Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
One thing Massei relies on in the staging of the break in argument is that there was proof that Amanda and Raffaele were there and Amanda had the keys to let Rudy in. The primary proof would be Curatolo watching them watch the cottage and the bra clasp and knife blade DNA. These three things no longer being reliable also damages the argument about the staged break in. It is a house of cards and things are starting to collapse.

The guilter sites seem focussed on the 'they're only two pieces of evidence out of many' argument, but in the appeal trial it's the exposure of the prosecution's nature that is just as damning as the neutral expert DNA tests.

What about...

Monica Napoleioni refusing to appear for Curatolo's testimony in a 'real court' ?

The prosecution leaping out of their seats in anger at the prospect of having the 'zero DNA knife' re-examined ? (why are they so worried ?)

Stefanoni refusing to the utmost last minute to hand over the DNA paperwork

Mignini now confiding 'off the record when he knows it won't be' that Amanda probably wasn't in the room. (He might feel a loss in this case drawing near)

Most importantly..

The obvious prosecution guilt and culpability over the DNA tests.

The prosecution and their lawyers have absolutely no doubt their evidence obviously stinks...
 
Last edited:
We all knew that the prosecution's DNA testing would be shown to be cheating and manipulating results anyway, but possibly even more damning in the same week, it was fairly conclusive to finally....

Get Rudy in the same room as Raff and Amanda.

We've seen Rudy coming up with the new shadows tale, Raff's furious about Rudy seeing shadows, while as usual maintaining he's never seen him before, and most importantly, Amanda's being restrained from leaping in her seat (while Rudy's there) to say 'the first time we've all been together in a room is in a courtroom.' You can't help getting the feeling they never were in the house together that night.
That was the prosecution's case.
That the three of them were all there and had a hand in the murder. That's why they're ALL are in jail today....
 
Last edited:
Crimes Against the Kerchers

Crimes against the Kerchers by the police and prosecution:

1. Failure to lock up Rudy Guede for burglary leaving him on the street to kill their daughter.

2. Failure to properly process and investigate the crime scene and murder.

3. Careless disregard in not even collecting the clothing their daughter was wearing when murdered for DNA testing.

4. Disrespect in the way the police handled their daughter's property. Trashing her room and not packing and returning most of her items to her family.

5. Two faced. Kind and caring to their face, but failed where it counts to do their job correctly.

6. Mignini's suggesting to hire a lawyer and recommending money chasing Maresca.

7. Wrongfully convicting Amanda and Raffaele for their daughter's murder in an international show trial.

8. Did not appeal the reduction of Rudy Guede's sentence, giving their daughter's killer a light sentence.

9. Emotional pain and damage that could have been avoided by not convicting innocent people.

10. Anger at either the Police for messing the case up BAD OR at Amanda and Raffaele for getting away with murder - whichever one they chose to believe in the end.
 
Last edited:
I disagree myself. Raffaele and Amanda will hang together if Amanda hangs, and so it costs the Maresca/Kercher team nothing to focus on Amanda's guilt, and so far she's had far more legs as a media fetish than Raffaele. In addition, if one of their major goals is indeed to seize Raffaele's assets then villifying Amanda instead gives them plausible deniability.

If I'm smart enough to figure that out I'm sure Maresca is too.


I have had exactly the same thought myself. Although I tend towards the opinion that Maresca truly believes Knox and Sollecito to be guilty and - like many of the pro-guilt crowd - thinks therefore that anything he can do to harm Knox/Sollecito is of "benefit" to the victim.
 
One thing Massei relies on in the staging of the break in argument is that there was proof that Amanda and Raffaele were there and Amanda had the keys to let Rudy in. The primary proof would be Curatolo watching them watch the cottage and the bra clasp and knife blade DNA. These three things no longer being reliable also damages the argument about the staged break in. It is a house of cards and things are starting to collapse.


Very true. The other thing to bear in mind is that if this DNA report gets accepted in its entirety by the court (and there's no reason to believe it won't, in my opinion), then it automatically casts some doubt on all the rest of the forensic evidence. After all, if the collection and handling techniques were so terribly poor in the case of the knife and the bra clasp, that lends weight to the argument that the collection of evidence from the sink, bidet and flooring was equally bad - it was done by the same people under the same circumstances.

This is the DSK Rape File paralegal's argument about the "lost hair incompetence" writ large.
 
It also suggests that Washington State has a real dearth of quality debaters :D

It was 1973, they were all on drugs. :p

Actually I think that might be exaggerated if I remember correctly. It was just the high school debating champion, maybe she won something at state or something.
 
Crimes against the Kerchers by the police and prosecution:

1. Failure to lock up Rudy Guede for burglary leaving him on the street to kill their daughter.

2. Failure to properly process and investigate the crime scene and murder.

3. Careless disregard in not even collecting the clothing their daughter was wearing when murdered for DNA testing.

4. Disrespect in the way the police handled their daughter's property. Trashing her room and not packing and returning most of her items to her family.

5. Two faced. Kind and caring to their face, but failed where it counts to do their job correctly.

6. Mignini's suggesting to hire a lawyer and recommending money chasing Maresca.

7. Wrongfully convicting Amanda and Raffaele for their daughter's murder in an international show trial.

8. Did not appeal the reduction of Rudy Guede's sentence, giving their daughter's killer a light sentence.

9. Emotional pain and damage that could have been avoided by not convicting innocent people.

10. Anger at either the Police for messing the case up BAD OR at Amanda and Raffaele for getting away with murder - whichever one they chose to believe in the end.


Strange as it might sound, I still get a small bit choked up if I think about two things: the police roughly jamming Meredith's belongings into her suitcase; and the fact that Meredith's family never received the presents she had bought for them (or most of her belongings, for that matter).

Those two things are, to me, a real insult to the victim and her family. And I think that if I were Mr Kercher (although of course it's impossible to know how one would truly react in such horrific circumstances), I'd want to know exactly how and why things happened like that.
 
It was 1973, they were all on drugs. :p

Actually I think that might be exaggerated if I remember correctly. It was just the high school debating champion, maybe she won something at state or something.


Maybe it was the "Family Trust Fund Debate Champion" award :)
 
Strange as it might sound, I still get a small bit choked up if I think about two things: the police roughly jamming Meredith's belongings into her suitcase; and the fact that Meredith's family never received the presents she had bought for them (or most of her belongings, for that matter).

Those two things are, to me, a real insult to the victim and her family. And I think that if I were Mr Kercher (although of course it's impossible to know how one would truly react in such horrific circumstances), I'd want to know exactly how and why things happened like that.


Yes, I agree and me also - it's a tear jerker. Especially combined with John Kercher's statements that they would have cherished those items always. His belief that they were destroyed in "DNA testing" when we know that wasn't true at all makes me angry. The police truly disrespected Meredith and the whole Kercher family.

A very powerful Youtube video was created combining John's words and the actual footage of what they did to her belongings. It was emotionally haunting. In the end it was decided that it could not be released because it could be seen as purposefully trying to hurt the Kercher family. If John Kercher wants to believe her items were destoyed in testing; well it is probably better for him to continue to think that.

One image that stays with me is one of the 'dumb and dumbers' dumping everything from on top of her desk into the laundry hamper the blue jacket had been pulled out of. Then when it was full he carried it into the hall. Why? What was the purpose of doing this? It was ridiculous. And we know the Kerchers never got those items.

And on the floor by the bed a calandar is seen. Probably the one Meredith had bought for her mother. Well, it wasn't on the floor before the Flying Incompetents Squad tossed the room.
 
Last edited:
Strange as it might sound, I still get a small bit choked up if I think about two things: the police roughly jamming Meredith's belongings into her suitcase; and the fact that Meredith's family never received the presents she had bought for them (or most of her belongings, for that matter).

Those two things are, to me, a real insult to the victim and her family. And I think that if I were Mr Kercher (although of course it's impossible to know how one would truly react in such horrific circumstances), I'd want to know exactly how and why things happened like that.

I still think the most egregious offense was turning the death into some orgy/sex game/satanic ritual/etc. Where do I recall reading the initial thought was that it was a willing sacrifice, to go with the whole 'day of the dead' theme?

They didn't have to broadcast the rather bohemian lifestyle of college students abroad either. There's a thing known as discretion in the face of tragedy. :(
 
Can anyone give me a translation of this?

G: Lei e d'accordo... lei e d'accordo chela dichiarazione e pura fantasia?
1: E' d'accordo chela sua dichiarazione era fantasia, fiction, era...?
M: Meta e meta. Perche lei scambia, cerca di scambiare...
1: Per meta sieper meta no.
G: Sappiamo che Lumumba non era li.
1: Ma sappiamo che Lumumba non era li. M: Ma c'era Rudy. C'era sempre un nero. G: Come possiamo fidarci del resto?
M: C'era sempre un nero.
1: Ma c'era un nero.
G: Come possiamo saperlo? Come facciamo a sapere quando fa la dichiarazione?
1: Come lo facciamo a sapere quando lei fa... fa Ia dichiarazione?
M: Lei lo sappiamo perche lei... sappiamo cbe c'era Rudy, non c'era Lumumba, allora lei... e sappiamo cbe Ioro stavano insieme, percbe s'erano visti, sappiamo... da tutta... da tutte le risultanze sappiamo questo, quindi evidentemente lei quando e stata... s'e trovata in difficolta di fronte aile domande della polizia, che dicevano: "Ma come? Sollecito t'ha sconfessato, tu che ci dici?" Ecco perche [...] e allora lei... Rudy era scappato, non sapeva cbe cosa... ha cercato di coprirlo in un primo tempo e visto che c'era quella chiamata di ... di ... di ... di Lumumba, ha attribuito a Lumumba la veste che invece era quella di Rudy, erano due uomini [...]
1: Ha fatto lo scambio?
M: Ha fatto lo scambio. E' stata abilissima.
1: Ha fatto lo scambio: Rudy e Lumumba.
G: Dottor Mignini, lei e d'accordo che una parte di cio e pura invenzione. Chi ci dice che anche il resto non lo sia?
1: Se parte della dichiarazione e falsa, come facciamo a sapere che anche tutto il
resto...?
M: Perche ci sono delle parti che sono confermate. Quando lei parla... quando lei
dice della telefonata alla madre, quella telefonata risulta dal colloquia che fa con la madre, che viene intercettato. Ne parla anche, credo con, mi pare, anche con Filomena e poi la telefonata risulta.
I: Parla di quella telefonata con la madre.
M: Cioe, none cbe uno, scusi, none che uno puo mentire.. . cioe, deve cercare anche di inserire degli elementi di verita, anche qualcosa di vero nel racconto, senno... nel racconto che uno fa per difendersi cerca di inserire degli elementi... dovra... deve tener canto anche di elementi che esistono, che ci sono, cioe non e tutto inventato, non e tutto una menzogna quello che si dice, va... va... va analizzato e va riscontrato e quello che lei dice sui fatto di Lumumba si... si interscambia benissimo con Rudy: lei, in quel momento, doveva coprire Rudy, perche Rudy era scappato, non sapeva se li avrebbe accusati, se avrebbe mantenuto il silenzio, se sarebbe state.. . se lui non veniva rintracciato, era fatta... era fatta. Invece Rudy e stato rintracciato [...]
avevano il materiale genetico, avevano il DNA. E quindi lei ha dovuto... c'era quella telefonata, quel messaggio di Lumumba, che diceva... che lei gli risponde "ci vediamo dopo", la polizia dice: "Come? Che significa 'ci vediamo dopo'?" E allora, eh, per forza! Cioe...
 
Last edited:
TJMK has a fan in Mignini

This one is interesting as well.



M: Io le dico una cosa, le dico una cosa: c'e un giomale che non so see inglese o americana, c'e un certo [...] ')ustice for Meredith Kercher"... noun giomale, un sito, non so se lo consoce.

M: [...]non so chi e, non lo conosco. C'e un articolo in cui chi scrive dimostra di aver capito tutto. E' l'unico, eh? Ha capito tutto
 
Quick pop quiz for "Hypocrite of the week". Who said this, and about which forum?

I understand what you mean Stint. I just do not agree. They have created a truly toxic environment in which it is extremely unlikely that anything can be learned or shared. I do not know what they think they are doing, nor why they would wish to swim in that water. But I am content to ignore it. It really does not matter to me if any of them have good points to bring up: the truth will out no matter what. I do not have to wade through sewage to find it, and I do not choose to do that. I like to learn: but I will not take my facts with a dose of nastiness when I do not have to. The internet is where I come for leisure and if it is not enjoyable it is nothing at all.

We all know there are nasty little enclaves of poison in various fields: I do not join such groupings in RL and I am certainly not going to spend any of my free time in such company. I hold such people in complete contempt: not because they may deal drugs, or because they live in their mother's basement, or because they are unemployed (as I am myself): but because they have no vestige of respect for other people, and apparently do not have the slightest handle on basic manners. And because they make a virtue of such things. If they want to get their self esteem from their very brave decision to insult people they have never met, let them. Why should you or I or anyone care? Why should we wish to expose them? It is obvious if you read their posts: we do not need to point it out

You really couldn't make it up. Does she never read any of her "home" forum? I think this puts to bed any ideas that this person ever had an objective, rational mind when it comes to this case and its various internet discussion areas.

On a more case-related issue, I wonder if Hellmann will take an of the time between now and July 25th to ask for additional evidence/witnesses in other areas. As I've pointed out before, I think that the DNA review raises serious questions about forensic evidence collection in other areas - particularly footprints and the bathroom sink/bidet. And there's also the computer evidence to consider, plus any additional expert testimony on ToD, and perhaps also recalls for Quintavalle and Capezzali. If Hellmann doesn't make any announcements between now and the 25th, he can always allow new evidence once the DNA report has been discussed - but that would push the argument phase back towards the end of September (at the earliest) with a verdict in late October or (more likely) November.
 
This one is interesting as well.


This one translates to:

M: I'll tell you something, I'll tell you something: there is a journalist....I can't tell whether he's British or American..... there is a certain "Justice for Meredith Kercher"... not a journalist - a website, I do not know if the ???."

M: "I don't know who he is, and I do not know him personally. There is an article in which the writer shows that he understood everything. And he's the only one, eh? He understood everything."


Quite apart from Mignini sounding like he's on the verge of some sort of breakdown, this is a very interesting reference to TJMK. I think Mignini might just know a little more about the owner of TJMK than he's letting on. But it's nice to know that he and Mr Quennell will both go down on the sinking ship holding hands with each other......
 
Last edited:
Not yet and I would appreciate it.


OK - give me an hour or so. I assume this Italian version has come from software that reads pdf files, since there are lots of spelling mistakes which look like they come from incorrect visual recognition.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom