Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Bruce Fisher]

Originally Posted by bucketoftea

John Kercher has not told lies.

I'm confident my disgust is correctly associated.

Why shouldn't pictures of Meredith be plastered all over the site?

Emotional blackmail? What a larf. How about the whining and crying parents of Amanda on TV frequently (we're broke, Granny's broke, we still have a chance with our daughter [whatever the hell that's supposed to mean], poor Amanda it's hot in the summer)

You know what? It actually is the common, decent custom to allow the bereaved greater latitude and greater tolerance, though in Mr Kercher's case it is clearly not required. Just in case your mom never told you.
You will never win this argument.

Because the disturbed man that runs the site is obsessed with Meredith Kercher that's why. He has no relation to the Kercher family yet he feels compelled to write about Meredith's world as if he knew her well. He even took a liking to the actress that played Meredith in the Lifetime movie all while criticizing the actress playing Amanda. Is that normal? The site is beyond creepy and does nothing to preserve the memory of Meredith Kercher. I am amazed that anyone still follows that guy. The truth about him has been thoroughly exposed.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Bruce Fisher

Because the disturbed man that runs the site is obsessed with Meredith Kercher that's why. He has no relation to the Kercher family yet he feels compelled to write about Meredith's world as if he knew her well. He even took a liking to the actress that played Meredith in the Lifetime movie all while criticizing the actress playing Amanda. Is that normal? The site is beyond creepy and does nothing to preserve the memory of Meredith Kercher. I am amazed that anyone still follows that guy. The truth about him has been thoroughly exposed.

I miss the ballerina "shrine" site with the same layout too! Fortunately cached copies are available for a reminder.....

The latest TJMK post (on which I've already commented today) is an excellent indicator of the lack of intellectual rigour on that site. It appears that any article (whether in a newspaper, on broadcast TV, or online) that supports the case for guilt is lauded and highlighted on TJMK - no matter how ridiculous, far-fetched, poorly-researched, poorly-reasoned or just plain weird that article is. I've compared it to "Pravda" in the height of the cold-war Soviet era, and the comparison seems to be becoming ever more apt. And that fact in itself makes the site an interesting read.

[Bruce Fisher]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

I miss the ballerina "shrine" site with the same layout too! Fortunately cached copies are available for a reminder.....

The latest TJMK post (on which I've already commented today) is an excellent indicator of the lack of intellectual rigour on that site. It appears that any article (whether in a newspaper, on broadcast TV, or online) that supports the case for guilt is lauded and highlighted on TJMK - no matter how ridiculous, far-fetched, poorly-researched, poorly-reasoned or just plain weird that article is. I've compared it to "Pravda" in the height of the cold-war Soviet era, and the comparison seems to be becoming ever more apt. And that fact in itself makes the site an interesting read.

Truth is of no importance to that group. Look at what Peggy was able to do with a simple Chicago connection. Now she says I was recruited by Paul Ciolino (he's from Chicago!) and my efforts are being paid for by CBS!

[Diocletus]

Originally Posted by bucketoftea

Why shouldn't pictures of Meredith be plastered all over the site?

Umm. Because you never knew her and your website isn't about her. So sad.

[Diocletus]

Originally Posted by Draca

John Kercher's articles have been purposefully timed to have the most negative impact on the appeal as possible.


Dec 2, 2010 - Daily Mail
It's utterly despicable that the girl jailed for killing my daughter has become a celebrity
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...#ixzz1PjyhLpn4

This first article of John Kercher's is right between the Nov 24 Appeal start date and Dec 11 date where Amanda gave an emotional statement to the court. Francesco Maresco walked out while Amanda was speaking.


Dec 18, 2010 - Mirror
We will never forget our murdered daughter Meredith Kercher, by her dad John
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...#ixzz1PkFQ3kM4

The second article was released on the Dec 18 court date where the court granted an Independent DNA Review.


Mar 13, 2011 - Sunday Times
Rescuing Meredith from the ‘Foxy Knoxy’ frenzy
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?...nd_extremely_/

The third article corresponds with the Mar 12 court date with the Disco owners.


May 21, 2011 - The Sun
My View
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...onviction.html

In the Fourth, May 21 was the original date the DNA Report was suppose to be reviewed. John Kercher was given rebuttal space for Bob Graham's article favoring innocence.

I don't care for this at all. I think it's pretty loathsome.

[Draca]

Originally Posted by Draca

Note that they were wearing hazmat suits where the footwear could not be changed. They went from Amanda's room to Meredith's room in the same footwear. They certainly could have brought Raffaele's DNA into the room.

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

The "crack" forensics team were wearing a heath robinson combination of hazmat suits and overshoes:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...3a03fed124.jpg

But the video clearly shows that these overshoes were not changed when individuals walked from one room to another. This fact, in and of itself, renders all forensic evidence found on the floor of every part of the cottage virtually useless.

In addition, the scene of crime officers should not have been wearing hazmat suits. These suits are primarily designed to protect the wearer from environmental hazards - but at a crime scene the primary concern should be to protect the environment from contamination by the wearer, and to minimise the chances of the wearer tracking evidence from one place to another. In the UK, SOCO's typically wear sterile non-shred paper suits which fulfill both criteria far better than the waterproofed fabric of hazmat suits

I believe they were Tyvek Suits

Steve Moore discusses the suits starting at 7.07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSf4KWHvOEo

INDUTEX 'SPRAYGUARD' BIOLOGICAL SUITS
LEVEL 3 ECOLOGICAL SUITS
http://www.indutexspa.com/index.asp?...&id_father=531

"attached hood, tall collar, with attached hood and boots or sock and boot cover flap."


It seems like the suits are one piece suits. Perhaps harder boots are meant to be worn over them. The forensic team wore the suits as a complete outfit. I don't know if they at times wore 'booties' over the one pieces but it looks like they very often did not.


Photo of suit boots:

[Diocletus]

Originally Posted by CoulsdonUK

I find the above an emotive interpretation of the lawyer client relationship and one that if I may say is an unsubstantiated opinion rather than a fact of any instructions from the client to his legal representative.

Nope. He's right. Maresca by virtue of his agency relationship has apparent authority to speak for Kercher. Maresca's statements in the course and scope of his duties are chargeable to Kercher. For our purposes, Maresca = Kercher. It's called hitchin' your wagon to the wrong horse.

[Diocletus]

Originally Posted by Draca

I believe they were Tyvek Suits

Steve Moore discusses the suits starting at 7.07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSf4KWHvOEo

INDUTEX 'SPRAYGUARD' BIOLOGICAL SUITS
LEVEL 3 ECOLOGICAL SUITS
http://www.indutexspa.com/index.asp?...&id_father=531

"attached hood, tall collar, with attached hood and boots or sock and boot cover flap."


It seems like the suits are one piece suits. Perhaps harder boots are meant to be worn over them. The forensic team wore the suits as a complete outfit. I don't know if they at times wore 'booties' over the one pieces but it looks like they very often did not.

LOL. Maybe they thought Meredith had been killed by anthrax. No wonder they can't find the murder weapon.

[AmyStrange]

Originally Posted by halides1

lane99,

I don't have a high opinion of them. However, I seem to recall one or more cases in which a suspect was told he had failed a polygraph when he had not. The supposed failure was one of the things that led to a false confession. I don't have a cite handy at the moment, however.
ETA
Peter Reilly may be one example.

-

Halides1,

the "Norfolk Four" come to mind also, although I am not 100 percent sure their confessions were a result of them being told (wrongfully told) that they had failed their polygraph test.

That is one weird case, but at least in that one the real culprit admitted he acted alone, but LE didn't believe him. That case is similar in some ways to this case,

Dave

-

[AmyStrange]

Originally Posted by Draca

John Kercher's articles have been purposefully timed to have the most negative impact on the appeal as possible.

May 21, 2011 - The Sun
My View
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...onviction.html

In the Fourth, May 21 was the original date the DNA Report was suppose to be reviewed. John Kercher was given rebuttal space for Bob Graham's article favoring innocence.

-

Draca,

in the May 21st article (at the very end if you click "MORE" and read his whole statement), he does say this:

" ...It is not up to me to ascertain guilt. I only want justice for Meredith."

You atleast have to give him credit for this anyway,

Dave

-

[halides1]

Originally Posted by AmyStrange

-

Halides1,

the "Norfolk Four" come to mind also, although I am not 100 percent sure their confessions were a result of them being told (wrongfully told) that they had failed their polygraph test.

That is one weird case, but at least in that one the real culprit admitted he acted alone, but LE didn't believe him. That case is similar in some ways to this case,

Dave

Dave,

I have often mentioned the Norfolk Four case here. The book "The Wrong Guys, the Frontline documentary, and the Time magazine article are all worthwhile. Apparently the lie about the lie detector was exactly Detective Ford's tactic. "Detective Robert Glenn Ford of the Norfolk police department, who was known for his unorthodox tactics and ability to break even the most hardened criminal, spat accusations and vile phrases at the men, saying they had all failed lie detector tests when in reality all four men had passed."

[Diocletus]

I find this to be a very sad statement from one of Kercher's articles:

"Judge Massei wrote a 400-page report. A situation, I believe, you would not find in a UK or US court. It is a revealing document which many people do not seem to have read. This report, which I have read over and over, details all of the evidence from DNA to witnesses."

It's sad that this document (presumably the PMF translation) is what Kercher has been given to make sense of this whole crime. It's a shame that Kercher is not in a position to understand what a truly pathetic piece of garbage this opinion is, and I feel bad for him sitting there alone at night reading this thing, trying to make sense of why his daughter is dead based on a 400-page lie. Judge Massei sucks.

[AmyStrange]

Originally Posted by halides1

Dave,

I have often mentioned the Norfolk Four case here. The book "The Wrong Guys, the Frontline documentary, and the Time magazine article are all worthwhile. Apparently the lie about the lie detector was exactly Detective Ford's tactic. "Detective Robert Glenn Ford of the Norfolk police department, who was known for his unorthodox tactics and ability to break even the most hardened criminal, spat accusations and vile phrases at the men, saying they had all failed lie detector tests when in reality all four men had passed."

-

Halides1,

I remember you bringing it up in Part 2, and when I watched the Frontline doc, I thought of you:

http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Fr...2?trkid=496624

In the end, the prosecution decided the seven had met the real murderer in the parking lot, and even though he was a stranger, they asked him to join them in a rape/ murder. Now where have we heard this before?

AFAIK, Ford was recently convicted of extortion,

Dave

-

[AmyStrange]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

This is a far-from-uncommon police tactic - and a legitimate one. But it's also worth noting that many innocent people fail polygraph tests, and a fair few culpable people pass polygraph tests. They have been widely discredited over the past decade as an accurate investigative tool: at best, they are a blunt instrument of investigation, which can be used to help guide police in certain directions. But they most certainly cannot be used as any form of evidence of guilt or non-guilt.

ETA There is an associated police practice that has often resulted in unjust outcomes. Police know that they can put pressure on a suspect to take a polygraph test, by using the following false logic: "If you're innocent, then you have nothing to hide by doing the test, and you'll pass it. But by contrast, if you refuse to take the test, you'll make us (and the courts) think that you have something to hide." If suspects are faced with such a dichotomy, they usually opt to take the test regardless of their culpability - especially if they are not taking legal advice at the time. And even if they are innocent, it's entirely possible that they will fail the test (due to nerves and stress), or that they will pass the test and the police will subsequently tell them that they have failed. And because so many people incorrectly think that polygraph tests are inviolably accurate, either such outcome can often break the will of even a totally innocent person.

-

LJ,

Gary Ridgway (the Green River Killer) is a good example of someone being guilty AND passing the test, although LE was still suspicious of him.

And you are right, LE does use the polygraph more times than most people think to sort through suspects and to get a foothold on where to start their investigation. If someone stands out after the test, their alibi and criminal history are then thoroughly investigated.

LE mostly says this is done to "eliminate" them, but in reality what they are really doing is beginning to build a probability model in which they try to find facts that increase the probability that no one else could have done the crime except them.

DNA is the holy grail of probability determinants or so much of the public seems to believes anyway. Fighting against DNA evidence is an almost impossible task for most defense lawyers, but as we saw in the Kercher case, not TOTALLY impossible.

Sadly, the probability model technique is used to solve more homicides than most people realize. It's sometimes the best and only way some crimes are actually solved by LE. It's not perfect, but sometimes does make logical sense as an investigative procedure, especially since most murders are committed by someone close to the victim, or so LE seems to believe, which when you think about it is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.

This techniques becomes almost useless when serial killers become involved and their DNA is not in the system, or worse, when dump sites are found and all you have are the victim's bones and the perpetrators DNA has long ago disappeared.

Sorry for wandering off topic here, but me and my roommate have done many hours of serial killer research which is a large part of what our website is all about,

Dave

-

[Draca]

Originally Posted by AmyStrange

Draca,

in the May 21st article (at the very end if you click "MORE" and read his whole statement), he does say this:

" ...It is not up to me to ascertain guilt. I only want justice for Meredith."

You at least have to give him credit for this anyway,


Dave

Dave,

John Kercher writes:

Quote:

"There is also a bra clasp which was said to contain an abundance of Sollecito's DNA.

The defence have argued that as it was found six weeks after the crime was committed it was not valid. This ignores the fact that people have been convicted on DNA discovered up to 17 years after a crime.

The prosecution have stated the knife and bra clasp are but two of the many reasons as to why guilt points to them.

Between them, Knox and Sollecito are said to have changed their alibis nine times.

Judge Massei, who presided at the trial, prepared a 400-page report in which he outlines every detail as to why he and the jury convicted Knox and Sollecito."

To summarize, before John Kercher says it is not up to him to ascertain guilt he calls them guilty because:

1) There is an abundance of Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp.
2) There are many reasons they are guilty besides the knife an bra clasp.
3) Knox and Sollecito changed their alibis 9 times.
4) There is a huge 400 page report that details why they are guilty.

It doesn't even make sense that he follows those points of guilt up with - "It is not up to me to ascertain guilt. I only want justice for Meredith."

IMO, Draca

[AmyStrange]

Originally Posted by Draca

Dave,

John Kercher writes:

To summarize, before John Kercher says it is not up to him to ascertain guilt he calls them guilty because:

1) There is an abundance of Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp.
2) There are many reasons they are guilty besides the knife an bra clasp.
3) Knox and Sollecito changed their alibi 9 times.
4) There is a huge 400 page report that details why they are guilty.

It doesn't even make sense that he follows those points of guilt up with - "It is not up to me to ascertain guilt. I only want justice for Meredith."

IMO, Draca

Draca,

and it's hard to argue against what you say, but atleast he wrote it and to me it's better he acknowledges it rather than not acknowledge it at all.

I'd like to think that someday, after reading criticisms of the case, it dawns on him that these two kids could be innocent. It might not be for a few more years, or maybe sooner, or maybe someday something Maresca says just flips that switch and he realizes just how sleezy he is and what a train wreck the police have been.

Maybe he'll read Ron Hendry's forensic crime reconstruction of how Meredith really died and how all the evidence points to Guede and that he'll probably serve less than ten years for killing his baby. Hopefully he never does. It's a pretty graphic description of how Guede covered her face before trying to rape her so he wouldn't get sprayed with her blood as she desperately tried to clear her lungs to no avail and as a result slowly drowned in her own blood... horrible horrible horrible.

-

[komponisto]

Rolf Nelson's latest reply concerning the stomach evidence contains some points worth considering:

Originally Posted by rolf_nelson

Originally Posted by komponisto

How much slippage do you think may have occurred?

There's a ton of factors here, I'll guess that if there's slippage, it's about 50% that the entire contents would slip; probably our digestion process is evolutionary designed to make the food pass through easily by that stage. Probably another 50% that a suspiciously large amount of food would be found in the small intenstine. I could narrow it down more if I knew how large the volume of the first part of the small intestine to the first bend is, whether the first part of the small intestine was searched, whether the rest of the small intestine was searched, how fast food is evacuated from the duodenum, whether food keeps getting evacuated from the duodenum after the stress of being threatened with a knife occurs, whether peristalsis continues to push food through the small intestine after stress, whether diffusion of food through the small intestine walls continues after stress or even death, and how fast peristalsis and diffusion work.

I'll add that a search for '"empty duodenum" forensics' suggests to me that, as far as I can tell, almost nobody except for Amanda Knox's defense has ever cared whether a duodenum was empty or not. That probably puts an upper-bound on how useful this evidence is; if it were reliable, I would expect it come up more often in online appeals-courts decisions, and in trial reporting. I also can't find any literature on this, which is odd if it's a useful way to narrow down time of death. So based on the "evidence of absence", let me propose the following hypothesis:

Vacant Duodenum Hypothesis: "An empty duodenum is not, by itself, definitive proof for or against any time-of-death. The main reason to search the duodenum is in hopes of actually finding food there; no matter what the time-of-death scenario, there is always at least a 1/10 chance that the duodenum will be empty when examined."

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

It had to happen, and it inevitably did!

Kaosium wrote this post a few days ago.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...55#post7429155

In it, he clearly used a logical device to point out that, technically speaking, Lumumba could not be excluded from the investigation if the ToD was 11.30pm-plus (since his alibi didn't cover him up to that time). Kaosium was essentially pointing out how ludicrous the police investigation was, and that it was as pretty much as likely that Lumumba was involved as it was that Knox/Sollecito were involved.

In response to this post of Kaosium's, I wrote the following prescient post:




And that premonition has now, depressingly but predictably (and somewhat hilariously) come true. "One could not make it up"........

LOL! I don't even read there anymore, and won't bother to now. I saw the crash, I don't care to see the burn. I suspect they ought to think long and hard about what happened to Daric Ritchie, how I tried to keep that troubled teenager away from them, and how limited the scope of that was in comparison to what they've done. I've seen it before, it won't end well, I'm pretty damn sure. Never quite like this though, on some level I have to salute the dark majesty of the achievement, unless one of the below things is actually true.

If anyone is curious as to what I'm referring to, I will make this claim. It is definite they had a peripheral effect on the media coverage of this case, notably with Andrea Vogt, Barbara Nadeau and possibly others. As John Kercher referred to the online tribute in one of his pieces, and his laundrylist of 'evidence' seems Machine-like and that's Some strange way to count Alibi's, it is possible (remember that doesn't go to probable in my world because I think it might be so) they've had an effect on his understanding of the case and the odds of acquittal. Perhaps even his mental health, though I truly hope that isn't the case.

It is also true they've repeatedly attempted to silence or defame people from speaking out on the case, both in the ether and in the real world. We're talking ex-FBI agents who lost their jobs, judges who faced admonishment, even just school teachers in Hawaii who wanted to teach part of the case in class, or professors from Leeds University who came to the conclusion Amanda and Raffaele were innocent and said something.

It just so happens I'm probably the only one not with them that happened to explore their website last summer hidden back in there somewhere, I think it was the Rabbit Hole though I don't recall for sure, when they were discussing the holes in the case and that they knew Amanda would probably be acquitted, though there was hope amongst some of them conditions in Perugia would allow for a second conviction. They knew the police had botched the whole thing pathetically, I didn't put it all together at once, but what they've done similar to what Rolfe posted recently about prosecutors, created a delusion. One that had an effect on the coverage of the case, though minor. It's also had an effect on conditions here at JREF, though that's irrelevant to me, and kinda funny, though a bit frustrating at times.

How this could happen? Anyone researching a book or trying to write a column about this case and went online in search of information was bound to come across PMF and be amazed, the amount of materials they had accumulated and the number of intelligent, insightful people who were discussing the case was extraordinary in a sense. They no doubt gained credibility with people because they helped dispel some of the atrocious early reporting on the case due to police lies. You can see if you go back to the beginning they did a lot of good work. I don't hate them, I can imagine the attraction of all of a sudden becoming an influence, however minor, on an issue of some attraction to some people, I have sympathy, they're people too, just at this point they need to reconsider what they're doing. There might well be consequences, people don't like being fooled.

However, the ones here at JREF who hold this thread in contempt are right in a sense, this is just about a court case in Italy, it ought not cause such a fuss. It just happens the effect of what poor media can do to an issue or people intrigues me, as that effect caused me to lose all interest in politics. Plus poor Amanda and Raffaele are real people who really got screwed over, I'm interested in how it turns out. They can post whatever they want about me, 'Kaosium' is just a name I picked for a game a dozen or so years ago 'cuz I thought it sounded neat. It's just words on a computer screen, wisps of ether in the end signifying nothing. It seems some take this so very much more seriously, and that's probably not good. I have a different attitude toward it, I found helpful in posting on the internet.

I've been posting some long responses recently in hopes of catching people up who might just becoming interested in the case, and it helps me compose my own ever-changing opinions on what happened and might still. Nobody just coming into this is gonna read the 65k posts now accumulated on this subject, geez when I started posting it was about halfway through the first continuation, though I'd read all the PMF archives beforehand. You're welcome to believe I'm just a propagandist for the Gogerty-Marriot/FOA PR supertanker of doom, but that's not the case, keep that possibility in mind too. I'm interested in the actual truth of the matter here as it fascinates me. Nor do I expect anyone to think this 'discredits' PMF and TJMK, only they can do that to themselves, and the ones whose opinion on the matter I respect most are the ones that can see that for themselves. Just keep in mind the possibility they (hopefully--that was a year ago let us hope it's still something of a game) don't believe the trash they're formulating, though for some reason the guilt of Amanda and Raffaele.

Some people believe whatever they want to believe and can be fooled by anything that has the stamp of authority on it, I'm interested in the people here and elsewhere with the imagination to understand how something like this could happen and the rationality to see through illusions. I bear no ill will towards those who haven't been able, or interested enough, and may never be willing, regardless of whatever words they've posted to the ether.

[Draca]

Originally Posted by AmyStrange

Draca,

and it's hard to argue against what you say, but atleast he wrote it and to me it's better he acknowledges it rather than not acknowledge it at all.

I'd like to think that someday, after reading criticisms of the case, it dawns on him that these two kids could be innocent. It might not be for a few more years, or maybe sooner, or maybe someday something Maresca says just flips that switch and he realizes just how sleezy he is and what a train wreck the police have been.

Maybe he'll read Ron Hendry's forensic crime reconstruction of how Meredith really died and how all the evidence points to Guede and that he'll probably serve less than ten years for killing his baby. Hopefully he never does. It's a pretty graphic description of how Guede covered her face before trying to rape her so he wouldn't get sprayed with her blood as she desperately tried to clear her lungs to no avail and as a result slowly drowned in her own blood... horrible horrible horrible.

Dave,

Thank you for your clarity. You are correct that he at least said it. It did appear to me to be a bit of a softening of his stance, but there is no way to know for sure.

His daughter Meredith's murder was horrifically brutal and it was a horrible way for him to have lost his beloved child. It is a life sentence for the whole family.

There is a lot of anger toward this unjust case. The murderer, incompetent forensic team, corrupt police and prosecution, egomaniacs and terrible journalists. What John Kercher has written about Amanda and Raffaele is hard to justify. What Maresca has done in his name is deplorable and the lawyer himself deserves only disdain.

One thing to remember is John Kercher is also the Father that Meredith loved. She would want us to have compassion and understanding for his grief.

That will be hard to do while Maresca is attacking the DNA experts in the upcoming court date. How to have compassion for the Kerchers when their lawyer is actively seeking to harm innocent people? Maybe in the future that will be easier. I know the Kercher family will be in my thoughts when Amanda and Raffaele are released.

[komponisto]

Originally Posted by komponisto

Rolf Nelson's latest reply concerning the stomach evidence contains some points worth considering:

I just found a relevant text, which says the following:

Quote:

Post mortem transport of gastric contents can be excluded (Madea et al. 1986)

(But does this include slippage?)

and

Quote:

When 90% of the last meal is found in the stomach, the last food intake was probably within the hour before death, with 98% confidence limits not more than 3-4 hours.

[Mary_H]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

John Kercher had a legal representative present in the courtroom of the first trial, arguing in front of the court according to Mr Kercher's instructions. How on earth could Mr Kercher's views not have had any impact upon the first trial? Or did you think that Maresca was somehow arguing off his own bat, rather than as the representative of Mr Kercher?

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Why do you suggest that it's an "emotive" interpretation? A lawyer is paid (either by his/her client, or by a third party such as the state) to represent the position of that client. In order to do this, the lawyer will have a number of meetings with his/her client, in order to discuss the position that the client wants the lawyer to take. It is unethical and improper for a lawyer to make arguments in a courtroom that (s)he does not reasonably assume reflect the opinions and wishes of his/her client. Mr Maresca's arguments in Massei's court necessarily reflected the opinions, wishes and position of his client, John Kercher (and other members of the Kercher family). I don't see what's so hard to understand about this, frankly.

I am suggesting they were swayed somewhat by Mr Maresca, who was acting on the instructions of Mr Kercher.

I disagree. There is no doubt in my mind that it is Maresca who is running the show and John Kercher who is being led. While I think it is wrong for John Kercher to try to publicly build a case for guilt against Amanda and Raffaele through his newspaper essays, I don't blame him. He fell under the spell of Mignini, Maresca and Massei at the most vulnerable, defenseless time in his life; resistance, as they say, would have been futile.

A lot of people say Amanda should have known better than to trust the cops -- well, what about John Kercher? He continues to trust the police and everyone on the side of the prosecution's case seemingly without question, and he is much older and presumably much wiser than Amanda. Too bad he didn't hire a British lawyer to protect him from the Perugian jackals.

As I have said before, I believe members of the Kercher family are suffering from a version of the Stockholm Syndrome: According to the psychoanalytic view of the syndrome, this tendency might be the result of employing the strategy evolved by newborn babies to form an emotional attachment to the nearest powerful adult in order to maximize the probability that this adult will enable—at the very least—the survival of the child, if not also prove to be a good parental figure. This syndrome is considered a prime example for the defense mechanism of identification.[8]

[Draca]

Originally Posted by Draca

More on the Dumb and Dumber Trash a Crime Scene series:

WHAT is up with the constant posing things on the FLOOR. Where did they learn in their 4 month training program that the floor is as clean as a lab table?

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

I agree with all your observations here, particularly regarding this utterly bizarre practice - and one which is patently contrary to the most basic rules of forensic crime scene analysis - of placing items back onto the floor of the crime scene to tag and photograph them.

Originally Posted by Antony

Was this a "practice" of theirs? They did it in the bra-clasp video, but are you implying there were other instances?

Here are at least 7 items that were placed on the floor to be photographed by the Forensic Police on Dec 18th. I would say 7 items makes this their standard procedure in collecting evidence. I wonder if the Missouri DNA manual would appove?


Blue Adidas jacket



Bra Clasp



MK's Sock



MK Shoes



Break-in rock



Amanda's socks



Amanda's socks 2

[RandyN]

Originally Posted by komponisto

I just found a relevant text, which says the following:



(But does this include slippage?)

and

It seems to me slippage was discussed during the questioning of the pathologist but I’m not sure at what phase...pre trial, preliminary hearing or actual first trial. The defense showed the autopsy video which confirmed proper ligature points were done to prevent any slippage. I’m sorry I do this stuff from memory only as I am not all that computer literate. Rose would be able to direct you to this testimony and if not her then Charlie Wilkes certainly.

John Kercher should not be writing about this case in the tabloid style he is accustomed to. Its clear he represents one side (guilty) whereas a true reporter would give a go to all possibilities. Kerchers lawyer jumped up in objection at opening the "double DNA knife" suggested first by the independent experts I believe. He objects to testing the "semen stain"...Why? whywhywhy???

I have the greatest sympathy for the Kercher family…I hope the truth may somewhat assuage their anguish…but I doubt anything can really do that though. Jailing innocent persons can never honor their missing loved one. It is a sad tragedy for three families.

[Draca]

Originally Posted by Mary_H

I disagree. There is no doubt in my mind that it is Maresca who is running the show and John Kercher who is being led. While I think it is wrong for John Kercher to try to publicly build a case for guilt against Amanda and Raffaele through his newspaper essays, I don't blame him. He fell under the spell of Mignini, Maresca and Massei at the most vulnerable, defenseless time in his life; resistance, as they say, would have been futile.

A lot of people say Amanda should have known better than to trust the cops -- well, what about John Kercher? He continues to trust the police and everyone on the side of the prosecution's case seemingly without question, and he is much older and presumably much wiser than Amanda. Too bad he didn't hire a British lawyer to protect him from the Perugian jackals.

As I have said before, I believe members of the Kercher family are suffering from a version of the Stockholm Syndrome: According to the psychoanalytic view of the syndrome, this tendency might be the result of employing the strategy evolved by newborn babies to form an emotional attachment to the nearest powerful adult in order to maximize the probability that this adult will enable—at the very least—the survival of the child, if not also prove to be a good parental figure. This syndrome is considered a prime example for the defense mechanism of identification.[8]

Mary_H,

Very well said. Your comment has helped me to understand what the Kercher family has been going through much better. It makes me loathe this mendacious justice system even more.

[komponisto]

Originally Posted by RandyN

It seems to me slippage was discussed during the questioning of the pathologist but I’m not sure at what phase...pre trial, preliminary hearing or actual first trial. The defense showed the autopsy video which confirmed proper ligature points were done to prevent any slippage.

Yes, that's discussed in the Sollecito appeal; but it's not enough to convince Rolf Nelson, who has raised the possibility of slippage occurring before the autopsy due to the killer(s) moving the body.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by komponisto

Rolf Nelson's latest reply concerning the stomach evidence contains some points worth considering:

Here's the full story on "slippage".

It didn't happen. Standard procedure, which was followed in this case according to those who have seen the video recording of the autopsy, is to tie off the stomach, duodenum and bowel so that material cannot slip around before examining them.

The way "slippage" meme got into the story is one of the least ethical bits of Massei's work of misinformation, in my view. Ronchi, a prosecution expert who had not seen the autopsy video stated that if Lalli (the person who did the autopsy) had not tied off Meredith's bowels properly that this could explain the lack of food in the duodenum, because that food might have been accidentally squeezed down the whole length of the small intesting to the far end.

Massei, who had seen the autopsy and knew that the bowels had indeed been tied off, adapted this statement by saying "Besides this, the alimentary remnants in the small intestine must also be considered, and thus, as hypothesised by Professor Umani Ronchi, it would be possible to think that these remnants could have been found in the duodenum either because of an imperfect apposition of the ligatures, or because of an apposition of the ligatures that took place with such manner and timing as to make it impossible to avoid a sliding of material from the duodenum to the small intestine. The fact [that the] duodenum [is] empty is not [necessarily] fully reliable".

As far as Massei is concerned as long as he can tell some fairy story such that "it would be possible to think" X, then he can assume X is true. It's an even bigger leap than his usual "it is possible, indeed probable" manoeuvre, going straight from mere conceivability to effective certainty.

Unless Meredith Kercher's last meal was Harry Houdini, significant amounts of food matter did not escape down her bowel through ligatures to hide at the far end. The hypothesis that the killer moved her body and by doing so made the food in her duodenum shoot five metres down a coiled elastic tube is also somewhat unlikely to say the least.

As far as Rolfe Nelson's ideas about the fact that "almost nobody except for Amanda Knox's defense has ever cared whether a duodenum was empty or not" that's probably because this is a very unusual and specific situation. It matters in this case only because an incompetent prosecution got the time of death terribly wrong, and the accused have an alibi for the real time of death, and the victim had such an unusually long t(lag) time that the time of death could be nailed down this way with some precision. It's a very unusual set of circumstances which we should not expect to be an everyday occurrence.

I also don't think very much of his "Vacant Duodenum Hypothesis" - a hypothesis like that owes the world some citations to back it up. As it is it looks strictly like wishful thinking to me. The idea that there is a minimum 10% chance that the duodenum will be empty at any given moment regardless of what you have been eating and when is not only bizarre but also presented without any supporting evidence whatsoever.

[Paninaro]

Originally Posted by Antony

The suggestion that DNA could get onto that little hook during the attack is completely implausible (particularly without leaving DNA anywhere else). I cannot see any way that an attacker would touch that part of the bra, or have reason to attempt to do so.

Proof of involvement requires corroboration of different items of evidence. The idea that a single item proves the participation of each of the 2 in the attack (the bra-clasp for Raff, the knife for Amanda) is one of the absurd aspects of this case. And no, I don't go along with the guilter claim that the other "evidence" against them means anything at all.

Neither do I and I agree that you - in this case - have to look at the single items used as evidence in a wider context. But I don't know if that is a satisfying scientific approach looking at DNA-evidence. The DNA tests I suppose should as an ideal be looked at in splendid isolation. Either there's DNA or there is not, if the tests are done properly. And that's where Stefanoni failed, according to the C-V report. She and the police made that impossible.

I think many people would argue that at least Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp is a very strong indication that he touched it, despite the fact that his DNA isn't on the rest of the bra and that, sure, contamination could have occured, but Stefanoni's tests are not that unreliable - it's a matter of sloppiness, rather than being totally fundamentally unreliable, so most likely still his profile is on the clasp because he touched it? I have always considered the bra clasp as the most troubling obstactle for the defence to overcome. Now it looks like they've succeeded, but I guess it remains an obstacle for us arguing not only reasonable doubt, but also total innocense and exoneration.

Of course, there's also the question of other profiles on the clasp. This is an indication that contamination could have occured, but exactly how strong is that possibility compared to the possibility that Sollecito's profile is there because he touched it?

I don't know if it's possible to put this in percentage where one compare possibilities and likelihoods. If the judges after all will decide to accept the clasp as evidence (which I find very unlikely after the independent report), I guess that would be what they would try to do.

[bucketoftea]

Originally Posted by halides1

bucketoftea,

When Mr. Maresca asked Andrew Seliber about Amanda's intimate behavior in Seattle that was at the very least sexist, possibly an example of misogyny. When an Italian court listed as one of the reasons why Ms. Knox should be in prison prior to her trial that she is a restless person who does not disdain multiple frequentations, that was certainly sexist and probably an example of misogyny. You defended Mr. Maresca as doing his job well. Please explain how while addressing these examples.

Context is all. I wouldn't regard it as sexist. You see, it was a violent sexual crime. Sex is on the table. "...does not disdain multiple frequentations" is about as neutral as it is possible to word it. And it appears to be true, as well.

Nope. No misogyny there as far as I can see.

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by bucketoftea

Context is all. I wouldn't regard it as sexist. You see, it was a violent sexual crime. Sex is on the table. "...does not disdain multiple frequentations" is about as neutral as it is possible to word it. And it appears to be true, as well.

Nope. No misogyny there as far as I can see.

How could anyone believe Amanda's sex life had anything to do with a male assaulting Meredith the authorities had difficulty determining the extent of? By the time of the trial and Maresca's question it was clear there was no trace of Amanda at the scene, how could he possibly believe she could have been involved in anything sexual in that room?

Are you aware the lawyers and some of the translators elsewhere know the case made in Massei is a steaming pile of bilge and there's so many irregularities with the Massei court there's little if any chance it will pass muster with the Italian Supreme Court?

[komponisto]

Originally Posted by bucketoftea

Context is all. I wouldn't regard it as sexist. You see, it was a violent sexual crime. Sex is on the table.

No, that does not follow.

If someone is accused of a drive-by shooting, the fact that they drive their car a lot is not grounds for holding them without trial.

The point is that "multiple frequentations" were used to infer bad moral character (which in turn was used to infer that a danger was posed). Whether you label this reasoning "sexist" or not, it is appallingly judgemental and frankly shocking in the context of a court ruling in an advanced Western nation.

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by komponisto

No, that does not follow.

If someone is accused of a drive-by shooting, the fact that they drive their car a lot is not grounds for holding them without trial.

The point is that "multiple frequentations" were used to infer bad moral character (which in turn was used to infer that a danger was posed). Whether you label this reasoning "sexist" or not, it is appallingly judgemental and frankly shocking in the context of a court ruling in an advanced Western nation.

"She's a witch, burn her" is the implication.

[bucketoftea]

Originally Posted by komponisto

No, that does not follow.

If someone is accused of a drive-by shooting, the fact that they drive their car a lot is not grounds for holding them without trial.

The point is that "multiple frequentations" were used to infer bad moral character (which in turn was used to infer that a danger was posed). Whether you label this reasoning "sexist" or not, it is appallingly judgemental and frankly shocking in the context of a court ruling in an advanced Western nation.

I disagree. Sexual history for the perpetrators of a sex crime seems fair enough to me. It's when it is used against a victim (ie by defence against rape victims) that it is appallingly sexxist and judgemental.

What does seem unfair is Knox taking all the heat. Sollecito could still address the court to defend Knox's alibi...

[bucketoftea]

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

"She's a witch, burn her" is the implication.

What colourful language! Just because this hyperbole suits your rabble-rousing ends is no proof whatever that the jurors would jump to the same conclusion as you.

It's not implied in any case. You infer (sheesh)

[Danceme]

Originally Posted by Draca

Dave,

John Kercher writes:

To summarize, before John Kercher says it is not up to him to ascertain guilt he calls them guilty because:

1) There is an abundance of Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp.
2) There are many reasons they are guilty besides the knife an bra clasp.
3) Knox and Sollecito changed their alibis 9 times.
4) There is a huge 400 page report that details why they are guilty.

It doesn't even make sense that he follows those points of guilt up with - "It is not up to me to ascertain guilt. I only want justice for Meredith."

IMO, Draca

Draca, your paraphrasing of John Kercher neglected the following important words,

"which was said to contain"

"The prosecution have stated"

"are said to have changed"

"as to why he and the jury"

He was not as definitive as you have written and if you read carefully he takes care to use words such as those I've quoted above to attribute the thoughts to others. I think that's an important distinction to make.

[bri1]

Originally Posted by bucketoftea

I disagree. Sexual history for the perpetrators of a sex crime seems fair enough to me. It's when it is used against a victim (ie by defence against rape victims) that it is appallingly sexxist and judgemental.

What does seem unfair is Knox taking all the heat. Sollecito could still address the court to defend Knox's alibi...

Can you show of any instances where a male accused of rape is asked about how many sexual partners they've had, and where 7 previous sexual partners taken to be indicative of a prediliction towards sexual violence?
And I'm talking numbers, as opposed to the nature of previous sexual encounters, such as violence or coercion being part of the nature of someone's sexual interaction.
I'd be very surprised to hear about any prosecutor in a case involving a male accused of a sexual crime bringing up number of sexual partners in order to show predisposition to sexual violence. If I'm wrong, then maybe the charge of misogyny is misplaced. If I'm right (that this never happens), then what we have is the implicit suggestion that with females (but not males), a 'high' number of sexual partners shows a prediliction for sexual violence. Which appears to be misogynistic.

[Skwinty]

Originally Posted by komponisto

The point is that "multiple frequentations" were used to infer bad moral character (which in turn was used to infer that a danger was posed). Whether you label this reasoning "sexist" or not, it is appallingly judgemental and frankly shocking in the context of a court ruling in an advanced Western nation.

I do not understand the italisized comment.

Don't prosecutors use this strategy all the time and is it not an accepted legal practice?

Just as a defence lawyer will try to discredit a witness who testifies against the defendant.

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by bucketoftea

What colourful language! Just because this hyperbole suits your rabble-rousing ends is no proof whatever that the jurors would jump to the same conclusion as you.

It's not implied in any case. You infer (sheesh)

I guess it should read "let's have a trial, then we can burn her".

[halides1]

Originally Posted by bucketoftea

Context is all. I wouldn't regard it as sexist. You see, it was a violent sexual crime. Sex is on the table. "...does not disdain multiple frequentations" is about as neutral as it is possible to word it. And it appears to be true, as well.

Nope. No misogyny there as far as I can see.

bucketoftea,

Rudi Guede had sexual knowledge of Meredith Kercher on the night of the murder, no one else. That's the context. The court's statement about Amanda's private life is highly misleading. It could be said of anyone who has had sex with more than one person. Amanda had two sexual partners in Italy, not surprising for someone of her age. Would anyone think twice if a man had two sexual partners over the course of a few months during his college years? That is sexist thinking. However, it is even more ridiculous to argue that the number of one's sexual partners is somehow indicative of criminality. If it were, Warren Beatty would have been a mass murderer many years ago. Thanks for explaining what is on your table; it is most instructive.

[christianahannah]

Originally Posted by halides1

bucketoftea,

Rudi Guede had sexual knowledge of Meredith Kercher on the night of the murder, no one else. That's the context. The court's statement about Amanda's private life is highly misleading. It could be said of anyone who has had sex with more than one person. Amanda had two sexual partners in Italy, not surprising for someone of her age. Would anyone think twice if a man had two sexual partners over the course of a few months during his college years? That is sexist thinking. However, it is even more ridiculous to argue that the number of one's sexual partners is somehow indicative of criminality. If it were, Warren Beatty would have been a mass murderer many years ago. Thanks for explaining what is on your table; it is most instructive.

I think the sexual activities, such as they were, of all three (Amanda, Raffaele, Rudy) were brought up in some way during the trial. Whether A+B=C I cannot say, however, this is not an uncommon tactic in trials where there is a sexual component. As always, I would like to see the transcript of the questioning to place in context.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Really? Who was blowing the whistle on the prosecution case being fabricated and make of junk while Lindy Chamberlind was in jail for 4 years?

Come over the Tasman, who in the police or prosecution was blowing the whistle on the faked evidence against Arthur Allen Thomas while he was in jail wrongfully convicted of a double homicide?

Who was blowing the whistle and proving the level corruption in the Queensland police in the decade before Phil Dickie and then the Fizgerald Inquiry blew the whole can of worms open?

And answer came there none. Colour me unsurprised.