Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

Yes. Mr. Kercher with this article makes his position against Amanda (a/k/a the Knox girl) clear. The fact that he whines about a lack of sympathy from Amanda's family is ridiculous, under the circumstances.

I don't like this criticism of John Kercher's article, as I want to point out that these are derogatory twistings of his statements.
I would never say John Kercher "whines about a lack of sympathy from Amanda's family".
I would say, Mr. Kercher points out (implicitly criticizes) that the Knox family avoided any contact or communication - of condolences or solidarity - with them.
I think that the concept of whining is less suitable than a concept more close to accusation. Kercher implicitly accuses the Knox family of taking part to a callous media campaign, overall of having a behaviour which appears to be callous, cynical towards justice and towards the memory of the victim. The meaning and aim of this accusatin is obviously not to obtain sympathy from the Knox family, it is to address the pro-Knox campaign with a comment of public criticism.

 

[Alt+F4]

I think, in part, Mr. Kercher's article was in response to the television interview Amanda's mother and father gave earlier last week on Daybreak. The majority of his article was this:

Yes. Not getting sympathy from the Knoxs was a minor point in the editorial, in my opinion. His major complaint is Knox becoming a minor celebrity. Amanda's parents supporting their daughter is one thing, a movie (or two?) being made about the case must be galling for them.

I see Fox News picked up the story:

Enter John Kercher, the father of the victim, Meredith Kercher. While the Kercher family members have been admirable in maintaining their dignity and reserve throughout a very trying period in their lives, Meredith’s father has had enough.

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/...hy-for-celebrity-amanda-knox/?test=latestnews

 

[shuttlt]

Shuttlt

I'm afraid your line 3 misses a rather large problem that I tried to explain previously & judging by his earlier responses to me Kevin Lowe still hasn't accepted.
.

I'll reread, but doesn't that break their alibi at a time when the prosecution don't claim the murder was going on? Clearly breaking it at all isn't great for the defense, but I'm confident it can be dealt with if the statements at the police station etc... can. Perhaps they were innocently walking the streets and were foolish enough to lie about it?

 

[Machiavelli]

I don't believe you are interpreting Frank's post correctly. This was after the defense motion and court order to give the rest of the data to the defense and the following summer break. The defense had time to review those documents and came back with the complaint that they were still missing files:

(..)

Sorry, but I don't do exegesis of Frank's posting. I don't even know what he writes (I just noticed that he pretty likes to twist data). I only talk about what lawyers say and what I found in the documents I've read. Which - as well as news reportss - are very clear and precise on the point.

There is no complaint about any missing file by the defence. There is no request to release further files. There is no claim the prosecution experts are withholding files.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, OJ was found not guilty in the criminal case, but guilty in the civil case, so maybe the civil liability would still hold!

No, this is not the US. Not this kind of civil liability, this law is different. Here we are talking about a different concept of civil liability.

 

[platonov]

I'll reread, but doesn't that break their alibi at a time when the prosecution don't claim the murder was going on? Clearly breaking it at all isn't great for the defense, but I'm confident it can be dealt with if the statements at the police station etc... can. Perhaps they were innocently walking the streets and were foolish enough to lie about it?

No, No and No & it doesnt work like that in any case - the defence have to discredit C or the appeal
is in very big trouble.
See my earlier ref [in the response to Kevin Lowe] to the apppeal defence docs - 3 lines ??

.

 

[Alt+F4]

Is this new evidence known, or just hinted at by the lawyers?

Raffaele's appeal is making the claim that an episode of Naruto was accessed at 21:26 on November 1.

Now here's why I don't think this is going to fly in the appeal. Neither Raffaele or Amanda ever mentioned anything about watching Naruto that evening. Why wouldn't they have told their lawyers or their families this very important piece of information. So which is it, they were lying then or they are lying now?

 

[RoseMontague]

Sorry, but I don't do exegesis of Frank's posting. I don't even know what he writes (I just noticed that he pretty likes to twist data). I only talk about what lawyers say and what I found in the documents I've read. Which - as well as news reportss - are very clear and precise on the point.

There is no complaint about any missing file by the defence. There is no request to release further files. There is no claim the prosecution experts are withholding files.

Were you present in court on 14 September to hear the argument Frank describes? Another source here:

http://translate.googleusercontent....le.com&usg=ALkJrhjK2fPTZb_7Z8no6vcgguXMKV20WQ

The reasons for the request
La Bongiorno, depositando anche una memoria, ha sottolineato la lesione del diritto di difesa in relazione all'esame del Dna attribuito a Sollecito. The Bongiorno, also filing a statement, said the violation of the right of defense in relation to the examination of DNA attributed to Sollecito. In particolare, in relazione alla mancanza di dati e della descrizione di procedure con le quali la biologa della polizia scientifica Patrizia Stefanoni ha identificato e quantificato le tracce biologiche. In particular, in relation to the lack of data and description of procedures by which the forensic biologist Patrizia Stefanoni identified and quantified the biological traces.

 

[TomCH]

I don't think Mr. Kercher expects sympathy from the Knox family, the time has well passed for that. His paragraph concerning the lack of condolences from the Knox family was, in my opinion, more a statement of fact, something that never happened (but could have).

Indeed, that's my take as well, he was simply stating a well known fact.

 

[RoseMontague]

I don't like this criticism of John Kercher's article, as I want to point out that these are derogatory twistings of his statements.
I would never say John Kercher "whines about a lack of sympathy from Amanda's family".
I would say, Mr. Kercher points out (implicitly criticizes) that the Knox family avoided any contact or communication - of condolences or solidarity - with them.
I think that the concept of whining is less suitable than a concept more close to accusation. Kercher implicitly accuses the Knox family of taking part to a callous media campaign, overall of having a behaviour which appears to be callous, cynical towards justice and towards the memory of the victim. The meaning and aim of this accusatin is obviously not to obtain sympathy from the Knox family, it is to address the pro-Knox campaign with a comment of public criticism.

Sorry, I don't read it that way. I think he points out that they have no doubt that Amanda is guilty as sin, and then complains about a lack of sympathy from Amanda's family. I have already agreed he also complains about the media attention on Amanda and the celebrity status give her as well as the lack of focus on his own daughter.

 

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by christianahannah View Post
I don't think Mr. Kercher expects sympathy from the Knox family, the time has well passed for that. His paragraph concerning the lack of condolences from the Knox family was, in my opinion, more a statement of fact, something that never happened (but could have).

Indeed, that's my take as well, he was simply stating a well known fact.

Christiana is much more tactful than I am, and more forgiving. The Kerchers were on the side of the authorities and obtained a lawyer from the beginning, an article from 16 November 2007 shows the brother stating they trusted the authorities completely and Maresca was already hired at that point. The authorities of course, had already announced they had solved the case.

http://translate.google.com/transla...zioni/cronache/200711articoli/27638girata.asp

 

[Dan O.]

After comparing details of Nara's balcony from the CBS interview with the row of flats viewed from the Spheron camera on the back porch of the cottage, I have reached the conclusion that this is Nara's flat:

This conclusion is counter to Machiavelli's attack on my earlier analysis of the sound propagation:

Meredith's room faces a large door window that leads to the terrace. This window faces exactly the door of Meredith's room.
The terrace as a low horizontal surface would also work as a platea reflecting sound waves and improve to convey noise.
This window has an orientation compatible with Nara's window and even a better angle with Antonella Monacchia's window.

Is Machiavelli in the business of manufacturing his own facts?

 

[TomCH]

The Kerchers were on the side of the authorities and obtained a lawyer from the beginning

That is simply because in Italy (unlike most other countries) the victim has a right to be represented.

 

[moodstream]

But Chris, you give those words anyway, even if you do not believe they would be welcomed, because it is the right thing to do. And you give those words of sympathy close in time to the death, not three years later. What was written in the recent press release by the Knox family is what should have, and could have been done three years ago.



I think, in part, Mr. Kercher's article was in response to the television interview Amanda's mother and father gave earlier last week on Daybreak. The majority of his article was this:

I don't have time to find the articles today. But, I know I have read several instances over the course of time since Nov 2 2007 that the Knox family has expressed great sympathy for the Kercher's loss. It is not true that the Knoxes have not expressed sympathy about the Kerchers. Didn't they say something to this effect on Oprah, a long time ago, again, one of many utterances?


I think this is a variation of a straw man argument and is similar to the many evil Amanda arguments I have heard. It's a interpretation of past events in a way the invents misconduct.


What happened? AK's roommate was murdered, within days, AK's mother fly's from Seattle to Perugia to support her daughter, when she arrives, she is stunned to discover her daughter under arrest and in jail.

What does this mean to you? Apparently this shows how cold, selfish and uncaring AK's mother is, because she did not then break out of the overwhelming situation confronting her, seek out a family she does not know, deep in grief, to tell them she is the mother of the person arrested for killing their daughter just a few days go, and let them know that she sympathizes with their loss.

I really don't feel that is a fair criticism.

 

[Alt+F4]

Apparently this shows how cold, selfish and uncaring AK's mother is,...

Who said that Amanda's mother is cold, selfish and uncaring?

 

[Katody Matrass]

After comparing details of Nara's balcony from the CBS interview with the row of flats viewed from the Spheron camera on the back porch of the cottage, I have reached the conclusion that this is Nara's flat:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=4085[/qimg]


This conclusion is counter to Machiavelli's attack on my earlier analysis of the sound propagation:




Is Machiavelli in the business of manufacturing his own facts?

Nara lives at Via Melo 26, and according to Massei, she can see only part of the roof of the cottage from her window. It is the roof over the older part of the cottage which is visible to her. The newer one, where Meredith's room was located is completely obstructed by that roof and there is no direct path between Nara's flat and the balcony door (which apart from that is not facing Nara's window) - Machiavelli is again unconventional in his use of word compatible.

When hypothesizing about sound propagation we must take into account the difference in elevation, lack of direct path, sound occlusion (by the obstructing building, the wall of the car park, the elevated road embankment) and lack of surfaces that would reflect the sound in the direction of Nara's window.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Mr. Maresca

TomCH,
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/06/perugia200806?currentPage=all
In Vanity Fair Judy Bachrach wrote, “In December, when the decision to keep Amanda in jail until trial came down, Mignini was so thrilled he actually embraced the lawyer for Meredith’s family. ‘It was a home run,’ Maresca tells me, contented. ‘It meant all the evidence was good.’”

I will leave it to someone else to deal with how good the evidence actually was in December 2007. My main issue with this story is the fact that Mr. Maresca and Mr. Mignini embraced. In effect Mr. Maresca became the bad-cop prosecutor in this case. He asked one of Amanda’s friends (Andrew Seliber, IIRC) if he could tell the court about Amanda’s sex life in Seattle.* Mr. Seliber, who was never Ms. Knox’s boyfriend, declined to answer.

The idea of having the victim be represented is meretricious. It sounds like a good idea at first, looks more questionable upon examination, and fails abjectly in practice, if this case is representative.

*I find this question irrelevant and inappropriate

 

[Katody Matrass]

Apart from that I think that inconsistencies and errors in Nara's account cast enough doubt on her testimony and any test would be only a last nail in the coffin.

She heard 3 people running directly after the scream. But who was running? Someone (Rudy?) was "tending" to Meredith's wounds with towels. Someone was cleaning himself in the bathroom. And wasn't the murderous duo butt naked and barefoot according to Massei? They ran like that?

And didn't Nara see the murder in the newspapers "the next morning"? IIRC she saw also AK and RS hanging around the parking lot watching the police the next day?

 

[katy_did]

Antonella Monacchia is a very reliable witness. She admitted she didn't come out until she was searched out by private investigators, since she didn't feel like being a witness at all.

Wasn't it journalists rather than private investigators who persuaded Monacchia to come forward? (going on the appeal documents: "nulla si dice circa il fatto che abbia raccontato dell’urlo alla Procura dopo un anno dall’omicidio perché incalzata dai giornalisti" / "nothing is said [by Massei] about the fact that she [Monacchia] recounted the scream to the Prosecutor a year after the murder because [she was] pursued by journalists"). I did have a look to see if there was another source on this which mentions private investigators (for example, perhaps she was originally found by PIs, but only decided to come forward after journalists got wind of it), but couldn't find one; unfortunately, as the appeal quote suggests, Massei doesn't mention this issue at all.

 

[katy_did]

What does this mean to you? Apparently this shows how cold, selfish and uncaring AK's mother is, because she did not then break out of the overwhelming situation confronting her, seek out a family she does not know, deep in grief, to tell them she is the mother of the person arrested for killing their daughter just a few days go, and let them know that she sympathizes with their loss.

I really don't feel that is a fair criticism.

Exactly my thoughts too. In their position, I think I'd feel it would be very presumptuous to contact the Kerchers directly; I wouldn't just assume they'd be OK with hearing from me, if my daughter had just been accused of murdering theirs and I had no way of knowing whether they believed it to be true or not. I'd never impose on a grieving family like that without knowing for sure they were OK with me contacting them. Quite apart from Amanda's family being in a very overwhelming situation themselves.

For all Amanda's family knew, the Kerchers might have been deeply upset by being contacted by the parents of the girl accused of their daughter's murder. Amanda's parents have stated how much sympathy they have for the Kerchers repeatedly, I don't blame them for not doing so directly.