Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Rolfe]

The Kerchers were betrayed once by the murderer, then betrayed again and again by their lawyer, the prosecutors and the court. Someday they will realize that, and it might not be too difficult for them to transfer their rage from one set of targets to another. However, they will never be financially compensated for the murder, and it is doubtful they will be financially compensated for the professional misconduct that essentially will ruin a large part of their lives, unless they want to hire another lawyer and then settle for a nominal award as Patrick Lumumba did.

I'm not sure they will ever realise that. Getting that sort of belief out of someone's mind is not an easy task, and that's why I said this sort of false belief is so destructive to the healing process.

The question of money just complicates the issue beyond redemption. I gather that the Sollecitos are wealthy, and if Rafaelle is convicted of the murder the Kerchers stand to gain a considerable proportion of that wealth. Conversely, Rude Guede doesn't have a bean, and so if he is the only person convicted, the Kerchers will not become wealthy.

Complicating that even further, I gather that Maresca is working on a contingency basis, and that his only chance of being paid his fat fees for the work he's doing is again if Rafaelle is convicted and the Kerchers become wealthy enough to pay him. (Or he gets a proportion of the settlement, I'm not sure which.)

There's no getting away from it, this background inevitably poisons the situation to an unacceptable degree. I'm sure we'll see a string of posts castigating anyone who dares suggest that the Kerchers could possibly be at all motivated by the prospect of becoming very wealthy as a result of their daughter's murder. Well if they don't even think about it at all, they're not human, I'd say. "How dare you suggest such a thing!" is often the reaction of someone who knows very well the suggestion is close to the mark.

To have legal representation in a murder trial where it is to the huge financial benefit of the represented party and their legal team if the accused person is convicted is absolutely monstrous, but that does seem to be what's going on here.

Rolfe.

 

[Antony]

-

BTW, just where exactly was Steffi while Meredith was being murdered? I'm just wondering just how much of Steffi's DNA was in that room...

Now wouldn't THAT be ironic?

(Just kidding Steffi. Hehehe)

Dave

-

Don't forget the white suits. The investigators were wearing them to keep their own DNA from getting into the crime scene - it's hard to see what else they were for.

Given the philosophy "DNA doesn't lie" of the investigation I can understand why this should be their priority.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Don't forget the white suits. The investigators were wearing them to keep their own DNA from getting into the crime scene - it's hard to see what else they were for.

You mean the ones that they forgot to actually do up to make them effective?

 

[Mary_H]

I'm not sure they will ever realise that. Getting that sort of belief out of someone's mind is not an easy task, and that's why I said this sort of false belief is so destructive to the healing process.

The question of money just complicates the issue beyond redemption. I gather that the Sollecitos are wealthy, and if Rafaelle is convicted of the murder the Kerchers stand to gain a considerable proportion of that wealth. Conversely, Rude Guede doesn't have a bean, and so if he is the only person convicted, the Kerchers will not become wealthy.

Complicating that even further, I gather that Maresca is working on a contingency basis, and that his only chance of being paid his fat fees for the work he's doing is again if Rafaelle is convicted and the Kerchers become wealthy enough to pay him. (Or he gets a proportion of the settlement, I'm not sure which.)

There's no getting away from it, this background inevitably poisons the situation to an unacceptable degree. I'm sure we'll see a string of posts castigating anyone who dares suggest that the Kerchers could possibly be at all motivated by the prospect of becoming very wealthy as a result of their daughter's murder. Well if they don't even think about it at all, they're not human, I'd say. "How dare you suggest such a thing!" is often the reaction of someone who knows very well the suggestion is close to the mark.

To have legal representation in a murder trial where it is to the huge financial benefit of the represented party and their legal team if the accused person is convicted is absolutely monstrous, but that does seem to be what's going on here.

Rolfe.

That's why their system is ridiculous -- to have the civil trial run concurrently with the criminal trial ups the stakes enormously for the plaintiff's lawyer, who starts from the word go with the presumption of guilt against the defendants. More's the pity if he's in bed with the prosecutor and/or judge.

I agree, if plaintiffs don't think about their award, they're not human. It's not crude to want financial compensation -- for many people it is extremely healing.

 

[Antony]

I would agree that this is one of the most interesting questions to arise from the whole fiasco. Some commentary by John Hooper in the Observer from Dec. 6, 2009 is worth quoting:

Of all the millions of words written about the marathon trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher, some of the most revealing appeared in a dispatch from Italy's leading news agency, Ansa, on Wednesday.

"Certainly, the decision facing the [judges and jurors] will not be an easy one," wrote Ansa's reporter, Matteo Guidelli, as he looked ahead to the final phase of the trial of Amanda Knox and her Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito.

"Sentencing to life imprisonment two young people, aged 22 and 25, would mean destroying their lives forever," he continued, "but letting them off would mean gainsaying not only the entire investigation, but also the judges who have reached decisions before them."

It hardly needs to be said that the "danger" of contradicting police and prosecutors would not exactly weigh heavily in the deliberations of a British or American jury. But Italy is not Britain or the US.

This isn't unknown in the UK, at least (although the thinking of a judge, not a jury). Have a look at this: "appalling vista".

 

[Rolfe]

I think that was part of the issue with the Camp Zeist verdict as well. And Scotland is much worse than England at eventually correcting such miscarriages of justice.

In that case it wasn't just that the police had been announcing that they'd got their man (or rather men) for nearly ten years, the FBI were in it up to their necks as well and singing the same tune, and an entire country had been suffering under punitive UN sanctions for eight years on the assumption that the accused were guilty.

I could see that it might take some balls to recognise that the entire case was pure wish-fulfillment fantasy, and that all the people who died in Libya for lack of medical supplies and so on during these eight years had suffered under false pretences.

Rolfe.

 

[Antony]

You mean the ones that they forgot to actually do up to make them effective?

I was thinking particularly of the bra-clasp video, where (without viewing it again) I think they were at least done-up completely. But then there's the "mop gift-wrap" sequence and the photo of the guy outside on the balcony.

 

[RoseMontague]

I was thinking particularly of the bra-clasp video, where (without viewing it again) I think they were at least done-up completely. But then there's the "mop gift-wrap" sequence and the photo of the guy outside on the balcony.

It would be nice to see the video sequence that was shown in court. Maybe we should send the JREF divining squad over for a copy?

It was interesting to me to see Massei's counter argument quoted elsewhere as a defense of the collection techniques. The part where Steffi says it is not necessary to change gloves unless you handle something wet. Seriously?

 

[RoseMontague]

It was Maresca who said that Italy was teaching the world and the U.S. how to do forensics, and perhaps the Kerchers genuinely believed him. He owes them (especially) an honest reevaluation. They bear some responsibility for his actions, but they are also victims of his unfair and unfounded assessment.

For me, the point has passed where the Kerchers get the benefit of the doubt on being deceived. Mr. Kercher is a journalist, appears to be an intelligent man, and knows how to research something. Spouting a list that would do The Machine proud demonstrated to me it has gone past being deceived to the point of making a choice to ignore the evidence to the contrary. With the release of the expert report that confirms the truth of the defense claims I would hope that he takes the opportunity to evaluate the evidence again.

 

[komponisto]

True to form

[PMF posters] are also hinting that the FOA/Defense are colluding with the experts. Here is one such example. Fair use:
[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/ZG4pe.png[/qimg]

...and here's how the quoted post from HumanityBlues was characterized:

Just when you thought the FOA could not get any more asinine...

Check this.
One of the less gifted last row peanut gallery ' blue humans' copies and attaches the above whole post including avatar.
Then ridicules as "hilarious" the idea that an idiot from PMF could possibly believe that the FOA interacted with the Knox/Sollecito Defense team. ["WTF" emoticon]

This may even beat stilicho's 20:15 nonsense for today's dishonesty prize.

 

[bolint]

Kausioum wrote:

"How did they clean up the corridor without smearing Rudy's barely visible shoe-prints in blood (remember they were walking over them awhile until they noticed)"

They did not notice it in the hall.


"Why not clean up the bathmat too if you think that print is Raffaele's?"

I don't think it's Raffaele's. No way they would have left it there if it had been his.
Specifically Amanda placed the bathmat there after the "bathmat boogie".

"If you think it's Rudy's, why did Amanda lead the cops straight to it"

She couldn't say that she had not seen it.
At that time she must have been quite nervous because of the sudden appearence of the two policemen.

"as well as the mess in the toilet"
If you mean Rudy's deposit, she did not show it to the postals IIRC.

"and then sign papers with Patrick's name on it after an all night interrogation?"

She was in total panick. She did not know what Raffaele had said, but from the fact that the police asked her even then about Lumumba she either must have thought that Raffaele told them about Patrick or she knew that Raffaele does not know who the murderer was and she did not want to name the real murderer because that would have surely incriminated her, too. Patrick was her best idea at that time.

"What makes you think the break-in was 'staged?"

Most simply I don't believe that anybody went in through the window.
Other details of the staging too, but they are not so important if there was no break-in.

"If someone were to 'stage' a break in, why wouldn't they just throw a rock through the window from outside, open it up, and brush glass off part of the sill? Sixty seconds of work."

It is not proven at all that a rock was thrown from outside. The glass on the sill does not look like that.

 

[Matthew Best]

You mean the ones that they forgot to actually do up to make them effective?

The first time I ever saw any of the videos of the police collecting evidence I noticed a woman (presumably Steffanoni?) with long black hair dangling down outside her white suit. I thought at the time that it seemed counter-intuitive that cooks in McDonalds have to wear hairnets and DNA collection technicians don't have to bother. Seems I (with no training at all) was right and Steffanoni (the "internationally-respected" scientist) was wrong. Go figure!

 

[jhunter1163]

Do not change members' names to insult them. We've been over this, folks.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[bolint]

Katody wrote:

It becomes somewhat complicated.

So far we have Amanda leaving Raffaele around 21:00 to go to the cottage. There she witnesses a shocking, horrible, nightmarish crime. In the meantime Raffaele after watching Amelie on his own entertains himself for a while with some cartoons.

There is computer use at 21:26, that's all. After that a complete blackout in Raffaele's alibi.

"Then he learns about the crime at some moment yet decides not to call the police"

Amanda told him a false story in which she was innocent and fearing that she may get into trouble.

" but instead works together with Amanda to clean up and alter the gruesome crime scene. I imagine both of them must be in a state of unthinkable shock and trauma by then, considering the reality in the murder room."

Yes they were, though I don't know if Raffaele knew immediately that there had been a murder.

"What is it then, that motivates them to act so completely irrationally yet methodically?"

They did not act irrationally. Amanda knew that she was in big trouble, Raffaele, however, thought that she is basically innocent and began to help her.

What exactly have they cleaned in the corridor and bathroom and what was their purpose in it?

There had to be some more blood in the bathroom, not only what has been found.
The partial bloody footprint alone proves some cleanup.
Also in the corridor from Meredith's room to the bathroom there had to be some blood. I don't think that the owner of the footprint jumped there.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

Mr. Kercher wrote, "Last week, Knox’s parents were given star billing on the ITV breakfast show Daybreak, where they had free rein to profess their conviction that their daughter is not guilty." Use of the phrase "star billing" leads me to believe that he feels contempt for Amanda's family. Does Mr. Kercher object to their right of free speech? That would put him in conflict with your views, as I understand them.

Halides1

Thank you for the link, here is another quote from the article:

“Like all grieving parents, we sometimes wonder what she would be doing now if she were still with us. She would have graduated with her degree from Leeds University in 2009. But, of course, we were never able to share her pride in reaching that milestone.
She was, however, awarded a posthumous degree, and her ¬sister, Stephanie, collected it for her. Every student in the vast hall rose to their feet to applaud her that day. The standing ovation lasted a full minute, and my eyes brimmed with tears.”

It is easy to pluck a paragraph or two to illustrate a given point of view. Having read the article again I do not regard Mr Kercher remarks as hateful; he does believe in their culpability, he does believe in the prosecution case, he does want people to know something of Meredith other than being a murder victim; he is entitled to his opinion.

 

[lionking]

Halides1

Thank you for the link, here is another quote from the article:

“Like all grieving parents, we sometimes wonder what she would be doing now if she were still with us. She would have graduated with her degree from Leeds University in 2009. But, of course, we were never able to share her pride in reaching that milestone.
She was, however, awarded a posthumous degree, and her ¬sister, Stephanie, collected it for her. Every student in the vast hall rose to their feet to applaud her that day. The standing ovation lasted a full minute, and my eyes brimmed with tears.”

It is easy to pluck a paragraph or two to illustrate a given point of view. Having read the article again I do not regard Mr Kercher remarks as hateful; he does believe in their culpability, he does believe in the prosecution case, he does
want people to know something of Meredith other than being a murder victim; he is entitled to his opinion.

Exactly. Attacks on the Kerchers reflects very badly on the innocentisti.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Kausioum wrote:

"How did they clean up the corridor without smearing Rudy's barely visible shoe-prints in blood (remember they were walking over them awhile until they noticed)"

They did not notice it in the hall.

Which was the point. If they didn't notice them, how did they avoid smearing them?

"Why not clean up the bathmat too if you think that print is Raffaele's?"

I don't think it's Raffaele's. No way they would have left it there if it had been his.
Specifically Amanda placed the bathmat there after the "bathmat boogie".

So you think it's Rudy's?

"If you think it's Rudy's, why did Amanda lead the cops straight to it"

She couldn't say that she had not seen it.
At that time she must have been quite nervous because of the sudden appearence of the two policemen.

Why would she be nervous about the police turning up? They were standing outside waiting for the police to turn up.

"as well as the mess in the toilet"
If you mean Rudy's deposit, she did not show it to the postals IIRC.

Who did then?

"and then sign papers with Patrick's name on it after an all night interrogation?"

She was in total panick. She did not know what Raffaele had said, but from the fact that the police asked her even then about Lumumba she either must have thought that Raffaele told them about Patrick or she knew that Raffaele does not know who the murderer was and she did not want to name the real murderer because that would have surely incriminated her, too. Patrick was her best idea at that time.

If she didn't know what Raff had said, why would she assume that he had told the police that Patrick had been involved rather than Rudy? With Amanda's lack of Italian at the time, and Rudy's lack of English, Raff would have had to be there to translate between them, or do you think that Amanda would have let an almost unknown black man into the house without being able to communicate with him?

"What makes you think the break-in was 'staged?"

Most simply I don't believe that anybody went in through the window.
Other details of the staging too, but they are not so important if there was no break-in.

Anything other than personal incredulity?

"If someone were to 'stage' a break in, why wouldn't they just throw a rock through the window from outside, open it up, and brush glass off part of the sill? Sixty seconds of work."

It is not proven at all that a rock was thrown from outside. The glass on the sill does not look like that.

It's not up to the defence to prove that a rock was thrown from outside, it's up to the Prosecution to prove that it wasn't. Where is that proof?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

I see in your posts a view that I find disturbing that I have seen from many UK posters. I am perplexed by the attitude.

You see:
Meredith = Innocent murder victim.

What I see is:
Meredith = Innocent murder victim.
Amanda = Innocent wrongful conviction and media tabloid victim.
Raffaele = Innocent wrongful conviction and media tabloid victim.
Kercher Family = Innocent murdered family member and judicial mess victims.
Knox/Sollecito Families = Innocent family members wrongfully convicted victims.

Do you not have any feeling at all for what Amanda and Raffaele have suffered when they have done nothing to deserve it?

Is there some reason that in your mind you can not support both ideas at the same time? Meredith and Amanda both victims in different ways.

Does loyalty to Meredith and the Kerchers not allow you to sympathize with those wrongfully convicted? How would you like to spend 4 yrs in jail?

When will you, the UK, the Kerchers - start directing anger at the right people - Rudy Guede and the PACK that messed up the investigation? The group who railroaded innocent people, while claiming to be doing justice for a beautiful murdered British girl.

* I do know there are MANY UK supporters of innocence. This is more of a general view of a certain attitude I have long been perplexed by that I have seen from uninformed UK posters. I don't mean to be disrespectful to any of my UK friends here.

In the context of your comments relating to Brits posting here, I don’t think Antony, Matthew Best or LondonJohn would agree with you, I am in a majority of one.

 

[Rolfe]

Halides1

Thank you for the link, here is another quote from the article:

“Like all grieving parents, we sometimes wonder what she would be doing now if she were still with us. She would have graduated with her degree from Leeds University in 2009. But, of course, we were never able to share her pride in reaching that milestone.
She was, however, awarded a posthumous degree, and her ¬sister, Stephanie, collected it for her. Every student in the vast hall rose to their feet to applaud her that day. The standing ovation lasted a full minute, and my eyes brimmed with tears.”

It is easy to pluck a paragraph or two to illustrate a given point of view. Having read the article again I do not regard Mr Kercher remarks as hateful; he does believe in their culpability, he does believe in the prosecution case, he does want people to know something of Meredith other than being a murder victim; he is entitled to his opinion.

But no matter how much prose Mr. Kercher writes which invokes sympathy for his family, the fact remains that Halides' quote highlighted a passage where he appeared to be denying the right of the Knox family to state their belief that their daughter is innocent, and is also a victim.

This is not nice, frankly.

Rolfe.

 

[RoseMontague]

"If someone were to 'stage' a break in, why wouldn't they just throw a rock through the window from outside, open it up, and brush glass off part of the sill? Sixty seconds of work."

It is not proven at all that a rock was thrown from outside. The glass on the sill does not look like that.

The video reconstruction that the defense showed in court was a good example of confirming the theory of a rock thrown from the outside. The prosecution theory of holding the window open to the side and breaking it from the inside means that glass would have had to flown sideways a considerable distance from the impact. The prosecution offered no video reconstruction of how this could have happened or any counter testimony from an expert even saying it could even possibly happen this way.