posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 11:30 PM
In the murder of Meredith Kercher there is only one victim, and that is Meredith herself. Her murder is a crime that has not been successfully
prosecuted and given satisfactory closure. Even if the original trial deliverd the correct verdict, it still left an awful after taste of
disatisfaction and doubt.
Criticism of Italian police investigation, Italian forensic analysis, and Italian prosecutorial tactics are very justified, as all three agencies
displayed such an incredible amount of incompetence and unprofessional procedure, that the three accused were incapable of receiving a trial that was
able to deliver upon them a verdict beyond all reasonable doubt either way. So appalling was the level of incompetence that it added insult to
Meredith's murder, and that it still cries out for the 'real' truth to be presented and bring closure to a grieving family. That, and that alone,
is what is relevant to this case.
Criticism of news reportage must also be brought to bear upon the media. There is little doubt that the three accused were tried in the public
spotlight, especially Amanda Knox, but there is also little doubt that she 'invited' vitriolic presentation of herself in the media through her
behaviour and obsfucationary naivete.
With the Italian courts of cassation overturning the acquitals of both Knox and Sollecito, their status (under Italian law) reverts back to the
original verdict, and are once again viewed as convicted felons until the verdict of retrial is delivered. It is being reported that the convincing
argument from the prosecution that led to the overturning of the acquittals is based on Rudy Guede not having "...an ectoplasm for an accomplice..."
The meaning of this statement is not contextually clarified in the reports, and I would not like to speculate upon its meaning.
The nationalities of all involved in this tragic case is actually quite irrelevant, but unfortunately, it has become the main focus of argument for
those uninvolved directly in the case as to determining innocence. Truly, it is the most least important factor. Meredith Kercher was brutally
murdered by a person or persons, and no amount of judicial incompetence or obsfucation from those accused can hide that fact.
I personally do not know the level of involvement of both Knox and Sollecito in Meredith's murder. A stance I do take is that by their own behaviour
and obsfucationary witness statements suspicion fell upon them, they brought it to bear upon themselves, and subsequently police interrogation became
more aggressive. They literally contradicted their own albis by trying not to incriminate themself or the other. Such obsfucation will automatically
bring suspicion upon you.
You know if you have been involved in a murder or not. If not, you're statement is really quite straight forward, you simply tell the truth. If you
were involved, it then becomes a process of juggling facts and untruths in trying to maintain a level of innocence in the minds of your
interrogators...its a more complex circumstance, and easily recognised by experienced questioners. Inconsistencies are checked and challenged, and the
witness statements of both Knox and Sollecito changed often. Why? If you're not involved you won't wander from the truth of your statement. Knowing
your own genuine innocence motivates you not to do so.
I truly hope that the retrial uncovers the truth surrounding Meredith's murder, and finally brings a closure to her family.