Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[bucketoftea]

I thought the forensics police were the ones with the dirty fingers??? I even saw a picture of those dirty fingers.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that what I read was a comment saying that Kercher does not run Quennelle's website. Then folks just went on to debunk the BS list of other evidence that Kercher ginned up for his tabloid. If he doesn't want people to engage in such exercises then he wouldn't be putting the BS out there in the first place. So why, really, are you "disgusted". Because people have the nerve to disagree with John Kercher? He's wrong.

PS. There's a new thread just for crybabies.

The victims are out of bounds, end of. I'm outraged by the harping and slander of those who grieve for the victim of this murder. John Kercher is utterly, utterly blameless as is Maresca, his agent. Slime away, but the truth is the truth and that is John Kercher has written from his experience and much more comprehensive knowldege of the evidence than anyone on any board.

It is never OK to attack a victim.

I'm no crybaby, meathead.




p.s. dirty fingers, dirty mouths; take your pick

 

[Chris_Halkides]

separate issues

I am not sure about that, if you recall the prosecution didn’t appeal against Guede’s sentence and of course he opted for the fast track process, whilst Raffaele and Amanda’s opted for a full trial and the prosecution has appealed against their sentences.

CoulsdonUK,

The first appeal reduced Rudi's sentence. The prosecution could have appealed this reduction to the supreme court but did not. The prosecution is appealing Amanda's and Raffaele's sentences upward. Even if Judge Hellmann rejects the defense's arguments, I see no connection between that and accepting the separate argument that the sentences should be longer.

 

[Skwinty]

To my mind, this is an utterly outrageous and inappropriate thing for Mr Kercher to be writing. Of course he has a certain licence to express his feelings, as the father of a girl who was brutally murdered. But I think he should have thought a lot more about what he was writing before he submitted this article to a major national newspaper. I hope he will look back on parts of it with considerable regret.

"The prosecutor was criticised for mentioning this, but she was killed on the eve of the Day of the Dead, November 2. 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."

Mr Kercher is not the prosecutor and as long as those statements are factual, then what is the problem with him expressing those facts when relating the way he feels about the death of his daughter.

He will certainly regret the death of his daughter for the rest of his life.

The father of a murdered child can hardly be expected to feel normal about the circumstances.

 

[zeb]

I think that your scenario only really applies in the first trial. This is the first time that the evidence is properly tested in a full trial process (as I've said, it's not too far off the mark to consider the first trial as the equivalent of a preliminary trial). If the judge in the first trial thinks the prosecutors have no case whatsoever, (s)he can grant a defence motion to order a directed acquittal (i.e. to instruct the judicial panel to acquit there and then, on his/her authority).

But my understanding is that if the case makes it through the first trial, then it's highly unlikely that any defence motions for directed acquittal in the appeal would ever succeed - even if evidence from the first trial were shown to be unreliable or inadmissible in the appeal trial. I think it's incumbent on the appeal judge to hear the whole case, and to allow the judicial panel to deliberate properly.

With regard to the "buying time" issue, I agree that the prosecution seems to be seeking to elongate or stall the appeal trial in certain ways. And there seem to be similar indications that Hellmann may be growing weary of the delays (as evidenced by his attempt to restart early after the Summer recess, and his expedition of the hearings during the argument phase). But I think Hellmann has enough experience and integrity to realise that the appeal trial has to be run in a scrupulously proper manner, with full consideration given to every party involved.

Personally, I believe that Hellmann's publicly-observed actions to date indicate that he may be leaning towards acquittal - but not only may this be an incorrect inference to draw, it also must be realised that the verdict will be decided only by the judicial panel. Hellmann leads the judicial panel, but there needs to be a majority vote from the eight members of the panel (which includes Hellmann, another professional judge, and six "lay judges" - who are ordinary members of the public, but ones who have to be educated to a higher level than those in the first trial).

thank you

 

[Rolfe]

Mr Kercher is not the prosecutor and as long as those statements are factual, then what is the problem with him expressing those facts when relating the way he feels about the death of his daughter.

He will certainly regret the death of his daughter for the rest of his life.

The father of a murdered child can hardly be expected to feel normal about the circumstances.

That is true, but it is always unfortunate when "justice" for the victim is equated with conviction of whoever the police happen to have accused, irrespective of the strength of the evidence against them.

I compare the fury and cries of justice denied when the first defendants were acquitted of the murder of Damilola Taylor. However, on that occasion the police re-opened the investigation, found forensic evidence which had been overlooked first time round, and identified the true culprits. They were duly tried and convicted.

How terrible if the cries for "justice for Damilola" had led to the first, innocent, defendants being convicted.

Certainly the reaction is an understandable one, but that doesn't mean it's above criticism, let alone that it should be encouraged and lauded.

Rolfe.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

OK by me in Perugia?

The victims are out of bounds, end of. I'm outraged by the harping and slander of those who grieve for the victim of this murder. John Kercher is utterly, utterly blameless as is Maresca, his agent. Slime away, but the truth is the truth and that is John Kercher has written from his experience and much more comprehensive knowldege of the evidence than anyone on any board.

It is never OK to attack a victim.

(highlighting mine)
bucketoftea,

So it was OK by you when:
Maresca asked Amanda's friend about her sex life in Seattle (And please don't waste electrons trying to say that this was OK. Rudi alone had sexual contact with Meredith.)
Maresca said publicly that Italy is teaching the world and the U.S. how to do forensics, despite the fact that he was given information that was withheld from the defense, despite the criminally sloppy collection techniques, and despite Ms. Stefanoni's turning the case into her own science fair project sans judges.
Maresca and Mignini hugged each other in 2008 when Amanda and Raffaele lose their bid to remain free pretrial on evidence that is sloppy or worse and on sexist drivel (that Amanda is histrionic and does not disdain multiple frequentations) that passes for legal reasoning from an intermediate court.
Maresca gets up to contest that the knife should be opened and checked for blood so quickly one would think that he had sat on a cactus.
Maresca defended Curatolo's credibility as a witness.
Maresca attacked the independent DNA experts for doing their jobs.

Well, it's not OK by me.

 

[komponisto]

I am not sure about that, if you recall the prosecution didn’t appeal against Guede’s sentence and of course he opted for the fast track process, whilst Raffaele and Amanda’s opted for a full trial and the prosecution has appealed against their sentences.

Your question was whether there would be an automatic increase in the sentences if the convictions were confirmed. The answer to that is plainly no: the appeals court has the power to reduce the sentences (Raffaele's appeal even technically makes a request for that, "in extreme subordination" to the request for him to be acquitted), or to leave them as they are. In fact, the only reason an increase is even possible is that the prosecution is also appealing, which need not have been the case.

In order for there to be an increase, Raffaele and Amanda would have to lose and, separately, the prosecution would have to win. Any other outcome and there won't be an increase.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

dubious reasoning by the court

Thanks for the link. I have read all 48 pages and I now have a better understanding of the issue.

Skwinty,

I agree with Kaosium's implication, that Mr. Sayagh bought into some of the Amanda-villification that was going on particularly in late 2007 and early 2008. That is unfortunate on the one hand, because I don't think most of it is true, and Kaosium has done a fine job rebutting it. On the other hand, it makes Mr. Sayagh's conclusions more powerful in one sense. In spite of his issues with respect to her character, he still criticizes the legal underpinnings of the incarceration. I would add that the reasons for keeping Sollecito incarcerated are even more dubious.

 

[Skwinty]

That is true, but it is always unfortunate when "justice" for the victim is equated with conviction of whoever the police happen to have accused, irrespective of the strength of the evidence against them.
Certainly the reaction is an understandable one, but that doesn't mean it's above criticism, let alone that it should be encouraged and lauded.

Rolfe.

I do not know when he made those statements, but a duly appointed court of law found Knox and Sollecito guilty and sentenced to jail time.

Perhaps, that is why and when he made that statement.

I don't laud him for those statements, but I feel that they should be free of criticism, especially when said criticism is delivered in a vitriolic manner.

I have 2 daughters in their early 20's and if one of them was murdered, well, I know for sure I would not care at all for the accused.

 

[Diocletus]

The victims are out of bounds, end of. I'm outraged by the harping and slander of those who grieve for the victim of this murder. John Kercher is utterly, utterly blameless as is Maresca, his agent. Slime away, but the truth is the truth and that is John Kercher has written from his experience and much more comprehensive knowldege of the evidence than anyone on any board.

It is never OK to attack a victim.

I'm no crybaby, meathead.




p.s. dirty fingers, dirty mouths; take your pick

Like it or not, there are two crimes here and two sets of victims.

Crime No. 1: Murder of Meredith, victims = Meredith and her family, culprit = Rudy Guede.

Crime No. 2: Wrongful prosecution and imprisonment of Sollecito/Knox, victims = Sollecito/Knox and their families, culprits . . . many.

John Kercher and Maresca can talk all they want about the crime against Meredith and their feelings about it. No problem there.

The problem is when John Kercher uses his victim status in Crime No. 1 as a bully pulpit to contribute to Crime No. 2. He may want us to believe that Knox/Sollecito are guilty of killing Meredith. But he's wrong. It is not inappropriate to point this out. And, if he is going to be making statements and arguments and publishing articles attempting to tie inncocent people to a crime that they did not commit, then it is right and moral to examine critically what he is saying and to debunk him.

And I don't think his knowledge of the case is very comprehensive. I think he only knows what his lawyer told him, which, judging from the ill-informed allegations against the innocent defendants, must have been a bunch of BS.

So yeah, John is wrong. That's not slander. It's fact.

PS: Coffee is way better than tea.

PSS: "It is never OK to attack a victim." Think about what you just said. As between Kercher and Knox/Sollecito, the one who is attacking the victim is Kercher.

 

[komponisto]

I do not know when he made those statements, but a duly appointed court of law found Knox and Sollecito guilty and sentenced to jail time.

By definition, the same is true of every wrongful conviction.

In Mr. Kercher's case, he should also be aware that from the point of view of the Italian system, the legal process has not yet finished: Knox and Sollecito are still presumed innocent at this stage under Italian law.

I don't laud him for those statements, but I feel that they should be free of criticism

I disagree. He has made these statements in widely-read newspapers, on multiple occasions. He has entered the public arena, and taken sides on a controversial issue. Criticism should be expected.

Punishing innocent people is unethical, and so is willful blindness to evidence and argument. His status as the victim's father notwithstanding, Mr. Kercher is an accessory to miscarriage of justice, and is guilty of epistemic negligence.

I have 2 daughters in their early 20's and if one of them was murdered, well, I know for sure I would not care at all for the accused.

How would you feel if one of them were the accused?

 

[Rolfe]

I do not know when he made those statements, but a duly appointed court of law found Knox and Sollecito guilty and sentenced to jail time.

Perhaps, that is why and when he made that statement.

Perhaps, perhaps not. However, it is incontrovertible that the legal process is still underway, and the convictions are at present merely provisional. Some have likened this to running off and celebrating victory on the basis of a half-time score.

He must know that the case is still before the court, and the sentences have not yet been implemented because of this. He should moderate his language.

I don't laud him for those statements, but I feel that they should be free of criticism, especially when said criticism is delivered in a vitriolic manner.

I disagree that such statements, which are themselves vitriolic in the extreme, should be given a free pass under these circumstances.

I have 2 daughters in their early 20's and if one of them was murdered, well, I know for sure I would not care at all for the accused.

And if one of these was remanded in custody for a murder she denies having anything to do with, on evidence that crumbles away when subjected to the cold light of reason, how would you react in that case?

Rolfe.

 

[Antony]

The victims are out of bounds, end of. I'm outraged by the harping and slander of those who grieve for the victim of this murder.

What slander? John Kercher has made some public statements that are unsupported or factually wrong, while attacking the accused in this case merely for exercising their rights. It is entirely legitimate to point this out.

John Kercher is utterly, utterly blameless as is Maresca, his agent.

Maresca? That's sick. He is the one who has cruelly misled the victim's family, more than anyone - while doing all he can to obstruct the truth in this case. John Kercher is being used by him, under false pretences, to further his own agenda. If Maresca is being paid by the Kercher family, then they are subsidising the prosecution in this case.

Slime away, but the truth is the truth and that is John Kercher has written from his experience and much more comprehensive knowldege of the evidence than anyone on any board.

That's a joke. Posters here have done no more than point out the factual errors in JK's articles.

It is never OK to attack a victim.

Tell that to the PMF crowd who spend their time outdoing each other in personal attacks on the accused and their families. Amanda, Raffaele and their families are victims in this case, too.

Of course, no facts are going to shift you in your belief that the crime happened as claimed by the prosecution. The problem you have is that the "evidence" (always tenuous) no longer exists to support your belief.

I'm no crybaby, meathead.

p.s. dirty fingers, dirty mouths; take your pick

Name-calling won't do you any credit.

 

[Skwinty]

In Mr. Kercher's case, he should also be aware that from the point of view of the Italian system, the legal process has not yet finished: Knox and Sollecito are still presumed innocent at this stage under Italian law.

As long as his statements are factually correct, he can state them until the cows come home.

Is he still making these comments, or are the media bringing it up from the past?

How would you feel if one of them were the accused?

Sure, not a nice thought.

However, I feel confident that my daughters would not fall into the same traps that Knox and Sollecito fell into.

 

[Rolfe]

You may be right about the last part. Knox and Sollecito did some very stupid things, in my opinion. However, in what jurisdiction is life imprisonment an acceptable punishment for stupidity?

Rolfe.

 

[DrDave]

However, in what jurisdiction is life imprisonment an acceptable punishment for stupidity?

Rolfe.

On the Internet!

 

[Skwinty]

However, in what jurisdiction is life imprisonment an acceptable punishment for stupidity?

Rolfe.

I am not advocating life imprisonment for stupidity.

 

[komponisto]

As long as his statements are factually correct, he can state them until the cows come home.

That's the point; most of his statements are subject to dispute. And so others should likewise be permitted to dispute them until and beyond any bovine homecoming.

Is he still making these comments, or are the media bringing it up from the past?

He seems to be making them with increasing frequency (there were a number of them around the time the appeal started), and now I've even seen a rumor that he is writing a book.

However, I feel confident that my daughters would not fall into the same traps that Knox and Sollecito fell into.

It's very easy to say that with hindsight, isn't it? Nevertheless, we can hope that Knox and Sollecito's example will be instructive to others; hopefully your daughters know, for example, never to talk to the police, certainly without a lawyer. (Hat tip to Rhea on IIP for the video.)

 

[bucketoftea]

(highlighting mine)
bucketoftea,

So it was OK by you when:
Maresca asked Amanda's friend about her sex life in Seattle (And please don't waste electrons trying to say that this was OK. Rudi alone had sexual contact with Meredith.)
Maresca said publicly that Italy is teaching the world and the U.S. how to do forensics, despite the fact that he was given information that was withheld from the defense, despite the criminally sloppy collection techniques, and despite Ms. Stefanoni's turning the case into her own science fair project sans judges.
Maresca and Mignini hugged each other in 2008 when Amanda and Raffaele lose their bid to remain free pretrial on evidence that is sloppy or worse and on sexist drivel (that Amanda is histrionic and does not disdain multiple frequentations) that passes for legal reasoning from an intermediate court.
Maresca gets up to contest that the knife should be opened and checked for blood so quickly one would think that he had sat on a cactus.
Maresca defended Curatolo's credibility as a witness.
Maresca attacked the independent DNA experts for doing their jobs.

Well, it's not OK by me.

That's tough luck, then.

Your list above just sounds like Maresca was doing his job well.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Esposito arson case

However, I feel confident that my daughters would not fall into the same traps that Knox and Sollecito fell into.

Skwinty,

The most recent comments I can recall from Mr. Kercher came after the start of the appeal. With respect to traps, consider the case of Frank Esposito, a seventeen year old, who thought he was confessing to accidently starting a fire, but was instead charged with arson. He allegedly failed a polygraph test. The reason for starting the fire was given at one point to be amusement, but at another was to get back at his girlfriend. The fact that phone records showed he was not enough to keep the prosecutor from continuing with the case. Cases like Esposito's and the Knox/Sollecito case are why I tell young people not to speak with police except in the presence of their lawyer. BTW, anyone want to give odds on whether or not Mr. Esposito really failed the polygraph test? Mine are 3-to-1 he passed but was told otherwise.