Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[CoulsdonUK]

My point is that Maresca is actively working to punish and silence Amanda and her family--and anyone else--from telling their side of the story. That's not what one would expect, and in fact it is harmful to the truth, justice--and his client.

Amanda’s family have appeared in media in one form or another all over the world, I have read and seen more of their position, in comparison the Kercher’s have remained under the media radar in the same time frame. You assign far too much power to Maresca, he is an attorney he represents his clients interests, just as the defence teams attorneys represent theirs. As I have already indicated I doubt that this case is going anywhere, it will be adjourned until later in the year in my opinion.

Let's go back a minute to the opening up of the knife, and Maresca jumping up to object. Especially now that the independent experts have weighed in. The DNA found on the blade of that knife was the only indication it might have been used in the murder. Everything else about it suggested it spent the whole night in the drawer. Opening it up could only really benefit the prosecution, being as if blood was found there attributable to Meredith then that changed everything.

Not finding blood was only of marginal significance. The defense never requested it for that basic reason, the last thing they wanted was the prosecution being able to search for new evidence. There was virtually no downside for the prosecution in that request of the independent experts, and a great deal they could possibly gain, either in that case or anything else that would allow a search for new evidence.

I prefer to discuss the court appointed experts report after it was been presented to the appeal court rather than its leak to the media.

Thus Maresca jumping up to object was very telling in my mind, he knew as well as everyone here that knife had nothing to do with the murder. That knife is the only thing that could have possible suggested Amanda was in the murder room. The reason I condemn Maresca is it appears to be becoming obvious he is and was more interested in Mignini's interests than he is those of his client.

I believe Maresca objection was valid given both defence teams failed miserably to request that the knife should be opened in their appeal submissions, that in my opinion is indeed a downside, if they had no objections or concerns why not request it!

No good can come of the drastic measures he's involved with in attempting to preserve Mignini's conviction, and Maresca will in the future be working with PM Mignini and may never again serve the Kerchers or for that matter any British clients.

I may well be accused of being snide again. However, it was the judges and jury in the first level trial that found Raffaele and Amanda guilty and sentenced them subject to the appeal process (or remand, if you prefer) they are currently going through, not Maresca or Mignini. You know the defence teams aren’t above criticism (my previous paragraph refers).

 

[Kaosium]

I'm not a mindreader, so I don't know. There may be many reasons. Here's one off the top of my head.

He doesn't expect there to be blood found. He may or may not believe the knife was involved. He does believe they are guilty. He believes that opening the knife and finding nothing will reduce the likelihood of Raffaele and Amanda being convicted. Since the conviction of the people who killed Meredith is higher on the list of priorities of the people he represents than finding out whether there is blood in the knife, he takes the actions he does.

That's irrational. If blood is not found, it does not invalidate the DNA which was the only reason to begin with that it was considered the murder knife. Not finding blood there is no better than the 10 or so other peripheral indications it was not used in the murder. If blood is found, (attributable to Meredith) it makes a shaky piece of evidence solid as concrete.

I'm not a mindreader either, I'm reading the situation. You have suggested before that you believe Amanda is lying about her involvement in the murder, how can you say that if you believe it takes psychic powers?

 

[shuttlt]

The Times link to the article that got the Knox's charged that Maresca is the lawyer against them in court.

I've read it.

Do you not think there is a difference between defending a person presumed innocent and condemning them?

I don't understand your question. Clearly literally there is. But you can't say what ever you want in either case.

Has the defense taken any actions outside attempting to defend their own, and nothing offensive against the one trying to take a meaningful life away from their children?

You seem to be talking about the family and the defense without a clear distinction here. All sorts of pro-innocence stuff has been said, leaked, and so forth. Are you saying that nobody on the innocence camp in any way connected to the family has said or done anything to attack Mignini in any way? Or do you mean to restrict this purely to a question of whether or not the defense have started legal proceedings against anyone?

 

[Justinian2]

I hold both the US government and the government of Italy guilty for letting the courts get way out of control.

We should send a Navy Seal team over there to administer real justice.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I hold both the US government and the government of Italy guilty for letting the courts get way out of control.

We should send a Navy Seal team over there to administer real justice.

I take it the above is an attempt at humour, isn’t it?

 

[Chris C]

Well, firstly if you think person A is a liar, discovering that person B is a liar doesn't necessarily change your judgment about person A. Secondly, the prosecution isn't lying about their involvement in his daughters murder. Presumably this difference would be significant from Mr Kerchers perspective. Thirdly, he may not believe that the prosecution are liars. Finally, saying how people should feel is silly. It is clearly and objectively the case that people feel Knox is a liar based on her statements, actions, manner and so on. Saying that people shouldn't feel that is beside the point, the fact is that they do.

What has person A lied about that makes one believe they murdered someone. What has person B lied about that makes someone believe person A was involved.

Because you can show person A lied about stuff that doesn't pertain to the murder doesn't make them a Murderer.

Where as Person B is lying about facts that make people believe person A is the murderer.

Lastly how many people do you think, believe the prosecution hasn't lied about anything in this case. Do you believe the prosecution hasn't lied?

And to top all that off. Stefanoni straight up perjured herself on the DNA evidence involving Knox/Sollecito.

 

[shuttlt]

That's irrational. If blood is not found, it does not invalidate the DNA which was the only reason to begin with that it was considered the murder knife. Not finding blood there is no better than the 10 or so other peripheral indications it was not used in the murder. If blood is found, (attributable to Meredith) it makes a shaky piece of evidence solid as concrete.

But if they don't expect blood to be found, why do it? Also, that's your judgment of the impact. Perhaps it's not shared by the lawyers?

I'm not a mindreader either, I'm reading the situation. You have suggested before that you believe Amanda is lying about her involvement in the murder, how can you say that if you believe it takes psychic powers?

I could be wrong. This is the impression I get from her. What I do with that impression though is that I look about me, and acknowledge that some other people have a different impression. I find that interesting. I'm not emotionally invested in my impression of Amanda. I do think though that it would be a denial of reality to deny that there are these two different ways of seeing her.

 

[Kaosium]

Amanda’s family have appeared in media in one form or another all over the world, I have read and seen more of their position, in comparison the Kercher’s have remained under the media radar in the same time frame.

Are you suggesting that parents aren't allowed to defend their children if someone else isn't condemning them without due process? I'd say the former is by its very nature commendable, the latter dubious. They are not equivalent in any way whatsoever.

You assign far too much power to Maresca, he is an attorney he represents his clients interests, just as the defence teams attorneys represent theirs. As I have already indicated I doubt that this case is going anywhere, it will be adjourned until later in the year in my opinion.

It has cost them money and time, as well as projected a suggestion they must be very careful what they speak of. What did you find in that article that I re-linked that you thought actionable?

I prefer to discuss the court appointed experts report after it was been presented to the appeal court rather than its leak to the media.

It has already been presented to the court, you can see the official seal on Frank's page. It was leaked months ago, now you can read the whole thing--if you read Italian. In a little while there may be an English translation, Komponisto has said he's considering one.

I believe Maresca objection was valid given both defence teams failed miserably to request that the knife should be opened in their appeal submissions, that in my opinion is indeed a downside, if they had no objections or concerns why not request it!

Coulsdon, that is of no relevance whatsoever. I don't know why you keep saying it as though it means something.

The defense didn't want the knife opened up, they just didn't object. It wasn't the defense asking, it was the independent experts!

Opening that knife was to the benefit of the prosecution. That is, if anyone in that courtroom actually believed the knife was used in the murder. With the results of the independent report issued, that knife no longer has anything whatsoever connecting it to the murder. Had the experts found Meredith's blood there, it would have made it a murder weapon absolutely. Had they not found blood it wouldn't have mattered in the slightest.

I may well be accused of being snide again. However, it was the judges and jury in the first level trial that found Raffaele and Amanda guilty and sentenced them subject to the appeal process (or remand, if you prefer) they are currently going through, not Maresca or Mignini. You know the defence teams aren’t above criticism (my previous paragraph refers).

I know the defense is not above criticism (just not why you did above) as a matter of fact innocentisti have regularly been admonished for not worshiping them with the proper reverence.

I'm just curious about this, there's a number of indications Maresca has sold out body and soul to the prosecution, is that necessarily in the interests of his client if it turns out Amanda and Raffaele are innocent?

 

[shuttlt]

Chris,

What has person A lied about that makes one believe they murdered someone. What has person B lied about that makes someone believe person A was involved.

If person A's manner makes them come across as a liar, whether person B is truthful doesn't matter.

Because you can show person A lied about stuff that doesn't pertain to the murder doesn't make them a Murderer.

Whether it pertains to the murder is something that we could doubtless discuss until we are all very bored. My view is that if you believe somebody said that they were present during a murder and witnessed a bunch of stuff, much of which turns out to be nonsense, and then kind of denies it (again, we're talking about how somebody might view it, I don't intend to argue that she knew what she was signing or was too tired or any of that crap), then that pertains to the murder to some degree. Anyway, it doesn't matter what we think. It is clearly the case that many people feel her "lies" relate to the murder.

Where as Person B is lying about facts that make people believe person A is the murderer.

As I said, if you don't believe Person B is lying.....

Lastly how many people do you think, believe the prosecution hasn't lied about anything in this case. Do you believe the prosecution hasn't lied?

I can no longer recall everything about the case well enough to answer your question about whether I think they lied. Doubtless they have asserted things that aren't the case. This is a bottomless topic of discussion that has no importance to what we are talking about. Turning this around to focusing on whether the prosecution have always been truthful isn't the issue. It's clearly the case that the impression people have gotten from Knox is that she is a liar. People's impression of the prosecutor is something else again. As to how many people think what, I have no idea, I'm not sure this and other Knox forums are a good place to get a perspective, and I'm not sure that straw poles are necessarily helpful in getting to the bottom of an emotive issue like this.

 

[Kaosium]

I've read it.

What in there do you find objectionable?

I don't understand your question. Clearly literally there is. But you can't say what ever you want in either case.

Do you not find a moral and ethical difference between speaking out for someone accused and condemning them without due process?

You seem to be talking about the family and the defense without a clear distinction here. All sorts of pro-innocence stuff has been said, leaked, and so forth. Are you saying that nobody on the innocence camp in any way connected to the family has said or done anything to attack Mignini in any way? Or do you mean to restrict this purely to a question of whether or not the defense have started legal proceedings against anyone?

Let's just talk about the family then. How is Maresca representing those trying to punish the Knox's for speaking out in defense of their daughter in the interests of the Kerchers?

 

[shuttlt]

What in there do you find objectionable?

I didn't think I had objected to it, though I'm sure I could find something to claim about. They repeat Amanda's claim about here being hit, that's the only noteworthy thing isn't it?

Do you not find a moral and ethical difference between speaking out for someone accused and condemning them without due process?

Well, "speaking out for someone accused" and "speaking out against someone accused" seems more balanced. I'm still not quite clear what you're trying to do. Right now I don't think I could do an abstract comparison of the moral and ethical differences in a couple of sentences.

Let's just talk about the family then. How is Maresca representing those trying to punish the Knox's for speaking out in defense of their daughter in the interests of the Kerchers?

Are we not talking about the knife anymore? I must admit I'm less familiar with the libel stuff. Is Maresca representing the Kercher family in the libel case?

 

[Kaosium]

But if they don't expect blood to be found, why do it?

No risk, high 'reward.' Why object? There's not too many reasons to object, and it would seem the best is that they hoped the DNA work would not be condemned as harshly and that knife which they knew wasn't the murder weapon might still be considered one and they didn't want another reason to the litany of why it couldn't have been....

Now there's no reason for them to have objected, a poor play--but a telling one on Maresca's part.

Also, that's your judgment of the impact. Perhaps it's not shared by the lawyers?

What's your judgment? This one seems pretty simply to me.

I could be wrong. This is the impression I get from her. What I do with that impression though is that I look about me, and acknowledge that some other people have a different impression. I find that interesting. I'm not emotionally invested in my impression of Amanda. I do think though that it would be a denial of reality to deny that there are these two different ways of seeing her.

I think there's the one colored by the tabloids and an entirely different one. I didn't endure the first one but for a few days reading through PMF and other sites, so it was easily dispelled when I boiled down the lies and realized there wasn't anything to it. I do think a vestige of that gross misrepresentation lingers amongst some though.

I endure American political campaigns, you don't.

Thus I'm used to rolling my eyes and dismissing smear tactics. Although when they first became preeminent I was swayed some until I realized what was going on. There's a whole 'playbook' in US politics designed to 'raise negatives'--because it works with some people. Hopefully less with rationals than with others, but who knows for sure.

 

[platonov]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

What I meant to say was, somebody please save me from looking this up, but are they only talking about Raffaele's Y-chromosome haplotype being possibly on that bra catch?

How many distinct y-chromosome haplotypes are there anyway? Is this any better than saying there was type A-positive blood at the scene and the suspect is A-positive?

Rolfe.

Rolfe,

This is only an interim answer, but it seems to me that there are two contributors to the DNA in the present analysis of the Y chromosome. One of them could be Raffaele, and one is an unidentified individual. One problem with YSTR DNA profiling is that one cannot calculate a random match probability the way one does for autosomal DNA profiling. It is not as discriminating, in other words. I will let you know as I learn more.

Are you sure you haven't missed something here ?

Re autosomic STRs vs Y Chromosome profiles perhaps.

Given that you supposedly predicted this outcome it should be easy to explain to Rolfe (and others) in some detail, no ?

I would attempt it but not alone do we not have the full translation of the 'expert report' or the original evidence it also appears that even my simple Q's are too complex or incomprehensible apparently.

So why not explain it to the rest of of the thread viewers.

While we wait for the experts to argue to the matter in court.

Take your time if necessary - but try to make more explanatory than 'possible contamination', protocols or 'stutters'.

The board is yours - I, for one, am all ears.

ps The attacks on Kercher Snr are all very interesting and important to some no doubt, but given that this particular DNA issue will set AK & RS free [as there is no other evidence apparently] a fuller understanding would be helpful.

 

[Kaosium]

I didn't think I had objected to it, though I'm sure I could find something to claim about. They repeat Amanda's claim about here being hit, that's the only noteworthy thing isn't it?

Actually they just say she said that, so they don't even do any accusing on their own behalf.

Well, "speaking out for someone accused" and "speaking out against someone accused" seems more balanced. I'm still not quite clear what you're trying to do. Right now I don't think I could do an abstract comparison of the moral and ethical differences in a couple of sentences.

I think there is a difference between speaking in defense of someone, and condemning them without due process and even seeking to punish those speaking in defense.

Are we not talking about the knife anymore? I must admit I'm less familiar with the libel stuff. Is Maresca representing the Kercher family in the libel case?

He is the lawyer in the case against Amanda and against her parents for what they said in that Times article I re-linked.

 

[shuttlt]

I think there's the one colored by the tabloids and an entirely different one. I didn't endure the first one but for a few days reading through PMF and other sites, so it was easily dispelled when I boiled down the lies and realized there wasn't anything to it. I do think a vestige of that gross misrepresentation lingers amongst some though.

Early views on this thread were not wholly driven by tabloid reporting. What is now in the "In their own words" section of PMF is more what it was based on. Amanda's words do not strike everybody as in every way truthful. I don't see why this should be a shocking statement that has to be argued with.

 

[shuttlt]

Actually they just say she said that, so they don't even do any accusing on their own behalf.

That's what I meant when I said that they repeat her claim. I guess I was unclear. It's not important.

I think there is a difference between speaking in defense of someone, and condemning them without due process and even seeking to punish those speaking in defense.

I'm not sure what you are trying to get me to say. Trying to exonerate somebody without due process seems more like an equivalent of condemning them without due process. I don't think I've made any moral evaluations of anybody, so I'm not sure what you're attacking.

He is the lawyer in the case against Amanda and against her parents for what they said in that Times article I re-linked.

I Googled to refresh my memory. He isn't representing the Kerchers in that case, is he?

 

[Kaosium]

I'm not sure what you are trying to get me to say. Trying to exonerate somebody without due process seems more like an equivalent of condemning them without due process. I don't think I've made any moral evaluations of anybody, so I'm not sure what you're attacking.

I'm not attempting to elicit anything or attacking, at the most basic level I'm saying there's a difference between speaking in defense of someone and trying to shut them up and at the same time condemn without due process, which is the situation in this instance.

I Googled to refresh my memory. He isn't representing the Kerchers in that case, is he?

The cops brought the charge, Maresca brings the Kerchers into it. Do you think that wise?

 

[komponisto]

I prefer to discuss the court appointed experts report after it was been presented to the appeal court rather than its leak to the media.

It was presented to the appeal court on June 29. Here is a pdf of the entire document. You can see the official stamp on the last page: "CORTE DI APPELLO DI PERUGIA DEPOSITO CANCELLERIA", with Stefano Conti's signature.

Here is a translation of the "Conclusions" section, the last three pages of the report. This is not taken from media; I translated it myself directly from the actual document, which again is linked to above.

The submission to the court has already occurred. The judges now have it available, and so do we. What will occur on July 25 is a hearing at which the parties will discuss it. There is no reason to wait for this to happen in order to be able to discuss the report itself, which again is now publicly available.

 

[shuttlt]

I'm not attempting to elicit anything or attacking, at the most basic level I'm saying there's a difference between speaking in defense of someone and trying to shut them up and at the same time condemn without due process, which is the situation in this instance.

OK

The cops brought the charge, Maresca brings the Kerchers into it. Do you think that wise?

But the Kerchers aren't his clients in this case? It strikes me as odd, I agree, but I don't see that one can interpret his actions in the libel case as being on behalf of the Kerchers. Not in conflict with them, perhaps.

 

[platonov]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

..........

Quote:
Originally Posted by platonov

Why dont you quote the rest of that post of yours so we can see exactly how you 'anticipated' the 'expert report' on the bra clasp and knife

Oh, yes, I use multiple sources for just about everything. Do you remember saying to me as I entered the debate not to use any one site for information about the case? I've often wondered just what sites do you rely on for your information?

Originally Posted by platonov

The distinction between 'word salad' and non sequitur is often a subtle one.

Too subtle for me in this instance.

Is that your way of saying 'I'm busted!'

Seriously, Platonov, hasn't it occurred to you by now that the only source that actually knows anything about the case that still thinks them guilty, is not only fanatical about that belief far past what the evidence could possibly suggest, but invents absurd conspiracy theories trying to 'connect' the vast multitudes of disparate people who disagree?

For example, wouldn't it make more sense that anyone who 'associates' with the FOA are people who think them more or less correct and their cause just?

Isn't that how it actually works for just about every other organization?

No, that was my polite way of saying 'you're busted'

But feel free to have the last (500) word(s).