The Amazing Person That Was Meredith Kercher #4: Sue Carroll Captures The Growing Mood

Tweet This Post

Comments

What is the mission of this site? I am really confused. True Justice, right? True Justice is based on a fair trial. I have followed the case in all three countries’ media. I reviewed all of your presented evidence as it has evolved. Much of it is what was brought up in court, and others are invented timelines of how Knox et al. could have done it.

The media is making mistakes on all fronts, but the fact is real professionals have looked at the facts from various angles are on both sides of the fence in all three countries. Not just from comments media brainwashed folks on multitudes of articles, blogs, and video postings. You need to accept that there is highly divided opinion on this and thus sounds like way too much doubt about their actual guilt.

This isn’t True Justice because a verdict came in. Anyway - I just made my 500USD donation to amandadefensefund org.

The content about Meredith is building a wonderful living memory of her. Don’t stain it by being a voice supporting a highly criticized trial. Objective information from all viewpoints is appreciated to uncover the truth. The truth is stubborn and will be uncovered.

Ciao curtperson,

I (we) have no problem with accepting that there is highly divided opinions about the trial and the verdict. The strength of our site is that many of us have made up our minds during the case. We did not start out with prejudice, claiming that Amanda and Raffaele is either definitely guilty or definitely innocent. We get convinced by the evidence as it has been presented, discussed, criticized, counter-argued, criticized, re-informed, etc. etc. This is what is considered ‘true justice’ for Meredith.

Your claim that ‘real professionals have looked at the facts in all three countries’ is not accurate.

The recent report from a number of US-forensic scientists are mainly based upon hearsay and only one test included in their material has actually been presented during the trial against Amanda and Raffaele. There is not public access to all documents of the case - like neither in UK nor US - so curious bystanders and experts cannot examine all evidence presented in court.

Likewise experts are always involved in professional controversies - that is how science progresses in everyday life - and that is how trials are conducted. It is always possibly to find an expert who will contradict any evidence presented in a case. Don’t make the mistake to think that if evidence is object to controversy between peers, it implies that the trial is dubious or flawed.

On the contrary, controversies heighten the level of knowledge of the members of the jury, so controversies is a sign of a just process. The partial experts secure that the jury (and observers) will experience different positions, giving possibility to enquire into the differences, and juxtapose, before making up their mind on a more informed level.

TJMK is a site supporting “a highly criticized trial” - of course: That a trial is criticized does not imply that it is flawed. It only reveals that the trial is being observed by a range of actors with conflicting interests, different opinions and with large variety in level of information and knowledge about the case. The silent claim on TJMK is, that we are the most informed ones, we can argue in details for which evidence is solid and which is not so solid. Critique is central for assuring the quality of a legal process (well of any process, in fact!)

I’m sure that from a general - democratic - perspective all of us will defend Amanda’s right to an appeal (and is most pleased about the Italian juridical systems automatic appeal procedures), but from a more personal perspective, we are most sorry for the harm and grief an appeal case will give the Kercher family.

Maybe you find that the evidence against Amanda did not demonstrate her guilt ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, but you have not participated in the trial in Perugia. The jury, who have seen all evidence, did find her guilty ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Hence the verdict is just, by definition.

Best,
Fiori

Hu curtperom. I would like to add one point to Fiori’s excellent response to you above.

“The media is making mistakes on all fronts, but the fact is real professionals have looked at the facts from various angles are on both sides of the fence in all three countries”

Sadly this is not even remotely true. Well over 90% of the evidence has never been either explained correctly outside the courtroom or challenged. The tendency has been to concentrate on the other 10 percent, and even then most of that still stands.

Read our evidence series and you will see that virtually none of it was challenged. By experts or the defenses or anyone else. Knox’s alibi never was supported by Sollecito. She still has no alibi.

And then read Kermit’s extraordinary 150 questions for Knox and Sollecito.  The number of questions they had answered by the time of the verdict? Approximately none.. 

At the end of the trial, several dozen elephants were still left looming silently there in the courtroom. It was an overwhelming case. Nothing genuinely controversial about it. No experts ever really dented it.

And of course, it was a unanimous verdict.

Justice was done. Now we have to do some of the showing that justice was done. Our mission seems clear, and appropriately on target.

peter and fiori, you both nailed it.  it is SO difficult to explain to someone who has based their opinion solely on what they hear on american tv.  there is SO much more.  SO much more.  thank you for continuing to seek justice for meredith.

Where next:

Or to next entry Meredith Growing Up

Or to previous entry US Overreaction: Meredith’s Mother Regards Cantwell’s Grandstanding As Ill-Informed