Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[quadraginta]

Perhaps some of the commentators on this case who are exhibiting bile-filled schadenfreude over the personal problems of a woman who is unaffiliated to any of the parties in this case (and, incidentally, against whom no charges have as yet been brought) would like to comment equally forcefully about the criminal conviction for Abuse of Office of the lead prosecutor of Knox and Sollecito - one G. Mignini.

What the heck are you talking about?

 

[LondonJohn]

* With reference to an earlier post of mine (edit function being impossible):

Should read..... "Stafford, Frey or Cooper".

Apologies!

 

[LondonJohn]

Here's a comment (reposted verbatim, but with my emphasis) for Peter Quennell on his own website, in response to another comment claiming a psychological link between Anne Bremner and Amanda Knox:

"Hi Hopeful. Interesting that you see some psychological affinity. You know that we conjecture that affinity with others on the White Knight bandwagon too.

The two female White Knights who have pushed themselves to great prominence are Anne Bremner and Candace Dempsey. You see points of commonality between them?

Are they natural allies or are they natural foes? Could we perhaps hope to see them wrestling in mud one day? I guess at that point they wouldn’t be very white knights.

Kinky. That is for sure."

Quite what has made Peter Quennell imagine a mud wrestling competition between two women peripherally connected to the Kercher murder case (and why such a contest would be "kinky") is beyond normal comprehension. Maybe Mr Quennell will enlighten us further as to how his mind chose that particular train of thought to jump on to?

 

[LondonJohn]

What the heck are you talking about?

I'm talking about the way that various posters on PMF have commented with their customary grace and humanity about matters relating to an alleged (but so far uncharged) DUI case against Anne Bremner - a Seattle attorney who has been vocal in support of Amanda Knox (but who is entirely unaffiliated with Knox's legal team).

 

[Dan O.]

Just go to injusticeinperugia and look under lies and misinformation. You will see a picture of a bathroom that has parts that are covered in pink and red. Now if that bathroom sink would have been cleaned with bleach it wouldn't have turned up pink because bleach breaks down protein.

That point involves one of the moles we have to keep on whacking every time it sticks out it's head.

You can check out the Wikipedia article on the Kastle-Meyer test^WP. The key point is that the phenolphthalin is not reacting directly with the blood but rather the iron in the blood is acting as a catalyst to release the oxygen from the hydrogen peroxide. It's when the phenolphthalin is then oxidized that it turns pink. The phenolphthalin will also oxidize from exposure to the air after about 30 seconds. It is critical when using this test for the investigator to work in small areas so he can note and photograph the locations of any reactions within the 30 second window.

The photograph of the whole bathroom turned pink shows nothing more than where the phenolphthalin reagent was applied. Given that no detailed results of this test have shown up either in the press or in the trial, it can be presumed that the inspectors didn't follow the directions but just sprayed the whole bathroom and took this 1 photo after it all turned pink. In doing this, they destroyed the opportunity to find trace evidence in the small bath so the only evidence retrieved is what they already collected from the visible blood drops.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Let's leave them to exult, if they wish. I don't know anything about this incident except what is in the news. I do know that Anne has had a bad year. Her long and faithful friend and assistant, Joan Stapleton, was suddenly diagnosed with cancer, and she died soon thereafter. Anne has been devastated by the loss.

 

[Mary_H]

You make an excellent point about checking out the other sites and Yes, I have visited Bruce's website a number of times - also TJMK, Candace Dempsey's blog, other blogs too; such as Chris H's and even the Sciencespheres (?) one. Some others too which I cannot recall the exact names of, like the one where Nadeau blogs (it is late and I'm tired...lol).

Nadeau's space is called The Daily Beast. This is a good site and one that preceded most of the others: The Ridiculous Case Against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito

http://knoxarchives.blogspot.com/

 

[Chris_Halkides]

same gloves

Quadraginta,

I am glad you are here. In the pictures at this site, you can see the same crease in Dr. Stefanoni’s right glove from at least 16:45 until 16:53. During that time she worked on samples C, D, G, H, and I, and perhaps others. One is supposed to change gloves often. She also swabbed in more than one location with a single swab. Do you still have confidence in Dr. Stefanoni? Can you think of more than one explanation for the mixed DNA samples some believe are key pieces of evidence?
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/contamination.html

 

[capealadin]

Quadraginta: * What the heck are you talking about*??? ROFL.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

A question for the thread in general: Is there any hard evidence that puts Meredith Kercher's time of death later than 9:30?

If you mean other than the coroner’s report, different witnesses that heard a scream and 2 of the three murders have alibi’s till about 9:15 then no, Thats more than having it happen before 9:30 though.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

If you mean other than the coroner’s report,

Aha! Good stuff. What exactly in the coroner's report is hard evidence that Kercher died after ~9:30pm?

different witnesses that heard a scream

That isn't what I'd call hard evidence: they could be mistaken or lying, but it's a bit harder for Meredith Kercher's digestive system to lie or make a mistake.

and 2 of the three murders have alibi’s till about 9:15 then no, Thats more than having it happen before 9:30 though.

Well now, that last bit's circular. If they have alibis covering the time of death, then they almost certainly aren't murderers.

What hard evidence from the coroner's report were you referring to? This is important stuff because if there is serious doubt about the time of death then it becomes possible AK and RS were actually involved in the murder. If the digestive tract evidence is not contradicted by equally hard evidence somewhere else then not only are AK and RS almost certainly innocent but the major prosecution witnesses are lying or deluded to boot.

 

[Fine]

Let's leave them to exult, if they wish. I don't know anything about this incident except what is in the news. I do know that Anne has had a bad year. Her long and faithful friend and assistant, Joan Stapleton, was suddenly diagnosed with cancer, and she died soon thereafter. Anne has been devastated by the loss.

_____________________

Fair enough Charlie.

Anne Bremner has been a spokesperson for Friends Of Amanda. Those interested in Anne's arrest, and her efforts to block release of embarrassing evidence, can read HERE Now with 15 pages of added comments.

And Anne's eulogy for Joan Stapleton can be read HERE

///

 

[LondonJohn]

If you mean other than the coroner’s report, different witnesses that heard a scream and 2 of the three murders have alibi’s till about 9:15 then no, Thats more than having it happen before 9:30 though.

Perhaps you could expand further on these points. Don't bother with the alibi one though, since that's circular reasoning. But it would be interesting to read more about how the coroner's report clearly indicates a time of death later than 9.30pm. And tell us more about the different witnesses who heard a scream. Tell us how these witnesses are flatly contradicted by the people whose car broke down outside the girls' house, and who are collectively certain that there was no audible activity inside the house between 10.30 and 11.15, and that neither did anyone enter or leave the house during that time. Bear in mind that these people were sitting in their car, right outside the girls' house, blocking the only entrance to the house, with a direct view of the front door and Knox's bedroom window, with nothing to do but wait for a breakdown truck to arrive.

Are we to believe that Knox, Sollecito and Guede entered the house before 10.30, then sat in dark and silence for 45 minutes until the breakdown people left, before murdering Meredith in the ensuing 5 minutes? Or are we instead to believe that Knox, Guede and Sollecito waited outside the house until the breakdown people had left, then rushed in and murdered Meredith within 5 minutes?

Or isn't it possible that Meredith was already lying dead long before the breakdown car first appeared in the driveway at 10.30, and that her killer was also long gone from the house?

 

[RoseMontague]

Quintavalle as a witness seems to be getting a lot of attention lately. The response that I have seen from those that believe his testimony is credible is that Quintavalle is said to have asked his employee on November 2nd if she also saw Amanda that very morning. Amanda's appeal points out that this question was actually asked of Chiriboga at the time of Quintavalle's TV interview 11 months later.
Quintavalle at one point says he had seen Amanda and Raffaele together on several occasions before November 2nd (even gives a time prior to Amanda and Raffaele even having met each other) and on another occasion Quintavalle says the first time he saw Amanda was November 2nd. Volturno's testimony is that after 16 November when the 2 bottles of bleach were found at Raffaele's he went around to shops in the area showing pictures of Raffaele and Amanda and asking anyone if they remembered them buying that bleach on November 2nd. Both Quintavalle and Chiriboga told him no and Chiriboga recalls talking to Quintavalle about it and him saying he did not see them that morning and they also knew who Amanda and Raffaele were from all the news reports going on at that time.
Quintavallle's story a year later is that he was only asked about Raffaele and not Amanda and he doesn't remember being showed pictures or if he was he didn't recognize her in the picture because the picture did not show her distinctive blue eyes or something like that and then goes on to describe her clothing as something she was not wearing a few hours later and a coat she evidently did not even own. The Massei report is said to indicate they believe Quintavalle's story about not being asked about Amanda at the time of Volturno's questions a couple of weeks later and is also relying on Quintavalle's claim that he told Chiribogon on November 2nd that he saw Amanda in the store that very same morning even though her testimony says he only made that claim almost a year later and asked her about it at that time.
It seems to me to be a real stretch to find this witness even remotely credible.

 

[RoseMontague]

If you mean other than the coroner’s report, different witnesses that heard a scream and 2 of the three murders have alibi’s till about 9:15 then no, Thats more than having it happen before 9:30 though.

I think that Kevin was referring to "hard" evidence as being "solid" or "logical" not hard to understand or hard to fathom or hard to believe.

 

[Matthew Best]

If you mean other than the coroner’s report, different witnesses that heard a scream and 2 of the three murders have alibi’s till about 9:15 then no, Thats more than having it happen before 9:30 though.

Hmmm... so one of the main planks of the conclusion that the murders took place after 9:30 is that the people accused have alibis up to 9:15.

I'm pretty sure that is called begging the question, Sherlock.

 

[Alt+F4]

A quick hint to all those who think they have identified Anne Bremner posting comments under a newspaper article about her own alleged DUI case under a pseudonymous user name (IPAYATTENTION), because somebody with the same user name had previously mentioned representing a client name Ed Bylsma:

Perhaps Ed Bylsma had more than one legal representative. Someone named Stafford Frey Cooper, for example.

Just a thought.....

What the heck does this have to do with anything? And btw John, why do you keep posting about posts on other forums?

 

[Alt+F4]

Quite what has made Peter Quennell imagine a mud wrestling competition between two women peripherally connected to the Kercher murder case (and why such a contest would be "kinky") is beyond normal comprehension. Maybe Mr Quennell will enlighten us further as to how his mind chose that particular train of thought to jump on to?

I must disagree. Neither Dempsey or Bremner are "peripherally connected to the Kercher murder case". Both have written about the case about the case, nothing more. Now I'm sure you're going to say, well then why has Peter Quennel disparaged them on his website? The answer is that people on the Internet are mean, especially when they have an agenda. It's that simple.

 

[christianahannah]

It is discouraging to see intelligent people waste so much time trying to work out the details of a fable that makes no sense. Amanda was having the time of her life in Italy. She has no history of violence or aggression, she had no reason to harm Meredith, and she would have been horrified had anyone so much as suggested the idea. This whole thing is a big, fat, painfully obvious frame-up, designed to protect the reputations of officials who very publicly announced a dramatic theory that is both wrong and stupid.

This is where I disagree. If Amanda and Raffaele have their verdicts overturned on appeal I doubt the reason will be because of a "big, fat, painfully obvious frame-up, designed to protect the reputations of officials who very publicly announced a dramatic theory that is both wrong and stupid."

It hasn't been shown that there should be distrust of the justice system in Italy or the officials who investigated, tried and judged the case. There have been many allegations. Do even the appeal documents of Amanda and Raffaele point to evidence of intentional wrong-doing by officials?

 

[LondonJohn]

Ahh...I see Catnip over on PMF has pompously set some "homework" involving straight-out-of-an-arcane-legal-textbook terms such as "counter-rejoinder" (hint: these terms are almost never heard in modern legal language - Catnip must have a very old reference book).

Anyway, the "homework" (patronising, anyone?) is to imagine how the prosecution will argue against the appeal submission regarding Quintavalle's credibility and reliability, and then to imagine how the defence will try to answer the prosecution's counter-argument.

I think some people are simply too heavily invested in a certain point of view in this case to make cogent arguments any longer. This may be why they are setting "homework" for others to make the prosecution arguments for them. Perhaps Catnip would like to get the ball rolling by imagining him/herself how the prosecution will prove Quintavalle's reliability/credibility in the appeal, against what looks to many people to be a pretty comprehensive defence argument.

Oh, and by the way, I'm inclined to believe that anyone who uses the term "groupies" (to describe anyone who doesn't agree with the verdicts of the first trial) is sufficiently biased and unpleasant as to warrant ignoring. If people really want a sensible debate, then they really ought to stop using puerile and pejorative terms such as these, and indeed to cut out all the personal insults altogether. Then we might be able to engage. But I have a funny feeling that engagement is not high up on the agenda for many of the people who believe that Knox/Sollecito's convictions were correct.