Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

Can't find anything on this La Tana meet-up except from RW and CD. Does anybody have another source? The CD write up is a snarky one towards the british girls.

 

[carbonjam72]

Actually, it's you (possibly the defensive argument) that is dogmatic, a belief that testing negative to some tests means that it is not the murder weapon (regardless of further information).

Its ISC that wrote this, and its quite rational. The point is that a lack of blood on the knife, stands in contradiction to the idea that the knife is the murder weapon. That fact alone should have excluded the hypothesis it was involved in the murder. Further, the presence of starch showed the knife was subjected to normal cleaning, and any blood would likely have been absorbed by the starch left behind.

And Stefanoni's DNA result showing Meredith's DNA on the knife, was unreliable as evidence because it was too small to be repeated, and not tested in accordance with accepted international protocols. In addition, the knife was subject to absurdly poor collection and custodial practices, and handled in a box like it was a Christmas present (no doubt a reference to Commodi promenading the red ribboned gift-wrapped knife around the court room, like she thought she was at a children's play, thinking as if to show a gift-wrapped knife was somehow equivalent to proof or evidence. THAT'S what Maracsa report argues, and it's quite reasonable.

The knife was not the murder weapon, and the only reason to suggest it was, is the scientifically insufficient result from Stefanoni's lab. And specifically, Marasca criticized Stefanoni for stating in absolute terms that the knife MUST be the murder weapon, when if fact there was no evidence acceptable in Italian courts that raised the possibility it actually was.

I think you have misunderstood the requirements of evidence having a certain level of integrity, in specificity, certainty and reliability, and this is a mistake you make over and over again. This really more than anything else, is the underlying flaw in much of your arguments. You take things that are approximate in one direction, determine them compatible with your thesis, and behave as if you have made a point. You haven't. Not in an Italian court, not in any decent court, and not with me anyway. Conjecture and fantasy are in no way meeting the burden of proving a case 'beyond reasonable doubt'. These two principles (valid evidence and reasonable doubt) are why your arguments fail repeatedly. But let's trudge on.

Chieffi called C&V dishonest. And that verdict is final.The point that contamination shall be proven - at least shown to be probable - is a point of law the B&M court cannot overturn.

Setting aside what Chieffi did or did not say regarding C & V, Marasca pointed to them as independent court appointed experts, and relied on their findings to discredit the work of Stefanoni. That's what Marasca wrote, and that actually is the FINAL word on the subject: C & V are solid honest professionals who explained Stefanoni's egregious errors and why her work was not acceptable in a court room.

Alleged "international protocols" actually are non- existent. C&V cite many opinions and recommendations that don't have any status of "protocols", most of them are rules of peculiar systems and jurisdictions. But anyway a piece of evidence can't be dismissed preliminarily based on " protocols". This also belongs to the principles of the Italian system. It's true that Bruno/Marasca is idiotic beyond that. They go even further in their legal nonsense, as I said some posts ago.

The judicial reasoning on this point is quite detailed. That you would resort to calling it "idiotic" shows you are just giving up on the argument and resorting to ad hominem attacks. The point they are making, is that scientific evidence, like any other form of evidence, must be sufficiently reliable to be considered solid enough to be a building block in a conviction 'beyond reasonable doubt'. That if the science is shaky, the purported evidence becomes unreliable, and therefore can not be used as evidence to support a conviction 'beyond reasonable doubt'. What Marasca found, was that Stefanoni's use of "Low Copy DNA" was not scientifically valid, because it was not tested at least twice. And Marasca relied on the expert report of C & V in part, and also on the similar assurances from Berti and the cabinieri team. Marasca doubted the reliability of Stefanoni's DNA results on the bra clasp and knife due to poor collection, poor retention & storage, and insufficient lab work due to the non-repeatability of the procedure. Chieffi's principle that, "contamination must be proven" is now over turned as it had to be. As Dr Peter Gill pointed out, no defendant would be able to meet that burden, that "reversed burden" of proof.

Marasca's motivation report saved Italian justice system by correcting the record on Chieffi's glaring error on this point.

Which is even more telling about how rotten and false this judgement is. Since it's false that computer data was destroyed. This is a lie by the defence, which the court copies and pastes (among many other things) without checking the papers. Two of the three disks were recovered completely, the third had recoverable data, which Massei didn't want to recover as he considered them not interesting.

The main point in this paragraph, is that Marasca stated it is impossible to believe that Amanda and Raf could have participated in the murder, and not left any traces of themselves in the murder room or on the body of Kercher herself, while there were copious amounts of traces relating to only Rudy Guede. Marasca wrote that it was a further impossibility that the absence of any traces could be explained by a "selective clean-up" because such a hypothesized clean-up (which the state's prosecutor did argue at this appeal) was impossible. And not only was such a selective clean-up impossible, it was so obviously impossible that the prosecution should not have even needed to consult an expert because it was so silly a suggestion. THAT'S what Marasca wrote, and it is clear as can be.

Regarding the destruction of the computers, I think the focus of Marasca's criticism was a disbelief at the amateur incompetence of the prosecution's experts who incredibly destroyed the computers in the first place, by damaging them with electric shocks. Putting aside your claims that the drives are completely recoverable or in any event immaterial - which is obviously disputed, you must at least agree that the "experts" who fried the computers either didn't know what they were doing, or did it deliberately and belong in jail. In any event, its is satisfying to know that Marasca included this absence of evidence, this error on the handling of evidence by the prosecution, as one more reason for not referring the trial for another appeal. The prosecution's poor handling of the evidence, was counted against the prosecution and in favor of the defendants on the principle of the presumption of innocence - another principle with which you seem to have extraordinary difficulty grasping.

And yet, as I said, the report also states that Knox's presence at the murder is a proven fact and that it's certain. It states that both before and after the statement about "tranquillizing certainty"; it even explains at length in support of their certainty.
I realize this is crazy and inconsistent. But so is the verdict.

Well Mach, I believe you have misread the Marasca report on this point. Let's look at the actual quote on the bottom of page 46:

From Marasca, p.46 -

"Elements of strong suspicion reconnect even, dry inconsistencies and to falsehood in which the accused and incurred in the various statements made, especially in so far as his story appeared contradicted by phone records showing a different origin of SMS; by witness statements by Antonio Curatolo, regarding the presence of the same in the square Grimana Knox, Sollecito in the company of, and Mario Quintavalle, related alia its presence in the supermarket in the morning the day after the murder, perhaps to purchase detergents . Nevertheless, the profiles of intrinsic contradictions and poor reliability of the witnesses, several times as exceptions in the process of merit, not attributing unconditional credit to its versions, is to prove, with certainty tranquilizer, it failed, and then the falsehood, of 'alibi offered by the accused, who claimed to have been in the home of her boyfriend in the late afternoon of 1 November until the morning of the next day. Curatolo (enigmatic character: homeless, drug addict and drug dealer)
47..."

Marasca wrote that while there may be "strong suspicion" that Amanda and Raf were at the house, strong suspicions are not enough to overcome the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Marasca , in the paragraph above, expressly states that the alibi of Amanda and Raf, that they never left Raf's apartment that entire night, may well be entirely true. Their alibi has not been proven to be false. The statements you are pointing to, is the Marasca court making the best argument available in favor of guilt, before showing those arguments to be insufficient on the merits. This is another example of your selective reading, or should we say misreading, of plain straightforward language.

Marasca has said strong suspicions are not enough. Perhaps that's what you really disagree with?

You need to clean your mouth. Mignini never talked to the media. This is actually why the pro Knox slanderous campaign went on undisturbed. Sticking to the verdict, they stated very clearly that Knox was in the house, but also that she had Meredith's blood on her hands, and that Guede did not kill alone (and his "motive" as a lone burglar would be even less compatible than those of Knox and Solkecito).It also calls Knox slanderous multiple times and repeats many times there is evidence against them.
Interpret all this how you want, but this is what it says.
.

Mignini looks like he's talking to the press here. If I seem offended by Mignini's role and behavior in this tragedy, its because I am. However critical Marasca's report is of Stefanoni, Napoleoni & the investigating police, the repeated failure of the state's experts, the role of the media in distorting the investigation and causing a rush to judgement, and the rest, in the end it all comes down to Mignini. Watching him create his sadistic fantasy of Amanda, while asking for life imprisonment, is an act of sadistic violence, televised around the world, of a plainly raving madman, that I will never forget.

But to your other comment on the verdict, you have misunderstood Marasca's report on this point. They acknowledge Knox lived there, and that Sollecito visited there, which we know and agree. But when they describe the elements that can be interpreted as they being present in the house at the time of the crime, they are only going to the furthest interpretation that evidence might allow IF SO INTERPRETED, certainly not proclaiming their presence at the time of the crime to be a certainty. This is just something you have clearly misinterpreted and refuse to let go. Read the passage above, over an over until you get it: 'Strong suspicions' are not enough to equate to proof beyond reasonable doubt. Amanda and Raf's alibi was never proven false, THAT'S what Marasca wrote.

Your point about 'Meredith's blood on Amanda's hands", again that's the same error you make in thinking Marasca concluded they were in the house at the time of the crime. Marasca clarifies that that point isn't proven. Your point about Guede committing the crime with others, and in regards to his motive, I need to read these points more closely, but I agree they are important. My guess is you blew it again with a bogus and strained interpretation, but we'll see.

No, they did not state any "complete separation" between "Knox and Sollecito" on one side and Guede the other (they rather hinted some separation between Sollecito and Knox).
Lack of mutual acquaintance between Sollecito and Guede could be an argument if one had to defend Sollecito alone. But Knox herself is a link. Motive is something else. Also here B&M depart from jurisprudence and reason. Motive is not evidence, it's not an object actually. It's subjective. It's part of a context. It's correct that a murder has to be put into a context. But there isn't a special requirement that the judge understands the motive completely or even less that "proves" something that belongs to the subjective shpere.

Again, you seem to have misread the actual report itself. Marasca explains the importance of motive in a case based on circumstantial evidence, and then proceeds to the case in hand.

Marasca writes at the top of page 31:

"31
Now, when it is clear the emotional relationship between Sollecito and Knox, and if it is found that the young man had got to know, on occasion, the Guede, not VRE no evidence that Sollecito knew or had ever attended the Ivorian. The point is certainly contradictory and manifestly illogical to recognize (at f. 91), the unreasonableness of the hypothesis of involvement in murder as "bloody" in complicity with unknown person, to exclude any possibility of involvement of roommates Filomena Romanelli and Laura Mezzetti (which certainly did not know Guede), and does not extend that argument to urge, that is not ever even met the Ivorian."
There is no "link to knox", that is entirely your unsupported and biased speculation. That type of speculation and invention, is exactly what Marasca has rejected.

Here are the basic legal principles Marasca relies on to support acquittal in this case: Guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence must be preserved. And evidence must be solid, not based on fantasies, speculation, innuendo, gossip, lies, distortions or media hype. And I predict you will begin to see many more acquittals in Italy, including Misseri, based on the same legal code 530 paragraph 2, as was used in this case.

Amanda and Raf didn't know this troubled young person Rudy Guede, but Napoleone said the police knew of him from his burglaries in Perugia. The truth of this case, is that Perugia should have prosecuted Guede (and Meredith would still be alive), and should not have prosecuted Amanda and Raf. Now who do you think should accept responsibility for those blunders?

Hint:

MIGNINI.

 

[Kauffer]

I am sure Mez didn't hate Amanda, it was Amanda's conduct that upset her.

Why do you think she avoided inviting Amanda to the halloween do?
I've often gone out in a group, as part of a granfalloon, e.g., a colleague's leaving do, a bunch of us cousins, accountants networking, etc. Of course, there will always be ppl you like more than others. Going out as a granfalloon, in this case, having a drink in a wine bar with roommates, doesn't really imply you are great friends. It's just circumstance. Like going to lunch with a work colleague.

It means nothing much, "Mez had a drink with Amanda".

ETA When I worked in the City it was full of girly crap.

It wasn't her party to invite her to. Are you in the habit of inviting people you know to other people's parties? Would it mean you had shunned the people you didn't invite? Not an awfully clever argument you made now, was it?

 

[Kauffer]

John Kercher is a sharp, shrewd journalist absolutely on the ball as to who is responsible for the atrocity that happened to his dear daughter. How dare you claim he is untrustworthy?

Ultimately, Mr Kercher and his brood were dim witted boobies in this matter. They allowed themselves to be imprinted by Mignini's craziness, seduced by the guilter nutters and found the science going right over their heads.

In his book, what was supposed to be a tribute to his daughter lasted less than 80 pages, whilst in the rest he demonstrated how not very bright he is.

I feel sorry for him. His stupidity prolonged the case. It's not really his fault. He actually thought that TJMK was run by independent lawyers instead of by an elderly pervert.

 

[acbytesla]

Machiavelli is trying his best to cloud the sms from Amanda to Lumumba with his usual BS.

Mach said " the sms text: Knox did not write "see you later", she wrote "ci vediamo più tardi".

Sorry, but Amanda wrote just as I used to say to people I expected to see in next few days.... 'ci vediamo piu tardi' I could have used ci vediamo tra poco, ( see you soon) or ci vediamo dopo...another version of see you later.
The literal Italian translation of 'ci vediamo piu tardi' to English is...'see you later'. This has been covered, endlessly!
The fact Machiavelli and more importantly, the Italian investigators could NOT understand how an English speaker new to the Italian language could translate an English phrase into Italian 'literally' is scary! And that one simple misunderstanding created 8 years of absolute horror. That Machiavelli is still perpetuating this merda is disgusting.

It's also amazing since Mach who is clearly speaks much better English today than Amanda spoke Italian at that stage is now whining that he didn't understand the difference between "being shot" and "being shot at"

 

[Desert Fox]

It's also amazing since Mach who is clearly speaks much better English today than Amanda spoke Italian at that stage is now whining that he didn't understand the difference between "being shot" and "being shot at"

Being shot at can be pretty scary though. That si even though the only thing I have ever been shot at by was a small caliber automatic. I would guess a .25. I remember looking at it and thinking for just a moment that it was a toy gun.

 

[acbytesla]

I feel sure Rudy had a disposable phone. It's quite common for ppl to do their petty crime (ticket touting, drug dealing, theft) on anonymised phones. If Mez had two phones - both legit, I should add - how do you know Rudy had none, and Amanda only had one?

Your sure? How are you sure? Be a use that gels with your idea of what happened?

Here's the thing Vixen You are creating this phone out of thin air as well as the call or text to it. That's not evidence, that is wild speculation. You can't as the prosecutor submit that for consideration.
And the other problem is EVERY SINGLE CALL or TEXT to or from Amanda's phone has been accounted for.

There is no evidence of a call or a text or email between Meredith's killer and Amanda or Raffaele EVER.

 

[acbytesla]

It's a girly thing. All bs.

The fact Mez blatantly snubbed Amanda - even with "love youxxxx" - should speak volumes.

Actions speak louder than words.

That's the difference between you and i. I accept the available evidence at face value. You're suggesting that Meredith was a phony sending kisses to Amanda and Amanda knew it and Amanda was so unbalanced that she persuaded 2 young men she just met, one of which there is no evidence that had said anything more than hello to to kill her roommate.

Do you have any idea just how crazy that sounds?

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, the merits courts did decree the motive was futile. It was a trivial motive - reenacting a vampire-slaying manga scene for Raff and cruel revenge by Amanda, for Mez having excluded her from the friends' halloween party - so in that respect, it had no more motive than Cho's Virginia Tech murder or Draper's Scream murder or even Klebold and Harris Columbine massacre. There was that psychopath who shot her class chums and teacher, picking them off like a sniper, "because I don't like Mondays".

Looking for a motive? With a psychopath, none needed.

Yet, none of those courts said any of these things. In fact Massei says both Amanda and Raffaele were upstanding citizens. No court said either Amanda or Raffaele were psychos.

 

[RWVBWL]

Can't find anything on this La Tana meet-up except from RW and CD. Does anybody have another source? The CD write up is a snarky one towards the british girls.

Oh golly gee,
The Grinder is bein' The Grinder!
Yea!

Hi bud,
just a fyi,
like you do not know this already, bro,
but ah Mikey, Peggy, Candace, and Frank Sfarzo where ALL on the same team in the beginning!

They ALL thought Miss Knox and her boyfriend [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele[/SIZE]
were guilty of Miss Kercher's murder.

As did I.
As did, come on, confess, you did too.

No way that you, Grinder,
read the very 1st story of the murder of Miss Meredith Kercher
and then the subsequent arrests of Patrick Lumumba, Amanda Knox, and [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele Sollecito[/SIZE]
and said I Do Not Believe It,
right?

Come on bro,
I know that you did believe it soooo...
So cut out the crap, ok?


However,
you too have a mind, as do I.
Things did not mesh.

When the OG crew split,
Candace D. and Frank Sfarzo went Innocentisti!

Who do ya think that CD got much of her info from?
Peggy the homemaker in Seattle, Mikey the bird watcher in England
or Frank the Court Watcher,
err Italian, err, ah, English blog reporter in Perugia?

Yet you still talk bull crab about Miss Candace Dempsey,
her blog work, her book that she surely spent hours writing
and probably cross-checking references and/or her interview research.
With Frank Sfarzo and surely others too...

As you also like to make mention + talk crap,
in your subtle ways, of me,
if + when I ever quote anything Miss Dempey wrote.

Of course,
you Grinder,
surely went to Perugia and interviewed pep's who had met Meredith
or knew relevant info about this horrible rape + murder we still like to discuss, right?

So your word is The Gospel accordin' to The Grinder,
right?
Pfffft.


As 1 of mys sisters like to say,
Nee-ner, nee-ner, nee-ner!
I know that you Grinder would luv to get some bonus points off me.

Why don'tcha email, facebook friend or take a fall trip overseas + travel to Perugia,
and pose a question or 2 or heck, even interview Estaban and his blond haired, blued English wife Lucy Rigby,
who whilest at work at her business La Tana watched an apparent drunken' Albanian get into a fight with another dude at around closing time in her restaurant, + then throw a large ceramic vase at him which instead hit Lucy in her forehead, gashin' it enough for her to need to head over to the hospital
on the same night that Amanda and [SIZE="-7"]Raff[/SIZE],
out on a date earlier that same night had stopped on by La Tana,
drank some wine while out on the town with Mez
and her, ah, dare I, err might I suggest, try and get drunk with 1 of her female friends,
with whom she was maybe on a, ah, err female date
while her boyfriend, if ya can call him that, was outta town.
On the night before Halloween...



My 2¢ only,
as I sit wearing boardshorts near the oceans edge
and take a break from shootin' surfpix and talkin' story with bro's and cute bro-ettes
before I go walk up the road to get breakfast.


Whatever it all means,
it doesn't mater,
as Miss Knox and Mr. [SIZE="-7"]Raffaele Sollecito[/SIZE] are free today.

They did not murder nor participate in Miss Kercher's horrible rape + murder
like Rudy Guede did.

Anyways, argue all you want,
me I'm gonna enjoy my Sunday.
I hope that you to do the same.
Happy Sunday to ya'all!

RW

 

[acbytesla]

Who are you to feel angry at Mez' parents? The sheer arrogance: sheeesh!

Because of their persecution of Amanda and Raffaele both CLEARLY INNOCENT to anyone thinking straight. They were suing their daughter's innocent friends.

 

[Bill Williams]

Because of their persecution of Amanda and Raffaele both CLEARLY INNOCENT to anyone thinking straight. They were suing their daughter's innocent friends.

The reason the Kerchers should get a free pass is that their link to this was Maresca. Also that the "civil suit" part of this was combined, was it not, with the murder stuff. He became an extra prosecutor.

They've been jerked around since Day 1 and remain the only victims when you think about it - particularly if there is a "wedge" of truth to what Machiavelli is peddling here.

They are the remaining ones deserving of advocacy.

 

[Vixen]

You called it b.s.


Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

What is tact, but diplomacy, aka euphemism, compromise, insincerity, bs?

 

[Vixen]

Because of their persecution of Amanda and Raffaele both CLEARLY INNOCENT to anyone thinking straight. They were suing their daughter's innocent friends.

What...? Is this supposed to be a humorous pastische? I cannot dignify it with a reply.

 

[acbytesla]

The reason the Kerchers should get a free pass is that their link to this was Maresca. Also that the "civil suit" part of this was combined, was it not, with the murder stuff. He became an extra prosecutor.

They've been jerked around since Day 1 and remain the only victims when you think about it - particularly if there is a "wedge" of truth to what Machiavelli is peddling here.

They are the remaining ones deserving of advocacy.

I agree. I just admitted feeling angry at them in the past. But that time has past. Vixen questioned my right to feel that way.

 

[acbytesla]

What...? Is this supposed to be a humorous pastische? I cannot dignify it with a reply.

And yet you did. There was no humor intended. Amanda and Raffaele are CLEARLY INNOCENT. That some people lack the emotional or intellectual capacity to grasp that sometimes baffles me. I've never had much patience for the slow and the inept.

Sorry.

 

[bagels]

Yes, the merits courts did decree the motive was futile. It was a trivial motive - reenacting a vampire-slaying manga scene for Raff and cruel revenge by Amanda, for Mez having excluded her from the friends' halloween party - so in that respect, it had no more motive than Cho's Virginia Tech murder or Draper's Scream murder or even Klebold and Harris Columbine massacre. There was that psychopath who shot her class chums and teacher, picking them off like a sniper, "because I don't like Mondays".

Looking for a motive? With a psychopath, none needed.

While I'm sure Amanda was extremely jealous of Meredith, perhaps because Meredith's boyfriend was an expert indoor gardener while hers was only a rich Italian boy with a maid serviced apartment and Audi sports car, your theory doesn't account for why a random local burglar was the one who left all the incriminating evidence, and sexually assaulted the victim while walking around covered in her blood. Amanda must have also discussed this plot with Rudy in broken Italian and he promptly agreed that a good course of action was to help these two random white people rape and murder a white girl which would surely work out well for him, the unemployed black burglar with a criminal record. Since Amanda never contacted him, and has no known means of doing so, and Amanda and Raffaele's prior plans that night were only called off 20 minutes prior to the murder, the instructions for Rudy must have been "wait outside the cottage every night all night in case an opportunity randomly arises to do our manga killing." This all fits together pretty well I guess.

 

[Vixen]

<snip>


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_6790355f57b0d7a6bf.jpg[/qimg]

Mignini looks like he's talking to the press here. If I seem offended by Mignini's role and behavior in this tragedy, its because I am. However critical Marasca's report is of Stefanoni, Napoleoni & the investigating police, the repeated failure of the state's experts, the role of the media in distorting the investigation and causing a rush to judgement, and the rest, in the end it all comes down to Mignini. Watching him create his sadistic fantasy of Amanda, while asking for life imprisonment, is an act of sadistic violence, televised around the world, of a plainly raving madman, that I will never forget.
But to your other comment on the verdict, you have misunderstood Marasca's report on this point. They acknowledge Knox lived there, and that Sollecito visited there, which we know and agree. But when they describe the elements that can be interpreted as they being present in the house at the time of the crime, they are only going to the furthest interpretation that evidence might allow IF SO INTERPRETED, certainly not proclaiming their presence at the time of the crime to be a certainty. This is just something you have clearly misinterpreted and refuse to let go. Read the passage above, over an over until you get it: 'Strong suspicions' are not enough to equate to proof beyond reasonable doubt. Amanda and Raf's alibi was never proven false, THAT'S what Marasca wrote.

Your point about 'Meredith's blood on Amanda's hands", again that's the same error you make in thinking Marasca concluded they were in the house at the time of the crime. Marasca clarifies that that point isn't proven. Your point about Guede committing the crime with others, and in regards to his motive, I need to read these points more closely, but I agree they are important. My guess is you blew it again with a bogus and strained interpretation, but we'll see.



Again, you seem to have misread the actual report itself. Marasca explains the importance of motive in a case based on circumstantial evidence, and then proceeds to the case in hand.

Marasca writes at the top of page 31:

"31
Now, when it is clear the emotional relationship between Sollecito and Knox, and if it is found that the young man had got to know, on occasion, the Guede, not VRE no evidence that Sollecito knew or had ever attended the Ivorian. The point is certainly contradictory and manifestly illogical to recognize (at f. 91), the unreasonableness of the hypothesis of involvement in murder as "bloody" in complicity with unknown person, to exclude any possibility of involvement of roommates Filomena Romanelli and Laura Mezzetti (which certainly did not know Guede), and does not extend that argument to urge, that is not ever even met the Ivorian."
There is no "link to knox", that is entirely your unsupported and biased speculation. That type of speculation and invention, is exactly what Marasca has rejected.

Here are the basic legal principles Marasca relies on to support acquittal in this case: Guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence must be preserved. And evidence must be solid, not based on fantasies, speculation, innuendo, gossip, lies, distortions or media hype. And I predict you will begin to see many more acquittals in Italy, including Misseri, based on the same legal code 530 paragraph 2, as was used in this case.

Amanda and Raf didn't know this troubled young person Rudy Guede, but Napoleone said the police knew of him from his burglaries in Perugia. The truth of this case, is that Perugia should have prosecuted Guede (and Meredith would still be alive), and should not have prosecuted Amanda and Raf. Now who do you think should accept responsibility for those blunders?

Hint:

MIGNINI.

You are badly wrong. Mignini was merely doing his public duty in indicting the pair. He is not sadistic, he did not enjoy asking for life. Indeed, he is quoted as saying immediately after his submissions, that it was the worst day of his life [having to condemn young ppl to life imprisonment].

Far from Mignini being some kind of a monster, it takes great courage to do his job. Who is more inhumane, the murderer who shows no mercy at all for their victim (apart from a poxy duvet after the event) or a prosecutor who brings such a monster to justice?

 

[Vixen]

It wasn't her party to invite her to. Are you in the habit of inviting people you know to other people's parties? Would it mean you had shunned the people you didn't invite? Not an awfully clever argument you made now, was it?

Then not awfully clever of Amanda to keep bombarding Mez with texts begging to join her, to the point of stalking. Let's face it, Amanda stalked Mez the night she was killed.

 

[Vixen]

Ultimately, Mr Kercher and his brood were dim witted boobies in this matter. They allowed themselves to be imprinted by Mignini's craziness, seduced by the guilter nutters and found the science going right over their heads.

In his book, what was supposed to be a tribute to his daughter lasted less than 80 pages, whilst in the rest he demonstrated how not very bright he is.

I feel sorry for him. His stupidity prolonged the case. It's not really his fault. He actually thought that TJMK was run by independent lawyers instead of by an elderly pervert.

The Kercher family are dignified, polite, unassuming and reserved. They are NOT stupid. Being loud, vulgar and pushy, like Amanda's brood, does not equate to being clever.

Sure, they feel very clever right now, but truth has a way of coming out.

The Kerchers have shown great graciousness and restraint under enormous provocation. Most families would have cracked, but the Kerchers retain their admirable composure, and I salute their courage. I pray the perpetrators will be brought to justice.

Peter Quennell's private dispute with a ballet dancer has sweet Fanny Adams to do with this case.