Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[CoulsdonUK]

Kaosium

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.

I have already posted my view and you have already responded. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7336552&postcount=14587

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?

Surely everyone involved should be careful of what they say or write, this is an ongoing judicial process all be it in the midst of a half a dozen books, a couple of made for TV docudramas and a Hollywood movie made before the outcome of the legal process.
I am not an expert on the charge, but Amanda parents repeated the accusation of Amanda’s physical abuse during her interview\interrogation take your pick.

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.

The report has not been presented in court by the appointed experts, this has far more relevance to me than media leaks; as I mentioned to Halides1 the other day were the media correct about everything that was written about Amanda?

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 believe 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 disagree basically what Maresca objected to was the court appointed experts doing the defence teams job, again the defence would have made more impact on the jury if they had submitted a formal request to open the knife(they were confident of the result), rather than the legal backdoor Maresca slammed shut by his objection.
The defence team fumbled the ball on this particular issue.

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?

What do you believe Maresca legal brief is exactly? Do believe he would better serve his clients by attacking the prosecution’s case?

 

[Kaosium]

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.

He most definitely brings the Kerchers into it, which is another way he is not serving their interests, but his--and Mignini's.

Of all the lawyers in Italy, so close to Rome itself, it's Maresca the Jackal trying to shut up Amanda's parents and even possibly put them in jail.

 

[platonov]

<snip>

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.

<snip>

Coulsdon

I have to politely disagree with you here.

Apparently the actual report (in Italian) is available.

So (see my post above) lets see the translation & analysis while we wait for Stefanoni & co to argue it in court.

It has to be better than the attacks on the father of the murder victim, no ?

YMMV

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Coulsdon

I have to politely disagree with you here.

Apparently the actual report (in Italian) is available.

So (see my post above) lets see the translation & analysis while we wait for Stefanoni & co to argue it in court.

It has to be better than the attacks on the father of the murder victim, no ?

YMMV

Platonov

Leaking the report is one thing, reading editorialised opinions in the media strikes me as pointless until the context of its presentation and I assume the response of Dr Stefanoni’s has taken place in the court. In addition, does this report supersede previous expert testimony?

I am at a complete loss why Mr Kercher should be attacked, he is doing no more certainly less than Raffaele and Amanda's family.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

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.

Thank you for the links.

 

[platonov]

Platonov

Leaking the report is one thing, reading editorialised opinions in the media strikes me as pointless until the context of its presentation and I assume the response of Dr Stefanoni’s has taken place in the court. In addition, does this report supersede previous expert testimony?

I am at a complete loss why Mr Kercher should be attacked, he is doing no more certainly less than Raffaele and Amanda's family.

2nd things first. You know my opinion (see my earlier response to Rolfe) on the attacks on everyone, including the victim herself - you should see the rape fantasy London John posted on, IIRC, the anniversary of her death - associated with this case.

I think you give this vicious nonsense credibility by responding to it at length and implying a certain equality with MK's family's statements which does not exist but again YMMV. Feel free to tell me to get lost but .......


On the DNA issue - I think you have missed my point. Forget the press reports, lets see the translations and arguments.
Most of what has been posted here so far is simplistic nonsense AFAICS.
Obviously it doesn't supercede everything - it has to be argued in court.

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium


I have already posted my view and you have already responded. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7336552&postcount=14587

I know, and I still think you're wrong.

Here's a song for you though, it is still the Third here, though it's a different day there. Click on it, you might be surprised.

Surely everyone involved should be careful of what they say or write, this is an ongoing judicial process all be it in the midst of a half a dozen books, a couple of made for TV docudramas and a Hollywood movie made before the outcome of the legal process.
I am not an expert on the charge, but Amanda parents repeated the accusation of Amanda’s physical abuse during her interview\interrogation take your pick.

I don't think parents should be potentially jailed and fined for anything resembling what is in that article. I find the idea that anyone might think so rather frightening actually.

The report has not been presented in court by the appointed experts, this has far more relevance to me than media leaks; as I mentioned to Halides1 the other day were the media correct about everything that was written about Amanda?

This is science, you can evaluate it yourself. In fact you can come to a much better understanding of it than the media can! Here's a link that might help. It also might drive you insane, so proceed at your own risk!

I disagree basically what Maresca objected to was the court appointed experts doing the defence teams job, again the defence would have made more impact on the jury if they had submitted a formal request to open the knife(they were confident of the result), rather than the legal backdoor Maresca slammed shut by his objection.
The defence team fumbled the ball on this particular issue.

One more time.

These weren't defense experts. The defense didn't want the knife opened up. They were independent experts appointed by the court, notably Hellmann. Independent experts are independent--they don't just do what the defense wants. In a normal case the defense would have objected strenuously to a search for new evidence like that, for obvious reasons. It just so happens everybody cogent already knew that knife wasn't involved in the murder, and Maresca revealed that when he objected to looking for blood in the handle. There was almost no risk to doing so, and a huge 'reward' if that knife had been used in the murder, but it was so impossible the opposite of what should have occurred happened: the defense didn't object because they knew no blood could be found, Maresca objected because he also knew there was no blood to be found in that knife handle.

That's what I'm getting at, Coulsdon. You keep saying the defense wanted that knife opened--they didn't. Merely repeating it doesn't make it true!

What do you believe Maresca legal brief is exactly? Do believe he would better serve his clients by attacking the prosecution’s case?

To represent his clients. If the prosecution has brought an absurd case against innocents he shouldn't be dragging them into it or deceiving them about it so he can work to save his hugging buddy's humongous hide.

 

[Kaosium]

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

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

Why don't you give me a list of your sources so I can be as 'well informed' as you? Call it noblesse oblige to a poor benighted innocentisti.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

why hinder the independent experts

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.



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!

CoulsdonUK,

The request to open the knife came from the independent experts. What the defense did or did not do is not relevant, IMO. The report has already been given to the court. I am given to understand that you prefer to wait until it is discussed in late July. I will look forward to your comments, though I do not look forward to further remarks about fine tooth combs.

 

[RoseMontague]

Been away most of the day and see everybody is on other subjects. Anyway, the Graham-Mignini interview (43 pages) has been posted on my docstoc page. If anyone is interested.

http://www.docstoc.com/profile/rosemontague

 

[tsig]

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?

What evidence do you have they consider them guilty?

You're the one that made the statement.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>The DNA of Guede found on the vagina swab was tested by Stefanoni. How can we trust any of her work. If she was incompetent and shady in regards to the knife, bra clasp and luminol prints wouldn't she have done the same poor quality work on the vaginal swab?

The palm print, admitted shoe prints and admitted presense will probably hold his conviction in place, I hope.

Are we sure Stefanoni was present when the bedroom evidence against Rudy was tested? That might have to be the case for Rudy's lawyers to request an appeal.

The lab had a specific agenda when determining the results of the forensic evidence collected in the bedroom. The new, independent test results suggest they had a different agenda when "evaluating" the results from the knife and the bra clasp. It's possible the lab personnel differed depending on the task being performed, i.e., Stefanoni was "honored" with the more "difficult" tasks.

 

[Mary_H]

Yet if the Sollecito/Knox families say anything, they get charged with slander!!!!!!

Have the Kerchers said anything slanderous?

Have the Sollecito/Knox families?

 

[Fine]

RoseMontague,

The dream business sounds as if the witness (florist?) was being coaxed into saying something then retracting it. Was he asked to imagine something? This case just gets stranger and stranger.

____________

Halides,

No. The florist's story of seeing Cosima and Sabrina throw little Sarah into their car---and there strangle her--- did not emerge under police interrogation. But the cops themselves want to know when ---and how--it emerged. To that end, they flew to Germany to interview the florist's former employee, Vanessa Cerra, who'd also been told the story by the florist. (See: Repubblica)

The Meredith Kercher case and the Sarah Scazzi case both seem to attract witnesses with unresolved mental issues.

///

 

[katy_did]

Platonov

Leaking the report is one thing, reading editorialised opinions in the media strikes me as pointless until the context of its presentation and I assume the response of Dr Stefanoni’s has taken place in the court. In addition, does this report supersede previous expert testimony?

I don't think you can describe the report as "leaked", Coulsdon - IIUC, it's public once it's submitted, so anyone can get access to it.

In terms of whether it will supersede previous expert testimony, I think it will. When the defence asked for an independent review, one of the reasons they gave was that prosecution and defence were so polarized on these issues that the court needed to hear an objective outside opinion on the evidence to make a decision on it. This is that objective opinion, and (having just finished reading it!) it's devastating to the prosecution case. Not only knife and bra clasp either; I can't imagine how the court can take the 'mixed DNA' evidence in the bathroom (for example) seriously after reading the report.

 

[RandyN]

Yes, there likely will be an appeal.



I remember that too. It would be quite incredible if Rudy were telling the truth too and the murderer really is an unknown, neither of the three accused. I don't think it's very likely but an intriguing thought none the less.

This probably belongs over on the CT thread but...There was always something to be made about certain facts in this case that are just a little too suspicious. The bomb threat and police visit to the very house MK phones were found the very next day. Remember the caller said the toilet was going to blow up...the police came and checked out the yard and garden...??????

The dark old car in the cottage driveway seen by the tow truck driver and the broken down people.

4 or 5 bloody tissues found near the cottage.

Cats blood (maybe???) on the downstairs light switch. No ear bleeding cat did that.

I suppose these are things unrelated to this crime yet the phone thing seems to strange to somehow be unrelated. Not that I can think of a reasoning or even theory. Unless a cop was involved perhaps. A cop who drives a dark old car???

 

[Mary_H]

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.<snip>

To add just a little to the points Kaosium has already successfully established: Meredith's family and Amanda and Raffaele's families have completely different missions. The missions of Amanda and Raffaele's families do not involve Meredith; they involve injustices of the Italian law enforcement and judicial systems. Meredith is not to be forgotten, but the reality is, her death is a separate issue.

Ideally, the identities of Meredith's killer(s) should be a separate issue from the Kerchers' mission, too. Obviously, it is usually too tall an order to ask most families to disengage from the personal feelings they have toward those they believe harmed their family member. Ideally, though, the Kerchers should be relying on Italian law enforcement and the Italian justice system to take care of business for them in terms of crime and punishment, not getting some additional help for their case from the newspapers. Likewise, ILE should not have used the media to try its case before it got to court.

The defendants' families may rely on newspapers and other media to achieve their mission because they are not speaking out against anyone who is awaiting trial in the court system. Their criticism of the police and the prosecution is an entirely different phenomenon from the police and prosecution's criticism of the defendants; it is not tit for tat.

The problem with Maresca is that, as a plaintiff's attorney, he should not even be in the picture until after the defendants are finally and fully convicted. Only then does he have the grounds to sue specific persons for damages. Counting on a conviction for the defendants he intends to sue leads him and his clients to pursue a specific outcome (conviction), when they should be pursuing blind justice.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Since there are a few people that still believe in guilt here (i.e. believe that there is no reasonable doubt) can I ask them, they know who they are, what would convince you that there was reasonable doubt in this case? What would it take to falsify your current position?

 

[RandyN]

I posted something about this a couple of days ago. I think it's entirely possible that some of the DNA evidence against Guede may not be reliable. But my view was then (and is now) that there is other non-DNA evidence that in my opinion would convict him in and of itself. The two main pieces that I'm thinking of are a) Guede's hand print in Meredith's blood on her pillowcase in her room (which would require a serious conspiracy/incompetence to be unreliable evidence); and b) Guede's behaviour immediately after the murder (going clubbing without seemingly a care in the world, and fleeing to Germany within two days).

So I think that Guede will have trouble seeking leave to appeal his conviction - I think that judges would look at the other evidence and decide that his conviction is safe whether or not certain other aspects of the forensic evidence in this case are suspect.

Also remember there are two types of DNA testing being done. I think Stefanoni is running into the scientific wall on PCR testing and especially on Low copy number testing.

Guede also had his friend working against him in the early days while he was in Germany. It was Guede's friend who tipped off the police that RG may be involved in the murder. The police often get credit for at least figuring out it was Rudy in the end but that's untrue. It was Rudys friend who went to police first.

Rolfe asked about TOD evidence but the judge has not allowed that to be examined yet. I don’t think he thinks its all that important. It was a last minute change against most experts in the first trial...Mignini needed to change TOD to 11:30 so as to fit Toto's testimony were he saw the two from 9 -11:30 in the plaza. Actually Toto said 9 - Midnight six or so times but the prosecutor finally in about the seventh try got him to say 9 - 11 or so. That’s why he changed the TOD to 11:30. And for some strange and unexplained reason Massei in his reasoning changed the TOD to even later @ 11:40 or 11:45PM.

On a day off perhaps at the beach you should print out massei and read it. You will be entertained by its outrageous leaps and theory. Massei even asks in several places...imagine???Huh? Or he says one could say in theory??? Huh? yes these things are all included in this most ludicrous legal document.

 

[ForTruth]

Since there are a few people that still believe in guilt here (i.e. believe that there is no reasonable doubt) can I ask them, they know who they are, what would convince you that there was reasonable doubt in this case? What would it take to falsify your current position?

As I think about it more. I don't think the DNA report is more likely to change the mind of the die-hard pro-guilt mindset. I do think they recognize the seriousness of the report. I think they acknowledge that this is very likely going to result in acquittal, and since what is believed by the authorities or what happens in court is all they really ever acknowledge as the properly weighed truth, they are in a bit of a conflict and have to call it a technicality, thus exposing their first criticism of the Italian legal process.

Even if the report had confirmed Meredith's DNA from the initial reading, and confirmed the bra clasp DNA to be certainly Raffaele's, I wouldn't have wavered from support of innocence. These all along for me have been meaningless statistical outliers. The evidence against the guy who did it in the murder room isn't scant, even without his DNA evidence.

The murder room related DNA evidence against Knox and Sollecito was never strong enough to be convincing even if it were read legitimately. Contamination/transference (purposeful or not) was an easy explanation for it at the low quantities. All the rest of the DNA evidence doesn't prove anything other than Amanda lived in that house.

If they pro-guilt crowd couldn't see that before, then discrediting the murder-room related DNA readings won't change their mind... should we be surprised?

I think the only thing that might change some minds is if a video came out of the interrogation. That is where this investigation first crossed the line with the misinterpretation of the text message - the first big mistake that for them justified forcing the false witness statement.