zed wrote:This is absurd: "Mellas also addressed the issue today on KIRO Radio in Seattle saying the Kerchers do not "know the whole story." She said they were not in court except for a few days during Amanda's trial and feels that they fell "hook, line and sinker" for what their lawyer and prosecutors told them. "They may not have the whole picture," she said. "
Who is he trying to blame for not having the decency to write a letter of condolence? They are blaming the Kerchers for not attending every day of the trial? And Mellas did? Sure he did, but he doesn't speak a word of Italian and neither does Edda. Being there does not mean that they had any better understanding through their lawyer than the Kerchers did through their lawyer. Mellas is suggesting that the Kerchers got it all wrong because they didn't sit in court twiddling their thumbs, oblivious to the Italian language proceedings, like Amanda's family? Actually, Meredith's sister is fluent in Italian, and I think there are more Italian speakers in the family, so they were able to read the news and also be informed about the proceedings through their lawyer.
He is actually blaming the victim's family for his, Edda's and Curt's failure to express condolences.
What a first rate loser.
zed wrote:Below is their statement. Edda Mellas and Curt Knox had four days between learning that Meredith had been murdered and the day that Amanda was first detained. They had another 8 days to express their condolences after Amanda had been detained and before her second court appearance. They supposedly believed that Amanda was innocent, so why did they delay in reaching out? That was quite a lot of time for Edda and Curt to express condolences to the parents of someone they have consistently described as their daughter's good friend.
Amanda Knox's family gave this statement in reply:
"As we have publicly stated many times during interviews with the media, we cannot imagine the agony and suffering experienced by the Kercher family at the loss of their daughter, Meredith. As parents, we cannot fathom the depth of such a loss. We continue to feel the same we have always felt and expressed when asked, the deepest sorrow for the Kercher family.
As we have said before, we have not reached out to the Kercher family because of our deep respect for their loss.
We certainly did not want to add to their grief and given our belief that our daughter is wholly innocent we felt it was more respectful not to do so.
We have always said that we would reach out to them at the appropriate time. We haven't felt the time was appropriate until, at least, Amanda's trial and appeals have come to a conclusion. We believe the facts in the case are still very much in dispute and we obviously believe in Amanda's innocence and that she has been wrongly convicted.
Again, we feel the deepest sorrow for the Kercher family and their loss.
We offer them our most sincere sympathies and wish for peace for their family."
zed wrote:It's pretty clear that Meredith's father only commented that Amanda's parents have failed to express condolences. I see Meredith's father commenting on the media assault - that PR company that Amanda's parents pay - and asking that it stop, not that Amanda's parents stop believing in their daughter.
They were in America, the family wasn't known to them, why should they contact them...did the other house mates parents make contact with the Kerchers in those first days. Isn't it only because you think Amanda is guilty that they were obligated to speak to them? Amanda was arrested just before the mother got to Italy and was being accused of murder with a great deal of publicity. Once your child is a suspect what are you supposed to say? I wouldn't know.
I'm sure the mothers mind was filled with thoughts of her daughter's problems, she's only human after all. Is there a correct etiquette for the parents of the accused and they should be damned for not knowing it. This is just one of those damned if you do and damned if you don't situations. I think it's better that they don't meet, sympathy from the parents of an accused killer could be viewed with contempt and of little comfort unless they are admitting guilt of their child.
He is complaining about the appeal process and how painful it is. He says they want peace and is that too much to ask? Sounds like he wants the family to stop fighting and appealing and to accept their daughters guilt. He feels anguish at their claims of innocence for Amanda. He is talking about his pain and how Amanda's family is making it worse.
That's right. He wants Amanda to stop being treated like a celebrity. She's a convicted murderer with rights to an automatic appeal. During this appeal, the PR firm hired by Amanda's supposedly broke parents has swayed US media and set up PR moves to promote the murderer as a celebrity rather than as the convicted murderer she is. The media is obviously influenced, as they don't even have the decency to post a real photo of Meredith, instead repeatedly portraying her in her halloween costume.
Here is one of the many photos available on the internet
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/4 ... her416.jpg
She performed in a music video, which is also a flattering image. Instead, US media, governed by the Knox/Mellas PR firm, shows Meredith dressed as a vampire. Why is that?
Let the appeal go forward, but stop the Amanda the Celebrity crap. She is a convicted murderer, not a celebrity.
zed wrote:From the same article:
"Knox and two others stand convicted of taking the life of Meredith Kercher. "
Knox was vilified in Italy and many celebrated her conviction. The prosecutor portrayed the crime as a sex game gone wrong which also involved Rudy Hermann Guede, an Ivory Coast man known as a small time crook. He was convicted in a separate trial and given 16 years. He is also appealing.
resigned wrote:Knox was vilified in Italy and many celebrated her conviction. The prosecutor portrayed the crime as a sex game gone wrong which also involved Rudy Hermann Guede, an Ivory Coast man known as a small time crook. He was convicted in a separate trial and given 16 years. He is also appealing.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162- ... 04083.html
Apparently, many Italians are thrilled that Amanda has moved into the finals of being not just merely convicted of murder, but really most sincerely convicted of murder.
Wheels of justice
Three things are important if the full background to Mr Berlusconi’s legal entanglements is to be understood. First, once an allegation of a crime is made in Italy, magistrates have a legal duty to investigate. They can investigate the allegation for a maximum of two years without bringing charges. Second, once charges are brought, the justice system moves slowly: a trial can last for years, as can the appeal process. Third, in Italy, the accused are not considered guilty before definitive conviction in the final appeals court.
Personally - I don't know how there can be an appeal of a conviction of murder if you haven't been convicted of murder, but that's just my American Justice talking. I'm sure the Italians refer to Amanda as that sweet girl who isn't guilty.
The article quotes an Italian assistant legal professor on Amanda's status. The quote "stand convicted of" is from Andrea Vogt the writer of the article. I don't know if there's a special term to refer to her situation now and that term changes once the final appeal is over or whether it's just a concept that Italians understand. English struggles to translate legal words and concepts from another language. Look at the press handling of the Aruban/Dutch legal system.
The Italians seem to accept that the finding of guilt is a multi-part process that might make mistakes but supposedly it all works out in the end.
Scott Peterson is convicted of murdering his wife, and he is entitled to an automatic appeal. Does that mean that he isn't really convicted until after the appeal, or does that mean that he is convicted although the conviction could be overturned on appeal? Like it or not, Amanda has been found guilty of murder and has been convicted. She has also been sentenced. That conviction could be overturned during appeal, or could be confirmed and the sentence lengthened.
zed wrote:An oversimplified explanation provided by a professor is not exactly helpful either. The fact is that Amanda Knox was convicted of murder and sentenced to 26 years in jail. She is entitled to an appeal. So is the prosecutor. That practice, where prosecutor and criminal can appeal a verdict, is practiced in many countries. In those countries, a conviction is still a conviction until such time that the conviction is overturned on appeal.
Feel free to believe that Amanda has not been convicted or that she is merely being detained pending appeal ... it makes no difference, she is still sitting in jail as a convicted murderer.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests