John Kercher mention the passage in the motivational report which places Amanda and probably Sollecito at the cottage. What stopped him from being interviewed and puzzling over what that meant? I'm glad you have to agree he didn't say Sollecito shouldn't ask for compensation. The man is remarkable he says so little.
My suspicion is that this was one thing that the Kercher's were properly advised, by the lawyer Francisco Maresca. The reason he didn't mention is is perhaps because that's not what the motivations report says, the only people who interpret it that way are.....
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 06:42 PM   #260
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,685
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
John Kercher is not the cause of the situation Amanda and Raff got themselves into.

They are the authors of their own misfortune.

Not the Kerchers.

Not Nick Pisa.

Not Mignini.

Not Stefanoni.

Not Napoloeoni.

Not Novelli.

Not Crini.

Not Comodi.

Not Lalli.

Not Rinaldi & Boemia.

Not Massei.

Not Nencini.

Not Chieffi.

Not Maresca.

Disgraceful attack on a grieving father. Shameful. Beastly and distasteful.
BTW did you know in the Ashley Olsen case, she had a British friend in Florence named Amy? They didn't share an apartment however, but I thought it was almost an interesting parallel nonetheless. In some other universe maybe Amy's alibi of supposedly being at her own boyfriend's was disbelieved to the point of the cop's beating a statement out of her and her boyfriend, and when the real killer shows up, Cheik Diaw, he merely becomes their pawn accomplice despite zero connection between them - and you go on to have 6000 posts in the thread "The Trials of Amy and her Florentine boyfriend Part 24."

Wouldn't that be something?
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 06:44 PM   #261
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 10,914
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Vixen: were you arguing that the families of the Yorkshire Ripper's victims shouldn't have have to keep seeing programmes about Sutcliffe's crimes, complete with graphic descriptions of their relatives' murders and in some cases partial film of their corpses? Or were you watching those programmes without even a thought as to whether the relatives had a right to ask people to "stop going on about it"?

Were you arguing that the poor parents of Christa McAuliffe - the teacher who perished in the NASA Space Shuttle tragedy of 1986 - should not have to endure the stream of programmes about the disaster that have appeared since (I happened to see a new one just last night) which featured the footage of the shuttle exploding and the crew capsule - probably with many of the crew members still conscious - plummeting over a mile to the ocean below where they were all instantly killed upon impact? Or were you watching those documentaries without even thinking for one moment that her parents might have had a right to ask people to "stop going on about it"?

It's extremely sad that the Kercher family, through horrible happenstance, has found itself the family of a murder victim in a high-profile crime which received widespread, lengthy and ongoing international media coverage. It's doubly sad that the Kercher family has had to endure a botched and mendacious judicial process, which resulted in the correct conviction of the actual perpetrator and the (initially) wrongful convictions of two others - against whom there was zero credible, reliable evidence, and who were almost certainly innocent of anything to do with the murder. But the plain - though unpleasant - fact is that the Kercher family has no control over the media reporting of this case (and no right to control it either).

Funny, though, how some constituencies leap upon this issue with faux-morality - when it suits their agenda to do so. Yet it's absolutely the norm in notorious, high-profile crimes - especially when there turn out to be miscarriages of justice. Selective outrage is just so intellectually honest, isn't it.......?

Families of murder victims (or accidents) should always be treated with utmost sensitivity. In Finland, such victims are never named. After the various high school shootings there, you didn't get newsflashes of the victims' faces or their names. Whilst I think there may be some public interest in perhaps having this information, I agree with strong privacy laws in Scandinavia.

A certain somebody did hack my linkedin page - would that be ethical in your view? A disturbed woman has offered to send someone pictures of Mez' naked torso in exchange for his following her on twitter. She adds hatefully, 'I'm sure Mez wouldn't mind'.

This is someone who has regularly attacked the Kerchers and sent the family pictures of vaseline jars and salacious references to 'brazilians'. Do you REALLY think this type of behaviour is acceptable? Do you, Lojo, do you?

I have no desire to see any autopsy pictures and would look away. Not least because the sight of blood makes me feel faint. I like to follow trials, but I don't see anything untoward in that.

Of course the media can be sensitive over these cases. ISTM Amanda herself has been encouraging this woman and other dubious 'murder groupies' as she has never asked her fans to leave the Kercher family alone.

I know criminals like to see the police, the judge and the prosecutor as enemies (Jody Arias believed all the jurors were rubbish, except for the one who saved her from the death penalty). That's to be expected. What is disgusting are the Amanda and Raff fans who derive some kind of perverse pleasure in cruel comments directed at the Kercher family.

Please stop. The Kerchers are off limits. Please have some respect and decency.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim

Last edited by Vixen; 31st January 2017 at 06:51 PM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 06:45 PM   #262
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,364
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Frankly, I don't think his statement can be interpreted any other way (in broad terms). It might of course have been ill-chosen words when he was surprised by a phone call from the newspaper. But....

I will entirely agree - and find it wholly appropriate - if John Kercher makes public remarks along the lines of "I hate that we have to keep hearing about matters related to Meredith's death" or "I wish this case were no longer in the public spotlight" or similar. But I simply do not think he has the right, as of this current moment in time, to criticise Knox or Sollecito for giving media interviews - given that aspects of the case are still very much live and important, and given that this is a media-led interest.

Once Sollecito gets his compensation and Knox's application to the ECHR is wholly successful (leading, in turn, to the quashing of her criminal slander conviction and her own successful claim for compensation), then I will totally agree that the decorous thing for Knox and Sollecito to do will be to get on with their lives and refrain from bringing up the murder to the media for broadcast dissemination (though they will still, IMO, have the unconditional right to talk about their experiences to private groups in workshops etc, and to talk about their experiences in occasional documentaries etc.). If Knox or Sollecito were still regularly appearing in print or broadcast media a number of years after the last parts of their miscarriages of justice have been resolved, then I would fully agree with Mr Kercher's sentiment. But absolutely not in January 2017.
While i wouldnt blame Mr Kercher not wanting to revisit this horrible incident, I don't agree that Amanda or Raffaele need ever stop discussing the injustice they suffered. No amount of money makes up for the pain that the wrongly convicted have endured. Also, I believe it is impossible for either Amanda or Raffaele to escape the effects of the enormous publicity so if they choose to use this incident to help others or themselves I think they are entitled.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; 31st January 2017 at 06:55 PM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 06:47 PM   #263
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 10,914
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
BTW did you know in the Ashley Olsen case, she had a British friend in Florence named Amy? They didn't share an apartment however, but I thought it was almost an interesting parallel nonetheless. In some other universe maybe Amy's alibi of supposedly being at her own boyfriend's was disbelieved to the point of the cop's beating a statement out of her and her boyfriend, and when the real killer shows up, Cheik Diaw, he merely becomes their pawn accomplice despite zero connection between them - and you go on to have 6000 posts in the thread "The Trials of Amy and her Florentine boyfriend Part 24."

Wouldn't that be something?
Strangely, Profazio caught the killer within about three days. Didn't see you moan about the police being 'too hasty' to find the perp in that case.

Would this be the same Profazio who discriminates against American women?
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 06:50 PM   #264
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,894
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I beg to differ. For pete's sake..

I think every single objective, rational observer would similarly beg to differ.

The only aspect of this whole case where anyone could have even the tiniest rationale for claiming that either Knox or Sollecito were "the authors of their own misfortune" might be their police interrogations of 5th/6th November 2007. It could be argued - incorrectly, IMO - that both Knox and Sollecito created their own problems in those interrogations since they both made statements which contradicted what they'd previously told the police.

If one were to argue that they'd changed their stories in the absence of any unlawful police coercion, then one certainly could argue that Knox and Sollecito were indeed "the authors of their own misfortune" on this one narrow aspect of the case. But IMO there's more than enough evidence that both Knox's and Sollecito's statements that night were the direct result of unlawful police coercion. We will probably never get any form of judgement about how much coercion may have been behind Sollecito's statement from that night (in which he quite clearly places events which provably took place on the night before the murder as having taken place on the actual night of the murder...), since nothing hinges on it any more (given that Knox and Sollecito have been correctly acquitted on all murder-related charges). But we will, soon enough, have the judgement of the highest human rights court in Europe as to whether and how/why Knox's human rights were breached in her interrogation that night.

Aside from those interrogations, the very notion that Knox or Sollecito "were the authors of their own misfortune" is as disgusting and intellectually-bankrupt as it is incorrect........
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 06:52 PM   #265
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,685
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Strangely, Profazio caught the killer within about three days. Didn't see you moan about the police being 'too hasty' to find the perp in that case.

Would this be the same Profazio who discriminates against American women?
How do you know they caught the killer? Did they spray every inch of the apartment with luminol? Did they swab for DNA in the sink and find DNA of a person who lived there and used that sink everyday? That would be very suspicious. Also, how could a single male attack and kill a single female? She had skull fractures and had been strangled, seems like she would have had to have been restrained while someone else beat her over the head. It must have been multiple attackers. What was Amy's alibi?
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 06:54 PM   #266
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Maaselkä Mielessäni
Posts: 10,914
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
How do you know they caught the killer? Did they spray every inch of the apartment with luminol? Did they swab for DNA in the sink and find DNA of a person who lived there and used that sink everyday? That would be very suspicious. Also, how could a single male attack and kill a single female? She had skull fractures and had been strangled, seems like she would have had to have been restrained while someone else beat her over the head. It must have been multiple attackers. What was Amy's alibi?
Hate to ruin your conspiracy theories, but Profazio was simply doing his job, proficiently, effectively and efficiently.

The idea he and the Perugia police set out to frame Amanda is laughable.
__________________
“Nyt, kun Karjalan kansa jälleen nousee ja sarastaa Suomen uusi huomenn.”

- Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 06:56 PM   #267
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,894
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Families of murder victims (or accidents) should always be treated with utmost sensitivity. In Finland, such victims are never named. After the various high school shootings there, you didn't get newsflashes of the victims' faces or their names. Whilst I think there may be some public interest in perhaps having this information, I agree with strong privacy laws in Scandinavia.

A certain somebody did hack my linkedin page - would that be ethical in your view? A disturbed woman has offered to send someone pictures of Mez' naked torso in exchange for his following her on twitter. She adds hatefully, 'I'm sure Mez wouldn't mind'.

This is someone who has regularly attacked the Kerchers and sent the family pictures of vaseline jars and salacious references to 'brazilians'. Do you REALLY think this type of behaviour is acceptable? Do you, Lojo, do you?

I have no desire to see any autopsy pictures and would look away. Not least because the sight of blood makes me feel faint. I like to follow trials, but I don't see anything untoward in that.

Of course the media can be sensitive over these cases. ISTM Amanda herself has been encouraging this woman and other dubious 'murder groupies' as she has never asked her fans to leave the Kercher family alone.

I know criminals like to see the police, the judge and the prosecutor as enemies (Jody Arias believed all the jurors were rubbish, except for the one who saved her from the death penalty). That's to be expected. What is disgusting are the Amanda and Raff fans who derive some kind of perverse pleasure in cruel comments directed at the Kercher family.

Please stop. The Kerchers are off limits. Please have some respect and decency.

What the HECK was most of this even about?! And what on earth did it have to do with the matter being discussed?

The Kerchers are NOT off-limits, Vixen. If they make public statements, then those statements are absolutely worthy of comment and critique. To make a reductio ad absurdum* to prove the point: what if John Kercher were to tell the Daily Mail last week that he was certain Knox and Sollecito murdered his daughter, and that in his opinion they deserved to die in the dirt like the scum they were. Do you think John Kercher would be "off limits" for comment if he had made that statement, Vixen? Do you think "respect and decency" would be a blanket preclusion for commenting on John Kercher's opinion if he'd said that, Vixen?


* I'm presuming (well, more hoping than presuming...) that you understand that I'm employing a rhetorical device to illustrate a logical flaw in your argument. But I can explain it in more detail if required......

Last edited by LondonJohn; 31st January 2017 at 06:57 PM.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 06:59 PM   #268
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,685
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Hate to ruin your conspiracy theories, but Profazio was simply doing his job, proficiently, effectively and efficiently.

The idea he and the Perugia police set out to frame Amanda is laughable.
Obviously he caught Amanda the sex killer. I'm more concerned about this Amy person. I still don't know her alibi. I still don't know if her DNA was found in her own sink. Can she remember what time she had dinner the evening of the murder down to the minute? Did she ever forget the order she received a particular phonecall? You seem perfectly happy to let this potential killer get away with it, completely uninvestigated.
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 07:01 PM   #269
Briars
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
My suspicion is that this was one thing that the Kercher's were properly advised, by the lawyer Francisco Maresca. The reason he didn't mention is is perhaps because that's not what the motivations report says, the only people who interpret it that way are.....
Well this theory makes little sense because Maresca has mentioned the passage that Amanda Knox was present on more than one occasion , pretty sure he grasped the meaning.
Briars is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 07:05 PM   #270
Briars
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
BTW did you know in the Ashley Olsen case, she had a British friend in Florence named Amy? They didn't share an apartment however, but I thought it was almost an interesting parallel nonetheless. In some other universe maybe Amy's alibi of supposedly being at her own boyfriend's was disbelieved to the point of the cop's beating a statement out of her and her boyfriend, and when the real killer shows up, Cheik Diaw, he merely becomes their pawn accomplice despite zero connection between them - and you go on to have 6000 posts in the thread "The Trials of Amy and her Florentine boyfriend Part 24."

Wouldn't that be something?
Cheik Diaw confessed to a violent fight with the victim because she asked him to leave at some point. Not following your comparison
Briars is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 07:07 PM   #271
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,894
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Hate to ruin your conspiracy theories, but Profazio was simply doing his job, proficiently, effectively and efficiently.

The idea he and the Perugia police set out to frame Amanda is laughable.

The problem here is that you labour under delusions of "framing" in the sense of "hahaha we know Knox is innocent, but we'll fit her up for the murder nevertheless hahaha!".

That's not what happened here. What happened is that the moron police and PM genuinely - but incorrectly - thought they'd solved the crime. And they were puffed up with pride and hubris that they'd solved it SO DAMNED FAST! And in front of the world's watching media, no less!! And all after they grandly botched an investigation into a very similar murder almost exactly a year previously.

And once they decided (sincerely, but incorrectly) that they'd "solved the crime", they then went looking for evidence to support their conclusions, while at the same time either ignoring evidence which didn't support their conclusions, or rationalising it into something which was at least compatible with their conclusions. On top of that, some truly world-class incompetence from not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni and the CSI clowns in the collection/storage/transportation of forensic evidence, some more world-class incompetence (bolstered by shocking suspect-centric analysis) from Stefanoni in the lab, and some unlawful interrogations from the police on 5th/6th November, all added up to a case which started with a bogus theory, and which - for all the reasons given above - escalated horrifically into a house-of-cards case against Knox and Sollecito. All the while, remember, the police and PM really did think they'd fingered the right people. So Stefanoni's "results" were all fine to them, because it's what they EXPECTED to see (given that they already "knew" the "truth"), and even the unlawful interrogations (and Mignini's cunning leger-de-main) were OK because they were means to the "correct" end.

But by all means, you carry on thinking that the only alternative to the police/PM investigation being fair, lawful and correct was that it was some sort of knowing "framing".........
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 07:10 PM   #272
bagels
Graduate Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,685
Originally Posted by Briars View Post
Cheik Diaw confessed to a violent fight with the victim because she asked him to leave at some point. Not following your comparison
Sounds like he was covering for the real killer, Amy. Prisoner's dilemma. Rudy Guede confessed he met Meredith alone, and that she was killed by a single attacker, and he was spotted on CCTV alone before the murder, and all the primary evidence was left by him, and her wounds were consistent with a single knife, and Rudy had wounds on his hands after the murder - yet we know for a fact that despite not leaving a trace of herself in the murder room he he had a very active accomplice, a girl he did not know who spoke a different language than him and he was never in active communication with - Amanda Knox.
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 07:12 PM   #273
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,364
Originally Posted by Briars View Post
Well this theory makes little sense because Maresca has mentioned the passage that Amanda Knox was present on more than one occasion , pretty sure he grasped the meaning.
It makes all the sense in the world. It's a matter of optics. Maresca ...excuse the quote from Jurassic Park but he's the scum sucking lawyer, it doesn’t matter if he looks bad, it comes with the job.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 07:23 PM   #274
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,319
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
We should be all loathe to make armchair diagnoses.....

But reading what Mignini himself says in Drew Griffin's CNN interview in 2010 makes him appear completely unempathetic towards Amanda Knox, who at the time of his own entry into the interrogation still thought of her as only the one to have named Lumumba. Empathy would have saved him from (as Follain relates) one moment considering AK a liar, but then the next moment going out to arrest Lumumba solely based on AK's say-so.

But back at his entry into the room, he specifically says that he'd not asked her anything to determine how she was doing, he specifically says he intuited her demeanor by observation. He said he determined she was afraid of Lumumba, and also wanted to continue speaking - not because he asked her, but because he sensed it.

There's a good reason he had to tell Drew Griffin that, because he was about to get a memorale out of her where "I wish to spontaneously declare...." would be the opening sentence. He had to preserve spontaneity, or at least the fiction of it.

Where he comes across as particularly unempathic is that the excuses he uses to defend his behaviour at interrogation are all self-serving. This includes the one thing he actually admits to telling Knox - if she wanted to continue talking he'd act as if only a notary.

In other words, with no lawyer present - one guaranteed by Italy, but conveniently forgotten by Mignini - he entraps her to keep speaking. And of course we can all consult the transcript/video of what was said; rather than be forced to guess on the basis of an obviously coached 2nd memorale.

I mean, who starts a confession with "I wish to spontaneously declare....." unless someone with legal knowledge of what's at stake had coached her that it had to be that way....?But there's no empathy there from Mignini - granted, who's there to solve a crime in Sherlock Holmesian style. But if he'd had one scintilla of empathy, he could have saved RS and AK 7 years of hell, not to mention save the Kerchers from the roller coaster of the AK/RS prosecutions.
Exactly! No one, especially a 20 year old with absolutely no legal background, would begin a statement with "I wish to spontaneously declare". She was obviously coached to say that OR Mignini simply made it up to cover his backside.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 07:34 PM   #275
Briars
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Exactly! No one, especially a 20 year old with absolutely no legal background, would begin a statement with "I wish to spontaneously declare". She was obviously coached to say that OR Mignini simply made it up to cover his backside.
Oh my Mignini had to inform her and stated that he did that she could make a "spontaneous statement" without a lawyer and he could not legally ask any questions. It would be correct then for him to tell her to begin with" I wish to spontaneously declare" ..
Briars is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 07:41 PM   #276
Briars
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
It makes all the sense in the world. It's a matter of optics. Maresca ...excuse the quote from Jurassic Park but he's the scum sucking lawyer, it doesn’t matter if he looks bad, it comes with the job.
Point is though he understands Italian and law very well, and certainly found the passage worth mentioning as did Mignini another articulate Italian who quoted the same passage. You don't have to like them but they read what they read , because it's in the report.
Briars is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 07:43 PM   #277
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,894
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Exactly! No one, especially a 20 year old with absolutely no legal background, would begin a statement with "I wish to spontaneously declare". She was obviously coached to say that OR Mignini simply made it up to cover his backside.

Combination of the two, most probably IMO.

Goes something like this:

MIGNINI (to Knox): Now Amanda, why don't you tell me exactly what you just told those police officers, so that I can see how I can best help you?

KNOX: Umm, OK, thank you.

MIGNINI: Make sure you tell me EXACTLY what you told them though, because it might cause all sorts of problems if you tell me less than you told them or you tell me something different from what you told them. OK?

KNOX: Umm, yes, sure, thank you for helping me.

MIGNINI: It's my pleasure, Amanda. Now, please go ahead and tell it all to me again. I'll write it down if that's OK?

KNOX: Sure, that's OK.

Knox repeats contents of 1.45am police statement faithfully to Mignini.

MIGNINI: That's very good, Amanda. Now I am in a better position to understand everything and do all I can to help you.

KNOX: Thank you so much. I'm so scared.

MIGNINI: I know, I know. Now, Amanda, the way it works here in Italy is that you'll need to sign to say this is what you've just told me. That won't be a problem, will it?

KNOX: No, of course not.

MIGNINI: Good, good.

Mignini passes notebook to clerk for typing up into statement, with instructions as to what to include at the start. 20 minutes later.......

MIGNINI: Good. Now, here's the typed-up version of what you've just told me, Amanda. I want you to read through it to make sure it really is what you've just told me. Is that OK?

KNOX: Sure.

Knox reads through statement.

KNOX: What's this part at the beginning?

MIGNINI: Oh, don't worry about that, Amanda. All it is is that in Italy, when you make a statement like this to someone like me, we call it a "spontaneous declaration". So, to make it clear that this is what this is, we just need you to to say "I wish to spontaneously declare..." at the start of the statement. That's OK isn't it?

KNOX: Erm sure, whatever.

MIGNINI: It's just so that it makes it clear to anyone reading it in the future that this was nothing more than you telling me, in your own words, what you told the police. And that's the truth, isn't it Amanda?

KNOX: Yes, I'm just telling you what I told the police.

MIGNINI: And, to be clear, I haven't told you what to say, have I?

KNOX: No.

MIGNINI: So this is why we term it a "spontaneous declaration". Otherwise nasty people might accuse me of making you say certain things - like, for example, that I made you say you met up with Patrick, and so on. But I put none of these words into your mouth, did I?

KNOX: No.

MIGNINI: This is why it's called a "spontaneous declaration", and why, to be safe, I need you just to add in "I wish to spontaneously declare..." at the beginning. I'm glad we've got that all cleared up properly Amanda.

KNOX: Me too. Thank you for your help.

Knox signs "spontaneous declaration".

MIGNINI: Thank you very much Amanda. You have been the most tremendous help to me. I will see you very soon.

Last edited by LondonJohn; 31st January 2017 at 07:47 PM.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 07:43 PM   #278
Briars
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by bagels View Post
Sounds like he was covering for the real killer, Amy. Prisoner's dilemma. Rudy Guede confessed he met Meredith alone, and that she was killed by a single attacker, and he was spotted on CCTV alone before the murder, and all the primary evidence was left by him, and her wounds were consistent with a single knife, and Rudy had wounds on his hands after the murder - yet we know for a fact that despite not leaving a trace of herself in the murder room he he had a very active accomplice, a girl he did not know who spoke a different language than him and he was never in active communication with - Amanda Knox.
Right nothing like the Olsen case.
Briars is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 07:46 PM   #279
Briars
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 997
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Combination of the two, most probably IMO.

Goes something like this:

MIGNINI (to Knox): Now Amanda, why don't you tell me exactly what you just told those police officers, so that I can see how I can best help you?

KNOX: Umm, OK, thank you.

MIGNINI: Make sure you tell me EXACTLY what you told them though, because it might cause all sorts of problems if you tell me less than you told them or you tell me something different from what you told them. OK?

KNOX: Umm, yes, sure, thank you for helping me.

MIGNINI: It's my pleasure, Amanda. Now, please go ahead and tell it all to me again. I'll write it down if that's OK?

KNOX: Sure, that's OK.

Knox repeats contents of 1.45am police statement faithfully to Mignini.

MIGNINI: That's very good, Amanda. Now I am in a better position to understand everything and do all I can to help you.

KNOX: Thank you so much. I'm so scared.

MIGNINI: I know, I know. Now, Amanda, the way it works here in Italy is that you'll need to sign to say this is what you've just told me. That won't be a problem, will it?

KNOX: No, of course not.

MIGNINI: Good, good.

Mignini passes notebook to clerk for typing up into statement, with instructions as to what to include at the start.

MIGNINI: Good. Now, here's the typed-up version of what you've just told me, Amanda. I want you to read through it to make sure it really is what you've just told me. Is that OK:

KNOX: Sure.

Knox reads through statement.

KNOX: What's this part at the beginning?

MIGNINI: Oh, don't worry about that, Amanda. All it is is that in Italy, when you make a statement like this to someone like me, we call it a "spontaneous declaration". So, to make it clear that this is what this is, we just need you to to say "I wish to spontaneously declare..." at the start of the statement. That's OK isn't it?

KNOX: Erm sure, whatever.

MIGNINI: It's just so that it makes it clear to anyone reading it in the future that this was nothing more than you telling me, in your own words, what you told the police. And that's the truth, isn't it Amanda?

KNOX: Yes, I'm just telling you what I told the police.

MIGNINI: And, to be clear, I haven't told you what to say, have I?

KNOX: No.

MIGNINI: So this is why we term it a "spontaneous declaration". Otherwise nasty people might accuse me of making you say certain things - like, for example, that I made you say you met up with Patrick, and so on. But I put none of these words into your mouth, did I?

KNOX: No.

MIGNINI: This is why it's called a "spontaneous declaration", and why, to be safe, I need you just to add in "I wish to spontaneously declare..." at the beginning. I'm glad we've got that all cleared up properly Amanda.

KNOX: Me too. Thank you for your help.

Knox signs "spontaneous declaration".

MIGNINI: Thank you very much Amanda. You have been the most tremendous help to me. I will see you very soon.
Wow that's quite the screen play
Briars is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st January 2017, 07:49 PM   #280
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,894
Originally Posted by Briars View Post
Wow that's quite the screen play

I wouldn't know - I'm no expert........

But have you got anything more substantive to say about it?

Last edited by LondonJohn; 31st January 2017 at 07:50 PM.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:50 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.