Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Alt+F4]

But don't do you keep referring to AK and RS as 'convicted'? I've certainly never heard you refer to them as 'innocent until their appeals are concluded' IIRC, but i will expect you to do so from now on. If they're innocent, could you please explain why they are in prison, thanks.

AK and RS are convicted murderers, on appeal. I will continue to refer to them that way. Sick, depraved murderers at that.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

In Italy, as I told you, you're innocent until your final appeal. Even for Mafia hitmen, it's common for them to be under house arrest until then. Amanda and Raffaele are being held, just as they were during the trial, on the ludicrous premise that they would go on some kind of Natural Born Killers style killing spree around Perugia if released on bail.

No Raffaele and Amanda were convicted pending their automatic appeals.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

You ignore the fact that they were incarcerated for eleven months before they were even charged, in a type of precautionary detention.

No all I fully acknowledge they have been imprison. I am not casting judgment of whether this is right or not, just that it is so.

 

[Withnail1969]

AK and RS are convicted murderers, on appeal. I will continue to refer to them that way. Sick, depraved murderers at that.

Mignini is also convicted, and I will refer to him as being convicted. Mignini is also sick, depraved and corrupt.

 

[Withnail1969]

No Raffaele and Amanda were convicted pending their automatic appeals.

Just like Mignini and many others in the Italian system who don't go to prison until their final appeal fails.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Have you read this one? Is there something in this text you personally don't agree with?

The article reads like a series of out of context statements put together into one article, do you know who actually wrote as I was unable to find a name.

 

[Withnail1969]

The article reads like a series of out of context statements put together into one article, do you know who actually wrote as I was unable to find a name.

John Kercher in The Mirror, December 18th 2010. The name 'John Kercher' is in rather large capital letters at the top of the page, but I can see how that would be easy to miss.

You're right that it reads like out of context statements put together. That's because a lot of it is just misinformation from PMF stitched together.

 

[Magister]

The article reads like a series of out of context statements put together into one article, do you know who actually wrote as I was unable to find a name.

The original article in the Daily Mail written by John Kercher.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...father-passionate-attack-cult-Foxy-Knoxy.html

A later version appeared in the Mirror.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Thank you all for pointing out my mistake, I do apologies as I did miss the rather large text.
Do you not think the father of the murder victim should not have opinions of the people who were convicted (pending their appeals) of his daughters murder? I think the general point is that the Kercher’s have not courted public opinion throughout the investigation or trial. However, quite clearly he does feel as though his daughter’s brutal murder has been forgotten by the media. I have not seen the Kercher’s regularly commenting in newspapers or ever appearing on news TV programmes in the UK.

 

[Kaosium]

Perhaps you misread my post. I asked, in your opinion, who did not lie, who is not corrupt and who is not incompetent in regard to the prosectution.

All you have to do is start with the incompetence, which I actually think was in part due to unfortunate circumstance of them seeming to have 'evidence' of Amanda and Patrick at the murder site. The kinky black hair, (that never showed up in evidence) the pure coincidence of Patrick changing his SIMS card the day of the murder causing them to think he was 'lying' about his whereabouts that day, the video they had from the CCTV camera which caused them to think it was Amanda, with the final 'confirmation' of a 'smoked' college student who probably agreed with police their version of events of a night he was also stoned on hash was likely correct.

Thus they take Amanda into that little room and put the screws to her and several hours later they get a 'confession' that she was at the scene. In their triumphalism they overlooked the fact Amanda's statement is pure gibberish, but caught in the throes of confirmation bias they think they've solved the murder! They take Raffaele's shoes and notice a similarity between his treads and Rudy's shoeprints at the murder site, and that's just further evidence in their minds that they're on the right track. As the forensics come in they continue to see what they want to see, being at this point they think they have a 'confession' and all this 'evidence' so their bizarre theory must actually be true! After all, they've found 'evidence' of it everywhere now!

The 'murder weapon' that never left Raffaele's drawer is just the icing on the cake, Stefanoni finds Amanda's DNA on the handle from cooking with it, and expends extra effort looking and lo and behold either due to bizarre transfer or contamination she 'finds' Meredith's DNA on the blade, and to go with all the rest of the 'evidence' above--which you'll note is all going to turn out to be bogus--this must be absolute proof. The fact the whole idea of it being the murder weapon is absurd due to where they found it, the fact it doesn't match the outline left on the bed or at least one and probably two of the three major wounds is lost because they have captured cretins capable of any monstrosity, even celebrating their 'kill' by dining with the knife they killed with.

This in part is due to the fact that shortly after the arrests, in which they make a huge display of themselves, it is announced that Patrick, Raffaele and Amanda all sexually assaulted Meredith and killed her. You can see that 'announcement' in the Fox/Times compilation piece that's been posted a few times, one place I know you can find it is around page 400 of the last thread. As you can imagine, this announcement drew the sleaze merchants like flies to offal, who then took this and extrapolated beyond reality and started the mythology of 'Foxy Knoxy,' as I suppose to them the pretty girl seemed the most marketable of the poor people caught up in this tragedy of errors.

Remember, they took this nonsense into one court and got permission to pursue the prosecution of Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick as the killers of Meredith Kercher. Thus we know that incompetence led to the unjust imprisoning and eventual attempt to prosecute an innocent man in this debacle. It was just Patrick's good fortune that Rudy Guede was caught, which caused them to re-evaluate at least that part of their absurd fantasy, but in the end I guess they'd convinced themselves of the guilt of the other two and continued on, even once the shoeprints were revealed to be a mindless confirmation bias error on the part of police.

At this point I think things start to become awfully suspicious. When Raffaele's family reveals that the shoeprint doesn't actually match, the next day they rush out to the murder site, where Dan-O has pointed out a number of times there's something fishy about the 'containment' of the site from the videos. They 'find' the bra clasp that can clearly be seen in the the videos of the initial sweep of the murder site, yet now it has mysteriously migrated and we see it being passed around by the forensics team like it was a joint at a Pink Floyd concert and put back on the floor. This is also when the luminol footprints are revealed, and will be presented in court as probably being blood, until it is revealed that they did indeed do confirmation tests for blood that came out negative, but not until the damage had been done in the case against Raffaele and Amanda.

Now, as for the witnesses. That's easy: pure John Edward. Instead of 'I'm getting an 'M'...' we instead have 'Do we have a bleach receipt?' You see they needed a clean-up, as without one the odds that Raffaele and Amanda could have been physically involved in that room killing Meredith are remote even with that 'DNA evidence.' However, that clean-up couldn't have occurred and left no traces of the clean-up as well as Raffaele and Amanda, while leaving intact all the mess Rudy made, especially with all the footprints. So they eventually had to drop it, though Mignini insisted on it throughout from what I recall, but this was one of the few instances he didn't get his way in that court.

However, eventually Quintavalle, after being prodded by a local journalist, 'came forward' to regale the police with his story of Amanda lurking about his bleach the morning after the murder. At this point the prosecution knows there was no bleach clean-up, they know Raffaele had two bottles of bleach at his house anyway, and that they'd questioned him shortly after the murder and the contemporaneous records of the officer involved indicate he'd seen nothing of the sort--but they use him anyway! The two other people with him at the time deny he'd seen anything of the sort, but the court accepts it anyway.

Then we have the scream. If you go back and look at that Fox/Times compilation piece you'll see they had 'reports' of a scream at 1 AM or so the night of the murder, which is announced before they've calculated a time of death. So instead here we have from John Edward 'Do we have a scream?' and eventually the old lady is trotted out and as I recall the time of her scream is fixed by estimating her bladder capacity, which is awfully convenient as Curatolo's rambling story goes and gives Amanda and Raffaele an 'alibi' for the latest scientifically possible time of the murder, so Mignini has to extend the 'time of death' an hour in his closing remarks.

Which brings us to Curatolo...where do we start? The fact his story as noted above makes no sense as he has Raffaele and Amanda just loitering around in the basketball court on that cold November night for over an hour instead of getting trashed like they were supposedly doing, or the fact he's testified in three murder trials in the past four years at this point, and we now find out the cops had photographic evidence of him dealing heroin? Or is it the fact his story specifically includes disco buses that weren't running the night of the murder?

Did you ever look into Mignini? His history in the Monster of Florence case? I'm not talking about the weird satanic cult stuff he bought into in that instance, but his 'partner' in that debacle, his good friend who was busted along with him for abuse of power. I posted a link to Lionking a few pages back that includes a site named The Ridiculous Case Against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, and I'm pretty damn sure it's there that if you go looking for information about Mignini you'll find that one of his friend's favorite tricks was to round up the vulnerable people in society, those that might be amicable to 'helping' the police out with testimony in tough cases.

They didn't invent this trick, if you look into you'll find Jim Garrison did the same thing prosecuting Clay Shaw. It just so happens that if you want to badly enough if you can find 'witnesses' to anything in a big murder trial, which is why honest police often spend more time discrediting the people that come forward than accepting their testimony--because most of them want to make sure the right people get prosecuted.

Why would they want to do this? What would make them follow through on this absurd miscarriage of justice? There's probably several reasons, but the main ones are some of them--despite all this--came to the conclusion they had to be correct in their theory, they just couldn't assemble the right proof. Giobbi admitting that they think just by judging behavior they can presume guilt is an admission of this. They thought the hippy-dippy chick from Seattle was acting funny and that was thus 'evidence' of her guilt.

Another huge factor was this case caused such a firestorm of publicity due to its nature, a monster was created: Foxy Knoxy. The police soon learned any little tidbit of trash would be broadcast all throughout Italy, and through the complicity of the British tabloids and others that picked this up, eventually the four corners of the earth. Googling around I found stories from places like Pakistan and Japan that became interested in this trial! Thus, knowing they had a marginal case they were able to leak recorded conversations, dubious indications of 'suspicions,' and other bilge and create the conditions where so many things that were not true became fixed in people's minds as 'evidence' of guilt, both to the people of Perugia and the majority of people following the case elsewhere. Those that disputed it were dismissed as friends or family members of Amanda or Raffaele.

The police and prosecution eventually figured out they could get away with just about anything, which is the only explanation for Monica Napoleoni going into that courtroom and lying through her teeth about the whole interrogation. She said things provably false, but which wouldn't come up in the trial as the 'witness statement' had been thrown out by the Italian Supreme Court. Thus her account simply pretends it didn't happen! She and her two co-perjurers pretend that Amanda's interrogation is just a nice little chick-chat where Amanda, who wasn't even invited to the interrogation, breaks down when going through her cellphone and 'accuses' Patrick of the crime. Days later Giobbi refutes part of that story, not long afterward they file the calunnia charge on Amanda revealing there were twelve officers involved in the interrogation. No one really notices, after all the 'story' was 'Foxy Knoxy gets hers!'

The rest of them? In for a penny, in for a pound. No one was checking any of this stuff out, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had been found guilty by the paparazzi and tabloids thus there's probably many of those cops--perhaps even all the ones who lied--who believed she was guilty and they just 'helped' it along to punish the Monster, Foxy Knoxy and her attendant boytoys. They 'knew' they wouldn't get caught if they did anything, hell they all got medals for doing such a fine job instead! The court? It rubber-stamped just about everything due to perjuries, and the conditions created by the media which made everyone sure they were guilty somehow, even if the case presented had obvious holes in it. That is why when reading the Massei Report and how it was compiled, most come to the conclusion it's closer to proving innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than guilt.

That's how you can end up where ...Every cop is a criminal, and alllllll the sinners saints! To end this tale, just call me Kaosium...

 

[Agatha]

Agatha,

You also wrote, “Whilst it might suit your purposes to suggest that they have engaged in demonising Ms Knox, Mr Sollecito and Mr Guede; that has not been the case other than to say publicly that they feel that the right people are incarcerated.” Your comment above fails to acknowledge your error. However, the weakness of your position goes beyond this.

Nothing compelled the Kercher’s begin a civil suit, and nothing compelled them to hire Mr. Maresca; therefore, the Kercher’s bear some of the responsibility for his reprehensible actions. Like it or not, Mr. Maresca’s actions are germane to this discussion. Likewise nothing compelled Mr. Maresca to write an article for a tabloid paper. Now let’s look at what Mr. Kercher said in his article.

“I have watched them repeatedly reiterate the mantra of their daughter’s innocence.”

The use of the word “mantra” here is puzzling and unnecessarily combative. Even Barbie Nadeau does not doubt that Edda Mellas is sincere her belief of her daughter’s innocence.

“This appeal, like the initial court case, will drag on for months, while the dark tunnel between my family and our *ability to grieve for Meredith in peace becomes ever longer.
If Knox doesn’t get the result she wants, our agony will be even more *protracted: she may then take her case to Italy’s Supreme Court in Rome. Put simply, our ordeal could go on for years.”

Is Mr. Kercher saying that Amanda (and Raffaele, whom he ignores) should give up their legal and moral right to appeal, in order to spare him pain? That would be a deeply flawed and troubling position to take.

Moreover, your premise is fundamentally a poor one: It is nonsensical to equate the positions of the two families. No one attacked Meredith’s character; the attacks on Amanda’s, and to a lesser extent, Raffaele’s, character have been documented here time and time again. Amanda’s family was entirely logical in their decision to counter the attack.

I wasn't equating the positions of the two families; such a position would be ludicrous given that only one of the families has been bereaved.

I don't think Mr Kercher is suggesting that there should be no appeals; I think he is attempting to express the depths of his loss, and explaining that he feels that until the trial and appeals are concluded, he will not be able to properly mourn his daughter. Any attacks on AK's, RS's and Guede's character have not come from the Kerchers other than their belief that the three are guilty.

Is it your position that he should not be permitted to make the few statements he has made? Is it your position that unless he agrees with you, he should not comment? Because that would be an even more "deeply flawed and troubling position" to take.

I am at a loss to understand your problem with the word "mantra". Mr Kercher is using it in the sense of a commonly repeated word or phrase; there is nothing combative about it. Perhaps it is a cultural misunderstanding of which I am unaware.

 

[christianahannah]

Agatha,

You also wrote, “Whilst it might suit your purposes to suggest that they have engaged in demonising Ms Knox, Mr Sollecito and Mr Guede; that has not been the case other than to say publicly that they feel that the right people are incarcerated.”

Your comment above fails to acknowledge your error. However, the weakness of your position goes beyond this.

Nothing compelled the Kercher’s begin a civil suit, and nothing compelled them to hire Mr. Maresca; therefore, the Kercher’s bear some of the responsibility for his reprehensible actions. Like it or not, Mr. Maresca’s actions are germane to this discussion.

It is not an awful act to hire an attorney to file a civil suit, especially in a murder trial. There are several reasons to do so, however, the main reason is probably to keep those who are convicted from profiting off the death of a loved one.

Mr. Maresca is an attorney and will represent his clients to the best of his ability, just as the attorneys for Amanda and Raffaele will do. What reprehensible actions are you attributing to Mr. Maresca?

Likewise nothing compelled Mr. Maresca to write an article for a tabloid paper. Now let’s look at what Mr. Kercher said in his article.

Did Mr. Maresca write an article also or do you mean Mr. Kercher? If it is Mr. Maresca do you have a link to the article?

“I have watched them repeatedly reiterate the mantra of their daughter’s innocence.”

The use of the word “mantra” here is puzzling and unnecessarily combative. Even Barbie Nadeau does not doubt that Edda Mellas is sincere her belief of her daughter’s innocence.

“This appeal, like the initial court case, will drag on for months, while the dark tunnel between my family and our *ability to grieve for Meredith in peace becomes ever longer.

If Knox doesn’t get the result she wants, our agony will be even more *protracted: she may then take her case to Italy’s Supreme Court in Rome. Put simply, our ordeal could go on for years.”

Is Mr. Kercher saying that Amanda (and Raffaele, whom he ignores) should give up their legal and moral right to appeal, in order to spare him pain? That would be a deeply flawed and troubling position to take.

The best example I can give of Mr. Kercher's emotions is the O.J. Simpson case. I don't know many things about the case (so please correct me if I am wrong) but Simpson was found not guilty in the criminal trial and yet the father of the man killed went on to initiate a civil suit believing Simpson to be guilty (as I guess, the majority of people did). Amanda and Raffaele have been found guilty in the first trial so it is understandable that Mr. Kercher would have some feelings to the contrary of their innocence.

I honestly don't think Mr. Kercher believes that Amanda or Raffaele should not appeal in order to spare him pain. I think he is writing an article composed of his feelings as a father of someone who was brutally murdered. Haven't you ever had feelings that came from your heart rather than your head?

Moreover, your premise is fundamentally a poor one: It is nonsensical to equate the positions of the two families. No one attacked Meredith’s character; the attacks on Amanda’s, and to a lesser extent, Raffaele’s, character have been documented here time and time again. Amanda’s family was entirely logical in their decision to counter the attack.

Chris, there have been attacks to Meredith and her family, just as there have been to Amanda and Raffaele and their families. Sometimes it is subtle, sometimes not so subtle. This is one area I think shows meanness on both sides and one which puzzles me greatly. Both have a right to their feelings and defense of their loved one. We all would probably do the same were we in their position.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not accurate

Do you not think the father of the murder victim should not have opinions of the people who were convicted (pending their appeals) of his daughters murder?

CoulsdonUK,

I am in no way unmindful of the pain felt by the Kercher family. However, the article in question could mislead the unwary in its discussion of the forensics of the case. All of the principal parties in this case deserve the utmost in factual accuracy.

 

[billyryan]

Kaosium; over the last thirteen months I have read some amount of posts on this case,some very good ones from people I now have great respect for,your post above is the best I have read so far

 

[Kaosium]

It is a non-argument to anyone who wants to believe in their innocents, but not so to those that feel she is guilty. Yes, they all won't be correct, some may lie or made mistakes, but not anywhere near all of them, the list is far too large.

Do you believe that about every case where the accused is found innocent? Obviously the prosecution thought it had enough 'evidence' or they wouldn't have brought it to trial. However that evidence must then be bogus and the 'witnesses' either mistaken or lying.

 

[Chris C]

Filomena About room being a mess
About glass on top of items
Meredith never locked her door

So Filomena checked Meredith's door everytime she left? That sounds creepy.
There was also glass under her clothes. How is that possible if Filomena didn't touch anything in her room.

Dr Lalli failed to tie off the small intestine at various points, as correct practice would dictate.
failed to weigh the body, just took a guess

Umani Ronchi He therefore speculates (totally without foundation) that part of Meredith's pizza meal had already entered her duodenum, but that it had slid all the way through her small intestines to the very last loop.

He did drop the ball on not weighing the body. However, your saying Dr. Lalli didn't tie the small intestine at various points. Yet the prosecution witness claiming this, didn't even watch the autopsy. So you have speculation by a prosecution witness on something he never witnessed. Why couldn't the prosecution produce a witness that could testify to this after watching the autopsy video?

 

[Kaosium]

If you are able can provide any independent information that the murder victim’s family have demonised Amanda, Guede or Raffaele in the media?

They pursued a civil trial concurrent to the trial, which is considered an aggressive act in Italy, where the accused are considered innocent until the final confirmation of the Supreme Court.

It serves to damn the accused in the eyes of the un-sequestered jury.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the heart and the head

It is not an awful act to hire an attorney to file a civil suit, especially in a murder trial. There are several reasons to do so, however, the main reason is probably to keep those who are convicted from profiting off the death of a loved one.

Mr. Maresca is an attorney and will represent his clients to the best of his ability, just as the attorneys for Amanda and Raffaele will do. What reprehensible actions are you attributing to Mr. Maresca?



Did Mr. Maresca write an article also or do you mean Mr. Kercher? If it is Mr. Maresca do you have a link to the article?



The best example I can give of Mr. Kercher's emotions is the O.J. Simpson case. I don't know many things about the case (so please correct me if I am wrong) but Simpson was found not guilty in the criminal trial and yet the father of the man killed went on to initiate a civil suit believing Simpson to be guilty (as I guess, the majority of people did). Amanda and Raffaele have been found guilty in the first trial so it is understandable that Mr. Kercher would have some feelings to the contrary of their innocence.

I honestly don't think Mr. Kercher believes that Amanda or Raffaele should not appeal in order to spare him pain. I think he is writing an article composed of his feelings as a father of someone who was brutally murdered. Haven't you ever had feelings that came from your heart rather than your head?

Christianahannah,

My original comment had an error: with reference to the tabloid article, I wrote “Mr. Maresca” when I meant “Mr. Kercher.” Mr. Maresca had no business posing a question to Andrew Seliber about Amanda’s intimate behavior in Washington. His opposition to opening the knife cannot be reconciled with a search for the truth.

One difference with respect to the two cases is timing. The Kercher’s case ran concurrently with the criminal case, whereas the civil case against Mr. Simpson happened only after he has won the criminal trial.

I agree with your point that Mr. Kercher may have been speaking from the heart, not the head with respect to the appeal. Moreover, I have heard that Arline Kercher said that the appeal process was appropriate. It is for the former reason that I hesitated to speak out publicly on this matter (my previous comment about PMs or emails was for everyone, not just Agatha). One is hesitant to parse the words of a grieving father, yet when I do, I am baffled and at times frustrated.

 

[Kaosium]

In Italy, as I told you, you're innocent until your final appeal. Even for Mafia hitmen, it's common for them to be under house arrest until then. Amanda and Raffaele are being held, just as they were during the trial, on the ludicrous premise that they would go on some kind of Natural Born Killers style killing spree around Perugia if released on bail.

I think it has more to do with the fact that virtually no other country would extradite them being as there's no real evidence of their guilt.

 

[Chris C]

I think it has more to do with the fact that virtually no other country would extradite them being as there's no real evidence of their guilt.

Actually, the US would extradite them. However, there would be terms in the extradition like all US allies ask for.