What's nauseating about Maresca is that he's too smart to not know that AK and RS are innocent. His actions against revealing the truth show he knows that truth is damaging to his case. In all of it he betrayed his clients, Kerchers.
Looking at the last article by Mr. Kercher and the list of the "
cold, hard facts of the case" that Mr. Kercher considers evidence of guilt it is difficult for me to put all the blame on Maresca for the opinions of Mr. Kercher.
They say the DNA samples — Meredith’s on the tip of the blade, Knox’s on the handle — are too small to be admissible as evidence. They also argue that DNA on a clasp from Meredith’s bra, found in her room six weeks after her body was discovered, could have been contaminated.
This is disputed by the top forensics team from Rome, led by Patrizia Stefanoni, an internationally respected forensic scientist. The fact that recently, in Britain, someone was convicted on 17-year-old DNA evidence is ignored by the defence.
I keep hearing this
internationally respected forensic scientist claim. Where does this come from? Is it a
cold hard fact? It is interesting that any evidence remaining on that bra clasp did not last anywhere close to the 17 years mentioned by Mr. Kercher that the defense
ignored.
Knox’s supporters in America, while concentrating on the DNA, do not seem to be aware of the huge body of other evidence that was given. Under Italian law a judge has to write an official report on how a verdict was reached. Judge Giancarlo Massei, who presided at the trial of Knox and Sollecito, produced a 400-page report.
It is clear that Knox's supporters are very aware of this
400-page report. Has Mr. Kercher read this report? Apparently so based on this next quote:
It is quite revealing, showing that — although Knox’s DNA and Meredith’s genetic material were found mixed together in several locations in the bathroom — much more than the DNA evidence was responsible for the decision to convict.
I have to assume that Mr. Kercher is well aware that Knox's DNA mixed with Meredith's in a shared bathroom is to be expected. That does not take any special knowledge to understand that.
Here are the other
cold, hard facts that Mr. Kercher lists:
• Sollecito claimed to have been working at his computer on the evening of the murder, but computer records show that it was inactive. Both Sollecito’s and Knox’s mobile phones were switched off that night.
We know that Knox's mobile phone was switched off because she said it was, there is no proof that Raffaele's was switched off because phone companies don't track the switching on and off of phones.
The other claim is not a fact either, in fact, the opposite is claimed by the defense. Surely Mr. Kercher is aware of just how expert the police computer expert was shown to be?
• A witness saw the couple several times in the vicinity of the cottage on the night of the killing, although they said they were at Sollecito’s home. Their alibis changed nine times, with Sollecito saying that he could not remember whether Knox was with him all evening. They even hinted at putting the blame on each other. Apart from Meredith, only Knox and two other flatmates, who were away at the time, had keys to the cottage.
Is Mr. Kercher aware of the problems with the testimony of this witness? This is not an established fact either. The fact is this witness is completely unreliable and his testimony has already been shown to contain errors.
• Sollecito’s naked footprint was found on a bathmat in the cottage; and Knox’s footprints were found outside Meredith’s room, in the passageway and in another room, where police believe a break-in was staged. (These footprints were revealed with luminol
Is it a fact that it is Sollecito's "naked footprint"? This is another prosecution expert that has been shown not to be so expert. The fact is that even this expert concluded that Sollecito's print could not be excluded while the defense expert said it could be excluded. Is Mr. Kercher aware of the negative TMB tests on these Luminol revealed footprints? Is he aware that these prints could come from any number of people, could have been made even before the murder and could have been made with something other than blood? These are not "cold, hard facts" either.
As for the “break-in”, the police immediately noticed that glass from a broken window was on top of clothes supposedly scattered by an intruder. The glass would have been under the clothes if the window had been broken before the room was ransacked. No valuables were taken, and a real burglar would have found far easier access to the house without breaking a window.
Has Mr. Kercher looked at the pictures of this scene? There is no glass shown to be on top of the clothes and if there was there is no proof that the clothes were not already there when the window was broken. Is he aware that Filomena also testified of glass under the clothes and in the middle of the clothes? Is Mr. Kercher's opinion of what a "real burglar would do a "cold, hard fact? Is he aware that Rudy has a history of breaking windows during break-ins?
• Sollecito told the police that nothing had been taken from the room supposedly broken into. But how would he know? It was used by an Italian girl, not present on the night of the killing, who had not yet checked it out for herself.
Maybe Knox told him she saw nothing missing.
• Knox described the position of Meredith’s body and how she had died, although she had not been able to see into Meredith’s room when the door was broken down by the police.
Is Mr. Kercher aware that Knox's description of the position of the body was not correct?
There are many more factors, almost 20 in all, among them the suspicion that there may have been something ritualistic about Meredith’s death. The prosecutor was criticised for mentioning this, but she was killed on the eve of the Day of the Dead, November 2.
Is Mr. Kercher giving credence to Mignini's fantasies?
Sollecito was said to have Japanese manga comics that described the rape and killing of female vampires. Meredith had been dressed as a vampire to celebrate Hallowe’en.
Is Mr. Kercher claiming that because of this it is possible, in fact quite probable that Sollecito killed someone who had been dressed as a vampire the night before?
Guede, who admitted having been in the cottage on the night of the murder, fled the premises and went to a disco before escaping to Germany, where he was arrested. So who cleaned up the house in an attempt to remove all traces of their presence that night?
Has Mr. Kercher considered that traces of their presence that night are not showing up because they were not there?
The "cold, hard facts" listed by Mr. Kercher are either highly questionable, highly disputed, completely discredited, or pure fantasy. I don't know who he is getting his information from, but he should be aware of the cold, hard facts about his list of the not so "cold, hard facts".
, of my post.
