Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

Here is McCall's picture.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/File:Smallbathroomtap.jpg

This picture looks authentic and should be analysed.

 

[codyjuneau]

.
I found the picture but I do not have time to post right now. My memory was a bit off, the writing is on the faucet handle rather than a reflection from the bottom of the shelf.

Regardless, the faucet handle reflects the same brown as the faucet does, and the reflection very clearly shows the shelf above including the left bracket holding the shelf up.

The photo is dsc_0215.jpg. I will try to post it tomorrow.

Cody
.

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/Crime Scene Photos November 2-3/dsc_0216.jpg

.
Thanks Michael

The handle has the clearest reflection of the shelf and bracket.

Besides that, in my non-expert opinion, the faucet spout has not been cleaned for some time. There is significant gunk on it, including some on top of the blood.

Cody
.

 

[Numbers]

http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/Crime Scene Photos November 2-3/dsc_0216.jpg

Here is McCall's picture.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/File:Smallbathroomtap.jpg

This picture looks authentic and should be analysed.

The blood I see is on the right side and center of the faucet, about half-way between the end of the spout to where the faucet would join the handle-base. There is a small spot on the right side and a smaller spot adjacent to it near the (imagined) center-line. There are small very round water or soap spots on the faucet which may indicate it hadn't been cleaned and dried very well in its last cleaning.

I can see where the blood on the faucet is likely due to a drip from, for example, a bleeding ear. It doesn't appear to have been subject to any clean-up attempt.

If someone had touched the faucet with bleeding or bloody hands, I would expect that there would be possible blood residue on and near the handles. And if there had been a clean-up after that, a swirling or smearing pattern might still be seen.

ETA: Zooming in on the photo shows the blood spots clearly, and the water/mineral/soap spots and some general crud, crud very prominent around the spout, all strongly indicating the faucet had not been cleaned and had not been subjected to an attempt at a blood clean-up.

 

[Samson]

The blood I see is on the right side and center of the faucet, about half-way between the end of the spout to where the faucet would join the handle-base. There is a small spot on the right side and a smaller spot adjacent to it near the (imagined) center-line. There are small very round water or soap spots on the faucet which may indicate it hadn't been cleaned and dried very well in its last cleaning.

I can see where the blood on the faucet is likely due to a drip from, for example, a bleeding ear. It doesn't appear to have been subject to any clean-up attempt.

If someone had touched the faucet with bleeding or bloody hands, I would expect that there would be possible blood residue on and near the handles. And if there had been a clean-up after that, a swirling or smearing pattern might still be seen.

ETA: Zooming in on the photo shows the blood spots clearly, and the water/mineral/soap spots and some general crud, crud very prominent around the spout, all strongly indicating the faucet had not been cleaned and had not been subjected to an attempt at a blood clean-up.

There is more than a spot, there is a run out water and blood mix.
The truth lies between what I thought and the MaCall wiki entry. There is a strong differentiation between science driven posters and guilt driven posters. The former always embrace best analytic practice, because that is their exclusive interest.
There is a significant amount of blood that has been mingled with water on the faucet, but this has been added to the reflection from the shelf above for dramatic effect in MCall's Machiavelli and, by Machiavelli's claim, the
Kercher wiki.

 

[Desert Fox]

There is more than a spot, there is a run out water and blood mix.
The truth lies between what I thought and the MaCall wiki entry. There is a strong differentiation between science driven posters and guilt driven posters. The former always embrace best analytic practice, because that is their exclusive interest.
There is a significant amount of blood that has been mingled with water on the faucet, but this has been added to the reflection from the shelf above for dramatic effect in MCall's Machiavelli and, by Machiavelli's claim, the
Kercher wiki.

I have Gill's books from an Interlibrary loan and the trouble is that in many cases you just don't know what a DNA profile gets there. We are talking about a bathroom with many human activities such as brushing your teeth, washing yourself, brushing your hair, etc. DNA evidence is most valuable when it should not be there.

 

[Numbers]

There is more than a spot, there is a run out water and blood mix. The truth lies between what I thought and the MaCall wiki entry. There is a strong differentiation between science driven posters and guilt driven posters. The former always embrace best analytic practice, because that is their exclusive interest.
There is a significant amount of blood that has been mingled with water on the faucet, but this has been added to the reflection from the shelf above for dramatic effect in MCall's Machiavelli and, by Machiavelli's claim, the
Kercher wiki.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

The zoom image, as I study it more closely, looks more complicated than merely two drops. What I called the right-side drop looks like it could be the remains of two drops itself, and both had somewhat spread compared to the central drop. There may be a blood-water run off to the left side of the faucet, heading toward the spout. I may have initially mistaken that for a reflection. There appear to be other very tiny spots, some possibly blood, along approximately the center-line heading toward the spout a short distance from the main spots. There are other spots on top of the putative water-blood run off that appear to be water/mineral/soap spots, suggesting that the blood deposit and run off had been in place before some hand-washing had occurred. In the zoomed view, the faucet does not look all that clean.

There may not be a way to be absolutely certain of what is observed without contemporaneous antigen-antibody testing along the faucet. Does anyone know if any such testing was done? Certainly a presumptive test was done; a photo of the bathroom covered in the phenolphthalein residue of a Kastle-Meyer test has become well-known.

But is there any probative information in this photo of the blood spots on the faucet? The word "significant" [in the quote] used to describe the amount of blood may be misleading. Significant in what way? Is the blood on the faucet not simply consistent with blood drops from Amanda's pierced ears, inadvertently hit by some water from, say, hand-washing, and not cleaned up?

 

[Numbers]

Why did the police and prosecution continue to press the charges against Amanda and Raffaele after the authorities absolutely knew that Rudy Guede had been the one who murdered and raped Meredith?

The police had arrested Patrick Lumumba and had mistreated him rather severely to force him to make a false statement, but apparently he did not buckle. The police and judiciary released Lumumba after the Swiss professor gave him a strong alibi and Guede's role became strongly evident. However, the police maintained some control over Lumumba, keeping his bar closed as a crime scene and continuing to monitor (tap) his phone. Lumumba initially complained of police mistreatment, but then abandoned his award for false arrest (IIUC) and joined the prosecution of Amanda and Raffaele as a civil party; his lawyer made prejudicial comments against Amanda in court. Eventually Lumumba left Italy for Poland, his wife's native country (IIUC) without applying to the ECHR about his unfair treatment.

The police mistreated Amanda and Raffaele and were able to obtain false statements from both of them on Nov. 5/6. Amanda also wrote a Memoriale 1 in which she described some of the mistreatment she received during the interrogation by the police. I suspect that this disclosure by her, which she repeated, and which her parents publicly stated, made the police, prosecution, and the more corrupt of the judges realize that for the self-protection of the corrupt police, prosecutor, and investigating judge they must railroad Amanda and Raffaele, find them guilty of murder and rape, and keep them in prison (at least until the statute of limitations on the crimes of the authorities ran out).

What the police, prosecution, and corrupt judges were avoiding by their continued wrongful prosecution of Amanda and Raffaele was any investigation and prosecution of the corrupt behavior of the authorities. Under CP 377-bis, the police and prosecutor and any other authorities who had threatened or used violence to get Amanda or Raffaele to sign false statements for presentation to the judicial authority could, if convicted, been sentenced to from 2 to 6 years in prison.

The text of CP 377-bis is provided in Italian and Google-Translate English in post #2574.

This post includes a copy of part of my post on IIP/IAF.

ETA: Hellmann, after his retirement, expressed some misgiving for convicting Amanda of calunnia, but stated (IIRC) he had to do that or say that the police had committed a crime. The crime the police had committed is the one described in CP 377-bis. The Chieffi annulment of Hellmann and the Nencini provisional conviction are ways the judiciary are backing up the police from any accountability with respect to this Italian law.

 

[carbonjam72]

Why did the police and prosecution continue to press the charges against Amanda and Raffaele after the authorities absolutely knew that Rudy Guede had been the one who murdered and raped Meredith?

The police had arrested Patrick Lumumba and had mistreated him rather severely to force him to make a false statement, but apparently he did not buckle. The police and judiciary released Lumumba after the Swiss professor gave him a strong alibi and Guede's role became strongly evident. However, the police maintained some control over Lumumba, keeping his bar closed as a crime scene and continuing to monitor (tap) his phone. Lumumba initially complained of police mistreatment, but then abandoned his award for false arrest (IIUC) and joined the prosecution of Amanda and Raffaele as a civil party; his lawyer made prejudicial comments against Amanda in court. Eventually Lumumba left Italy for Poland, his wife's native country (IIUC) without applying to the ECHR about his unfair treatment.

The police mistreated Amanda and Raffaele and were able to obtain false statements from both of them on Nov. 5/6. Amanda also wrote a Memoriale 1 in which she described some of the mistreatment she received during the interrogation by the police. I suspect that this disclosure by her, which she repeated, and which her parents publicly stated, made the police, prosecution, and the more corrupt of the judges realize that for the self-protection of the corrupt police, prosecutor, and investigating judge they must railroad Amanda and Raffaele, find them guilty of murder and rape, and keep them in prison (at least until the statute of limitations on the crimes of the authorities ran out). What the police, prosecution, and corrupt judges were avoiding by their continued wrongful prosecution of Amanda and Raffaele was any investigation and prosecution of the corrupt behavior of the authorities. Under CP 377-bis, the police and prosecutor and any other authorities who had threatened or used violence to get Amanda or Raffaele to sign false statements for presentation to the judicial authority could, if convicted, been sentenced to from 2 to 6 years in prison.
The text of CP 377-bis is provided in Italian and Google-Translate English in post #2574.

This post includes a copy of part of my post on IIP/IAF.

ETA: Hellmann, after his retirement, expressed some misgiving for convicting Amanda of calunnia, but stated (IIRC) he had to do that or say that the police had committed a crime. The crime the police had committed is the one described in CP 377-bis. The Chieffi annulment of Hellmann and the Nencini provisional conviction are ways the judiciary are backing up the police from any accountability with respect to this Italian law.

Thanks Numbers, now I get it. I think you've pretty much nailed it. All the rest is window dressing.

 

[Samson]

Why did the police and prosecution continue to press the charges against Amanda and Raffaele after the authorities absolutely knew that Rudy Guede had been the one who murdered and raped Meredith?

The police had arrested Patrick Lumumba and had mistreated him rather severely to force him to make a false statement, but apparently he did not buckle. The police and judiciary released Lumumba after the Swiss professor gave him a strong alibi and Guede's role became strongly evident. However, the police maintained some control over Lumumba, keeping his bar closed as a crime scene and continuing to monitor (tap) his phone. Lumumba initially complained of police mistreatment, but then abandoned his award for false arrest (IIUC) and joined the prosecution of Amanda and Raffaele as a civil party; his lawyer made prejudicial comments against Amanda in court. Eventually Lumumba left Italy for Poland, his wife's native country (IIUC) without applying to the ECHR about his unfair treatment.

The police mistreated Amanda and Raffaele and were able to obtain false statements from both of them on Nov. 5/6. Amanda also wrote a Memoriale 1 in which she described some of the mistreatment she received during the interrogation by the police. I suspect that this disclosure by her, which she repeated, and which her parents publicly stated, made the police, prosecution, and the more corrupt of the judges realize that for the self-protection of the corrupt police, prosecutor, and investigating judge they must railroad Amanda and Raffaele, find them guilty of murder and rape, and keep them in prison (at least until the statute of limitations on the crimes of the authorities ran out).

What the police, prosecution, and corrupt judges were avoiding by their continued wrongful prosecution of Amanda and Raffaele was any investigation and prosecution of the corrupt behavior of the authorities. Under CP 377-bis, the police and prosecutor and any other authorities who had threatened or used violence to get Amanda or Raffaele to sign false statements for presentation to the judicial authority could, if convicted, been sentenced to from 2 to 6 years in prison.

The text of CP 377-bis is provided in Italian and Google-Translate English in post #2574.

This post includes a copy of part of my post on IIP/IAF.

ETA: Hellmann, after his retirement, expressed some misgiving for convicting Amanda of calunnia, but stated (IIRC) he had to do that or say that the police had committed a crime. The crime the police had committed is the one described in CP 377-bis. The Chieffi annulment of Hellmann and the Nencini provisional conviction are ways the judiciary are backing up the police from any accountability with respect to this Italian law.

Were it not for the existence of the websites and the Kercher civil prosecution, this analysis would be compelling, yet these disgraceful entities persevere.
How do you incorporate these grossly improbable entities into your (conspiracy) theory?
I have almost given up trying to comprehend such crowd stupidity, yet there it is....
to be comprehended....

They truly anticipate with visceral pleasure Raffaele's reincarceration and Amanda's insufferable plight. They must believe, so maybe the Italian judiciary do too?

 

[Numbers]

Why did the police and prosecution continue to press the charges against Amanda and Raffaele after the authorities absolutely knew that Rudy Guede had been the one who murdered and raped Meredith?

The police had arrested Patrick Lumumba and had mistreated him rather severely to force him to make a false statement, but apparently he did not buckle. The police and judiciary released Lumumba after the Swiss professor gave him a strong alibi and Guede's role became strongly evident. However, the police maintained some control over Lumumba, keeping his bar closed as a crime scene and continuing to monitor (tap) his phone. Lumumba initially complained of police mistreatment, but then abandoned his award for false arrest (IIUC) and joined the prosecution of Amanda and Raffaele as a civil party; his lawyer made prejudicial comments against Amanda in court. Eventually Lumumba left Italy for Poland, his wife's native country (IIUC) without applying to the ECHR about his unfair treatment.

The police mistreated Amanda and Raffaele and were able to obtain false statements from both of them on Nov. 5/6. Amanda also wrote a Memoriale 1 in which she described some of the mistreatment she received during the interrogation by the police. I suspect that this disclosure by her, which she repeated, and which her parents publicly stated, made the police, prosecution, and the more corrupt of the judges realize that for the self-protection of the corrupt police, prosecutor, and investigating judge they must railroad Amanda and Raffaele, find them guilty of murder and rape, and keep them in prison (at least until the statute of limitations on the crimes of the authorities ran out).

What the police, prosecution, and corrupt judges were avoiding by their continued wrongful prosecution of Amanda and Raffaele was any investigation and prosecution of the corrupt behavior of the authorities. Under CP 377-bis, the police and prosecutor and any other authorities who had threatened or used violence to get Amanda or Raffaele to sign false statements for presentation to the judicial authority could, if convicted, been sentenced to from 2 to 6 years in prison.

The text of CP 377-bis is provided in Italian and Google-Translate English in post #2574.

This post includes a copy of part of my post on IIP/IAF.

ETA: Hellmann, after his retirement, expressed some misgiving for convicting Amanda of calunnia, but stated (IIRC) he had to do that or say that the police had committed a crime. The crime the police had committed is the one described in CP 377-bis. The Chieffi annulment of Hellmann and the Nencini provisional conviction are ways the judiciary are backing up the police from any accountability with respect to this Italian law.

For completeness, the mistreatment of Lumumba was detailed in at least one source, a Daily Mail article. The mistreatment of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are described in their respective published memoirs. While I do not actually know the basis for the defamation law suit against Raffaele, it is possible that the description of mistreatment in his book, including threats and his being slapped after he signed his statement, apparently in an effort to obtain a statement more damaging to Amanda, could be a basis.

 

[Numbers]

Were it not for the existence of the websites and the Kercher civil prosecution, this analysis would be compelling, yet these disgraceful entities persevere.
How do you incorporate these grossly improbable entities into your (conspiracy) theory?
I have almost given up trying to comprehend such crowd stupidity, yet there it is....
to be comprehended....

They truly anticipate with visceral pleasure Raffaele's reincarceration and Amanda's insufferable plight. They must believe, so maybe the Italian judiciary do too?

First, a comment on conspiracy theory. The better term would be "team effort" in which there are a number of good team players (Matteini, Massei, Chieffi, and Nencini, for example) and some who are not (Hellmann, for example). The team players don't need to sit around a table and plan a conspiracy; there is a case file they rely on, they know the problems such as the false statements, and they make rulings to minimize to zero any accountability of the authorities.

Second, regarding the internet and tabloid crowd, there are different motives and characteristics among these people.

The family of the victim may be under the influence of the initial briefings they received from the prosecution, and can't believe that this information was untrue. This is not uncommon in cases of wrongful accusation. Furthermore, one may suspect a kind of resentment, based on the apparent randomness of this crime. That is, Rudy Guede would most likely have attacked - raped and murdered - the first woman to return to the cottage while he was there. It happened to be Meredith Kercher, while Amanda Knox was staying with Raffaele Sollecito. Otherwise these two young women were rather similar, typical college students. So Amanda is a survivor in a sense, and to some, that may generate a kind of resentment.

Then there may be those close in spirit or practice to the police and prosecution who feel the need to defend those individuals and institutions fervently. We see that here in at least one poster.

Another group are the authoritarians and haters. A witch has been identified, and they feel a need to participate in a witch hunt and burning. Their online behavior fulfills some need to practice a kind of verbal sadism as expressed in "trollism". Some of this verbal sadism is expressed by those who proclaim on dubious grounds that Rudy Guede was not the murderer/rapist, even though his DNA was detected in Ms. Kercher's vagina and on her clothes and purse, while his footprints in her blood were found in the cottage. And these authoritarians and haters may enjoy banding together with their peers. Some of these individuals may appear simply nuts to the "rational" people.

And the tabloids will write whatever is likely to increase circulation and thus increase revenue, within the limit of getting caught in terms of defamation lawsuits.

 

[Wannaknow]

However, since it seems pretty clear, based on what I just said above, that Rudy did go into the bathroom (why would he admit it if he didn't?), it does seem a bit more likely the bathmat print is his. I still say the print is not clear enough to match to his foot, and so it's not proven. I hesitate to apply the "since he said X, then it is probable that Y happened" line of thinking, because it too closely resembles the whole case against Amanda and Raff. There is plenty of reliable evidence against Rudy.

But there are no traces of blood or even footprints leading from Meredith's room to the small bathroom. If Guede washed himself in the bathroom, why should he have taken the towels with him to deposit them in Meredith's room ? And why did he leave no DNA, besides rubbing his hands/foots, in the bathroom ? Some say: Amanda used the bathroom and so washed the DNA of Guede away. But, as far as I Know, Amanda showered and didn't even use the sink or the bidet. As far as I remember, even Vinci said the footprint could not be Guede's. Vince measures the print on some points even to be smaller than Rinaldi does.

Following facts are undisputed:
No DNA of Guede was found in the bathroom, no fingerprints, no footprint. Not a single trace of Guede was found in the bathroom (and by the way, in Filomenas room).

Maybe he was really not there ?

He may have read in the newspaper about the existence of the towels. Articles mentioning the towels were written as early as Nov 15th 2007
in UK media for example, perhaps even earlier in Italian media.

Greetings

 

[Wannaknow]

First, a comment on conspiracy theory. The better term would be "team effort" in which there are a number of good team players (Matteini, Massei, Chieffi, and Nencini, for example) and some who are not (Hellmann, for example). The team players don't need to sit around a table and plan a conspiracy; there is a case file they rely on, they know the problems such as the false statements, and they make rulings to minimize to zero any accountability of the authorities.

Second, regarding the internet and tabloid crowd, there are different motives and characteristics among these people.

The family of the victim may be under the influence of the initial briefings they received from the prosecution, and can't believe that this information was untrue. This is not uncommon in cases of wrongful accusation. Furthermore, one may suspect a kind of resentment, based on the apparent randomness of this crime. That is, Rudy Guede would most likely have attacked - raped and murdered - the first woman to return to the cottage while he was there. It happened to be Meredith Kercher, while Amanda Knox was staying with Raffaele Sollecito. Otherwise these two young women were rather similar, typical college students. So Amanda is a survivor in a sense, and to some, that may generate a kind of resentment.

Then there may be those close in spirit or practice to the police and prosecution who feel the need to defend those individuals and institutions fervently. We see that here in at least one poster.

Another group are the authoritarians and haters. A witch has been identified, and they feel a need to participate in a witch hunt and burning. Their online behavior fulfills some need to practice a kind of verbal sadism as expressed in "trollism".

"verbal sadism". Obiously, calling the family members of the victim "lunatics" as Diocletius does, is a good example of extreme (really vile and mind sickening) form of verbal sadism. Ah, but let us see, but Diocletius is none of the "haters". Surprise, surprise ! I could cite examples of verbal sadism by pro-Knoxians without end.

And all people, who don't share the opinion the Amanda and Raffaele are angels, seem to be "trolls" in your eyes. I think that people who call others "trolls" are mostly incapable of arguing in a rational way.

Greetings

 

[Diocletus]

"verbal sadism". Obiously, calling the family members of the victim "lunatics" as Diocletius does, is a good example of extreme (really vile and mind sickening) form of verbal sadism. Ah, but let us see, but Diocletius is none of the "haters". Surprise, surprise ! I could cite examples of verbal sadism by pro-Knoxians without end.

And all people, who don't share the opinion the Amanda and Raffaele are angels, seem to be "trolls" in your eyes. I think that people who call others "trolls" are mostly incapable of arguing in a rational way.

Greetings

No, people who can't figure this case out are just stupid.

As for the kerchers being lunatics, that's just a slangy way of saying that they aren't the kind of people you would want as roommate parents, not that they actually belong in an asylum. Duh. But maybe it's local usage, and so if you aren't from the us you might not be aware of this casual usage of the term.

Anyway, I've already clarified that I find them crass, easily mislead and not very bright.

Also, since you people are strangely obsessed with "PR campaigns", you might want to take note of the fact that John Kercher engaged in a real, honest-to-God PR campaign.

 

[Numbers]

"verbal sadism". Obiously, calling the family members of the victim "lunatics" as Diocletius does, is a good example of extreme (really vile and mind sickening) form of verbal sadism. Ah, but let us see, but Diocletius is none of the "haters". Surprise, surprise ! I could cite examples of verbal sadism by pro-Knoxians without end.

And all people, who don't share the opinion the Amanda and Raffaele are angels, seem to be "trolls" in your eyes. I think that people who call others "trolls" are mostly incapable of arguing in a rational way.

Greetings

You are entitled to your opinion(s).

Those of us who rely on the evidence and gauge the reliability of the evidence, are entitled to our opinions as well.

The massive violation of the European Convention fair trial rights of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in this case can be documented. See:

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/e...t-to-the-amanda-knox-raffaele-sollecito-case/

The failure of the evidence to support their guilt can be documented, as in the Hellmann acquittal verdict.

 

[Bill Williams]

No, people who can't figure this case out are just stupid.

As for the kerchers being lunatics, that's just a slangy way of saying that they aren't the kind of people you would want as roommate parents, not that they actually belong in an asylum. Duh. But maybe it's local usage, and so if you aren't from the us you might not be aware of this casual usage of the term.

Anyway, I've already clarified that I find them crass, easily mislead and not very bright.

Also, since you people are strangely obsessed with "PR campaigns", you might want to take note of the fact that John Kercher engaged in a real, honest-to-God PR campaign.

Everyone should read Steve Moore's piece on what it is to be a victim of a crime.

From the Kercher's point of view, there was absolutely no reason to believe that the PLE had done anything wrong, until perhaps Oct 2011. They can be forgiven for truly believing that the police and courts had done everything right, right through the Massei trial which (through its verdict) vindicated the Mignini prosecution.

I have never understood the need to use even slangy terms to describe this family. Yes, someone is going to go on about Maresca..... which is a little beside the point, except to say that until the publication of the Massei motivations report.... why would they even know there was a hint that Maresca could be using them?

Even then - we have plenty of examples here of how someone like Machiavelli can take plain-text meanings of things and say, "Well, in the original Italian it suggests something more nuanced."

I've never understood the need to drag them into these debates.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

When you enter the debate publicly, expect a public response

"verbal sadism". Obiously, calling the family members of the victim "lunatics" as Diocletius does, is a good example of extreme (really vile and mind sickening) form of verbal sadism. Ah, but let us see, but Diocletius is none of the "haters". Surprise, surprise ! I could cite examples of verbal sadism by pro-Knoxians without end.

I'm sorry, but the nicest things I can say about your comment is that it is extremely blinkered and that it suggests that a double standard is in play. Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito have been attacked in the most extreme ways for years. "Amanda Knox is a reptilian shapeshifter" can be seen on YouTube, and that is just one of many examples. I don't recall hearing even one PG commenter say that such things were out of line.

The Kercher family chose to participate in the legal actions against Knox and Sollecito early on, and their lawyer has said some very obnoxious things over the years. They don't seem to be open to new information (they said that they would appeal Hellman's verdict before his report was public). John Kercher repeated falsehoods and quarter-truths that Harry Rag and others have been spreading for years. I have skimmed Mr. Kercher's book, and Meredith sounds like a fine young woman that any parent would be proud of. I am sorry for their loss, but I cannot say that any of the things noted above are good decisions. The family willingly entered the public debate, and they cannot expect to avoid being criticized for their public words and actions, as long as the criticism remains civil. MOO.

 

[Diocletus]

From the Kercher's point of view, there was absolutely no reason to believe that the PLE had done anything wrong, until perhaps Oct 2011. They can be forgiven for truly believing that the police and courts had done everything right, right through the Massei trial which (through its verdict) vindicated the Mignini prosecution.
.

You don't think the arrest of the wrong guy and obvious signs of a coercive interrogation should have tipped them off? There's also the fact that Amanda Knox doesn't have the right plumbing to even have committed the crime, and the obvious ridiculous theory of the crime. As for maresca, he is their agent and acting on their behalf. He has done as much as anybody to thwart full disclosure in this case, and they are responsible for that, notwithstanding their letter to the court falsely claiming to be interested in the truth.

From my perspective, what the Kerchers have done to Knox and Sollecito is the moral equivalent of what guilters think that Knox did to lumumba, except Knox was coerced and the Kerchers are using their bully pulpit of being the victim's family to achieve their wrongful aims

 

[carbonjam72]

You don't think the arrest of the wrong guy and obvious signs of a coercive interrogation should have tipped them off? There's also the fact that Amanda Knox doesn't have the right plumbing to even have committed the crime, and the obvious ridiculous theory of the crime. As for maresca, he is their agent and acting on their behalf. He has done as much as anybody to thwart full disclosure in this case, and they are responsible for that, notwithstanding their letter to the court falsely claiming to be interested in the truth.

From my perspective, what the Kerchers have done to Knox and Sollecito is the moral equivalent of what guilters think that Knox did to lumumba, except Knox was coerced and the Kerchers are using their bully pulpit of being the victim's family to achieve their wrongful aims

Well said DC -

 

[Bill Williams]

You don't think the arrest of the wrong guy and obvious signs of a coercive interrogation should have tipped them off? There's also the fact that Amanda Knox doesn't have the right plumbing to even have committed the crime, and the obvious ridiculous theory of the crime. As for maresca, he is their agent and acting on their behalf. He has done as much as anybody to thwart full disclosure in this case, and they are responsible for that, notwithstanding their letter to the court falsely claiming to be interested in the truth.

From my perspective, what the Kerchers have done to Knox and Sollecito is the moral equivalent of what guilters think that Knox did to lumumba, except Knox was coerced and the Kerchers are using their bully pulpit of being the victim's family to achieve their wrongful aims

My own encounters with lawyers left me with the distinct feeling of how helpless a client is, really, in the face of their knowledge and expertise. The highlighted part above is perhaps the only thing I'll grant you, it is completely inexcusable how Maresca has done exactly as you say....

..... but for every time a lawyer says that they are there only to take direction from you, they are also the ones who set out the "lay of the land." ("Oh, don't worry about that, it's just a formality.")

On another matter - and this is a repeat: the issue with the interrogation was not necessarily its coercive nature - for pete's sake, what ISN'T coercive about a flippin' interrogation? The whole point of an interrogation is to get someone to say what they don't want to say; and in many jurisdictions it is not illegal for the interrogators to lie and threaten to achieve the goal - confession.

What tactics can the police use when questioning a suspect?

The police are prohibited from using physical or psychological coercion when conducting police interrogations. A confession or evidence that results from coercive tactics is inadmissible at trial. The police, for example, may not use torture techniques, threats, drugging, or inhumane treatment during an interrogation. The police, however, can use lying, trickery, and other types of non-coercive methods to obtain a confession from a suspect.​

One has to laugh at the description of "lying, trickery" as being non-coercive.

Besides, the issue is NOT the coercive nature of how a confession is obtained; because all that means (typically) is that, then, the confession cannot be used to achieve a conviction. In the meantime, though, it allows the cops to assemble all sorts of other evidence which follows, which is not "an apple from the poisoned tree".

The issue at Amanda's interrogation was the spontaneity of the declarations, not their coerced nature.

Thus: the guilter dilemma, which no one who adheres to the pro-guilt lobby ever addresses.