Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
John Kercher has not told lies.

I'm confident my disgust is correctly associated.

Why shouldn't pictures of Meredith be plastered all over the site?
Emotional blackmail? What a larf. How about the whining and crying parents of Amanda on TV frequently (we're broke, Granny's broke, we still have a chance with our daughter [whatever the hell that's supposed to mean], poor Amanda it's hot in the summer)

You know what? It actually is the common, decent custom to allow the bereaved greater latitude and greater tolerance, though in Mr Kercher's case it is clearly not required. Just in case your mom never told you.
You will never win this argument.

Because the disturbed man that runs the site is obsessed with Meredith Kercher that's why. He has no relation to the Kercher family yet he feels compelled to write about Meredith's world as if he knew her well. He even took a liking to the actress that played Meredith in the Lifetime movie all while criticizing the actress playing Amanda. Is that normal? The site is beyond creepy and does nothing to preserve the memory of Meredith Kercher. I am amazed that anyone still follows that guy. The truth about him has been thoroughly exposed.
 
Because the disturbed man that runs the site is obsessed with Meredith Kercher that's why. He has no relation to the Kercher family yet he feels compelled to write about Meredith's world as if he knew her well. He even took a liking to the actress that played Meredith in the Lifetime movie all while criticizing the actress playing Amanda. Is that normal? The site is beyond creepy and does nothing to preserve the memory of Meredith Kercher. I am amazed that anyone still follows that guy. The truth about him has been thoroughly exposed.


I miss the ballerina "shrine" site with the same layout too! Fortunately cached copies are available for a reminder.....

The latest TJMK post (on which I've already commented today) is an excellent indicator of the lack of intellectual rigour on that site. It appears that any article (whether in a newspaper, on broadcast TV, or online) that supports the case for guilt is lauded and highlighted on TJMK - no matter how ridiculous, far-fetched, poorly-researched, poorly-reasoned or just plain weird that article is. I've compared it to "Pravda" in the height of the cold-war Soviet era, and the comparison seems to be becoming ever more apt. And that fact in itself makes the site an interesting read.
 
I miss the ballerina "shrine" site with the same layout too! Fortunately cached copies are available for a reminder.....

The latest TJMK post (on which I've already commented today) is an excellent indicator of the lack of intellectual rigour on that site. It appears that any article (whether in a newspaper, on broadcast TV, or online) that supports the case for guilt is lauded and highlighted on TJMK - no matter how ridiculous, far-fetched, poorly-researched, poorly-reasoned or just plain weird that article is. I've compared it to "Pravda" in the height of the cold-war Soviet era, and the comparison seems to be becoming ever more apt. And that fact in itself makes the site an interesting read.

Truth is of no importance to that group. Look at what Peggy was able to do with a simple Chicago connection. Now she says I was recruited by Paul Ciolino (he's from Chicago!) and my efforts are being paid for by CBS!
 
John Kercher's articles have been purposefully timed to have the most negative impact on the appeal as possible.


Dec 2, 2010 - Daily Mail
It's utterly despicable that the girl jailed for killing my daughter has become a celebrity

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ate-attack-cult-Foxy-Knoxy.html#ixzz1PjyhLpn4

This first article of John Kercher's is right between the Nov 24 Appeal start date and Dec 11 date where Amanda gave an emotional statement to the court. Francesco Maresco walked out while Amanda was speaking.


Dec 18, 2010 - Mirror
We will never forget our murdered daughter Meredith Kercher, by her dad John

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...y-her-dad-john-115875-22790628/#ixzz1PkFQ3kM4

The second article was released on the Dec 18 court date where the court granted an Independent DNA Review.


Mar 13, 2011 - Sunday Times
Rescuing Meredith from the ‘Foxy Knoxy’ frenzy

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php...irl_meredith_was_funny_clever_and_extremely_/

The third article corresponds with the Mar 12 court date with the Disco owners.


May 21, 2011 - The Sun
My View

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...s-evidence-that-may-undermine-conviction.html

In the Fourth, May 21 was the original date the DNA Report was suppose to be reviewed. John Kercher was given rebuttal space for Bob Graham's article favoring innocence.

I don't care for this at all. I think it's pretty loathsome.
 
Indutex 'sprayguard' biological suits

Note that they were wearing hazmat suits where the footwear could not be changed. They went from Amanda's room to Meredith's room in the same footwear. They certainly could have brought Raffaele's DNA into the room.

The "crack" forensics team were wearing a heath robinson combination of hazmat suits and overshoes:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_402374e43a03fed124.jpg[/qimg]

But the video clearly shows that these overshoes were not changed when individuals walked from one room to another. This fact, in and of itself, renders all forensic evidence found on the floor of every part of the cottage virtually useless.

In addition, the scene of crime officers should not have been wearing hazmat suits. These suits are primarily designed to protect the wearer from environmental hazards - but at a crime scene the primary concern should be to protect the environment from contamination by the wearer, and to minimise the chances of the wearer tracking evidence from one place to another. In the UK, SOCO's typically wear sterile non-shred paper suits which fulfill both criteria far better than the waterproofed fabric of hazmat suits


I believe they were Tyvek Suits

Steve Moore discusses the suits starting at 7.07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSf4KWHvOEo

INDUTEX 'SPRAYGUARD' BIOLOGICAL SUITS
LEVEL 3 ECOLOGICAL SUITS
http://www.indutexspa.com/index.asp?lang=2&id_head=49&id_father=531

"attached hood, tall collar, with attached hood and boots or sock and boot cover flap."


It seems like the suits are one piece suits. Perhaps harder boots are meant to be worn over them. The forensic team wore the suits as a complete outfit. I don't know if they at times wore 'booties' over the one pieces but it looks like they very often did not.


Photo of suit boots:
 
Last edited:
I find the above an emotive interpretation of the lawyer client relationship and one that if I may say is an unsubstantiated opinion rather than a fact of any instructions from the client to his legal representative.


Nope. He's right. Maresca by virtue of his agency relationship has apparent authority to speak for Kercher. Maresca's statements in the course and scope of his duties are chargeable to Kercher. For our purposes, Maresca = Kercher. It's called hitchin' your wagon to the wrong horse.
 
I believe they were Tyvek Suits

Steve Moore discusses the suits starting at 7.07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSf4KWHvOEo

INDUTEX 'SPRAYGUARD' BIOLOGICAL SUITS
LEVEL 3 ECOLOGICAL SUITS
http://www.indutexspa.com/index.asp?lang=2&id_head=49&id_father=531

"attached hood, tall collar, with attached hood and boots or sock and boot cover flap."


It seems like the suits are one piece suits. Perhaps harder boots are meant to be worn over them. The forensic team wore the suits as a complete outfit. I don't know if they at times wore 'booties' over the one pieces but it looks like they very often did not.


LOL. Maybe they thought Meredith had been killed by anthrax. No wonder they can't find the murder weapon.
 
The Poly and the Norfolk Four case...

lane99,

I don't have a high opinion of them. However, I seem to recall one or more cases in which a suspect was told he had failed a polygraph when he had not. The supposed failure was one of the things that led to a false confession. I don't have a cite handy at the moment, however.
ETA
Peter Reilly may be one example.
-

Halides1,

the "Norfolk Four" come to mind also, although I am not 100 percent sure their confessions were a result of them being told (wrongfully told) that they had failed their polygraph test.

That is one weird case, but at least in that one the real culprit admitted he acted alone, but LE didn't believe him. That case is similar in some ways to this case,

Dave

-
 
Atleast JK does say this...

John Kercher's articles have been purposefully timed to have the most negative impact on the appeal as possible.

May 21, 2011 - The Sun
My View

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...s-evidence-that-may-undermine-conviction.html

In the Fourth, May 21 was the original date the DNA Report was suppose to be reviewed. John Kercher was given rebuttal space for Bob Graham's article favoring innocence.
-

Draca,

in the May 21st article (at the very end if you click "MORE" and read his whole statement), he does say this:

" ...It is not up to me to ascertain guilt. I only want justice for Meredith."

You atleast have to give him credit for this anyway,

Dave

-
 
Norfolk Four and lie detectors

-

Halides1,

the "Norfolk Four" come to mind also, although I am not 100 percent sure their confessions were a result of them being told (wrongfully told) that they had failed their polygraph test.

That is one weird case, but at least in that one the real culprit admitted he acted alone, but LE didn't believe him. That case is similar in some ways to this case,

Dave
Dave,

I have often mentioned the Norfolk Four case here. The book "The Wrong Guys, the Frontline documentary, and the Time magazine article are all worthwhile. Apparently the lie about the lie detector was exactly Detective Ford's tactic. "Detective Robert Glenn Ford of the Norfolk police department, who was known for his unorthodox tactics and ability to break even the most hardened criminal, spat accusations and vile phrases at the men, saying they had all failed lie detector tests when in reality all four men had passed."
 
I find this to be a very sad statement from one of Kercher's articles:

"Judge Massei wrote a 400-page report. A situation, I believe, you would not find in a UK or US court. It is a revealing document which many people do not seem to have read. This report, which I have read over and over, details all of the evidence from DNA to witnesses."

It's sad that this document (presumably the PMF translation) is what Kercher has been given to make sense of this whole crime. It's a shame that Kercher is not in a position to understand what a truly pathetic piece of garbage this opinion is, and I feel bad for him sitting there alone at night reading this thing, trying to make sense of why his daughter is dead based on a 400-page lie. Judge Massei sucks.
 
Simply amazing

Dave,

I have often mentioned the Norfolk Four case here. The book "The Wrong Guys, the Frontline documentary, and the Time magazine article are all worthwhile. Apparently the lie about the lie detector was exactly Detective Ford's tactic. "Detective Robert Glenn Ford of the Norfolk police department, who was known for his unorthodox tactics and ability to break even the most hardened criminal, spat accusations and vile phrases at the men, saying they had all failed lie detector tests when in reality all four men had passed."
-

Halides1,

I remember you bringing it up in Part 2, and when I watched the Frontline doc, I thought of you:

http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Frontline_The_Confessions/70155172?trkid=496624

In the end, the prosecution decided the seven had met the real murderer in the parking lot, and even though he was a stranger, they asked him to join them in a rape/ murder. Now where have we heard this before?

AFAIK, Ford was recently convicted of extortion,

Dave

-
 
Last edited:
This is a far-from-uncommon police tactic - and a legitimate one. But it's also worth noting that many innocent people fail polygraph tests, and a fair few culpable people pass polygraph tests. They have been widely discredited over the past decade as an accurate investigative tool: at best, they are a blunt instrument of investigation, which can be used to help guide police in certain directions. But they most certainly cannot be used as any form of evidence of guilt or non-guilt.

ETA There is an associated police practice that has often resulted in unjust outcomes. Police know that they can put pressure on a suspect to take a polygraph test, by using the following false logic: "If you're innocent, then you have nothing to hide by doing the test, and you'll pass it. But by contrast, if you refuse to take the test, you'll make us (and the courts) think that you have something to hide." If suspects are faced with such a dichotomy, they usually opt to take the test regardless of their culpability - especially if they are not taking legal advice at the time. And even if they are innocent, it's entirely possible that they will fail the test (due to nerves and stress), or that they will pass the test and the police will subsequently tell them that they have failed. And because so many people incorrectly think that polygraph tests are inviolably accurate, either such outcome can often break the will of even a totally innocent person.
-

LJ,

Gary Ridgway (the Green River Killer) is a good example of someone being guilty AND passing the test, although LE was still suspicious of him.

And you are right, LE does use the polygraph more times than most people think to sort through suspects and to get a foothold on where to start their investigation. If someone stands out after the test, their alibi and criminal history are then thoroughly investigated.

LE mostly says this is done to "eliminate" them, but in reality what they are really doing is beginning to build a probability model in which they try to find facts that increase the probability that no one else could have done the crime except them.

DNA is the holy grail of probability determinants or so much of the public seems to believes anyway. Fighting against DNA evidence is an almost impossible task for most defense lawyers, but as we saw in the Kercher case, not TOTALLY impossible.

Sadly, the probability model technique is used to solve more homicides than most people realize. It's sometimes the best and only way some crimes are actually solved by LE. It's not perfect, but sometimes does make logical sense as an investigative procedure, especially since most murders are committed by someone close to the victim, or so LE seems to believe, which when you think about it is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.

This techniques becomes almost useless when serial killers become involved and their DNA is not in the system, or worse, when dump sites are found and all you have are the victim's bones and the perpetrators DNA has long ago disappeared.

Sorry for wandering off topic here, but me and my roommate have done many hours of serial killer research which is a large part of what our website is all about,

Dave

-
 
Last edited:
Draca,

in the May 21st article (at the very end if you click "MORE" and read his whole statement), he does say this:

" ...It is not up to me to ascertain guilt. I only want justice for Meredith."

You at least have to give him credit for this anyway,


Dave

Dave,

John Kercher writes:
"There is also a bra clasp which was said to contain an abundance of Sollecito's DNA.

The defence have argued that as it was found six weeks after the crime was committed it was not valid. This ignores the fact that people have been convicted on DNA discovered up to 17 years after a crime.

The prosecution have stated the knife and bra clasp are but two of the many reasons as to why guilt points to them.

Between them, Knox and Sollecito are said to have changed their alibis nine times.

Judge Massei, who presided at the trial, prepared a 400-page report in which he outlines every detail as to why he and the jury convicted Knox and Sollecito."


To summarize, before John Kercher says it is not up to him to ascertain guilt he calls them guilty because:

1) There is an abundance of Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp.
2) There are many reasons they are guilty besides the knife an bra clasp.
3) Knox and Sollecito changed their alibis 9 times.
4) There is a huge 400 page report that details why they are guilty.

It doesn't even make sense that he follows those points of guilt up with - "It is not up to me to ascertain guilt. I only want justice for Meredith."

IMO, Draca
 
Last edited:
True

Dave,

John Kercher writes:

To summarize, before John Kercher says it is not up to him to ascertain guilt he calls them guilty because:

1) There is an abundance of Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp.
2) There are many reasons they are guilty besides the knife an bra clasp.
3) Knox and Sollecito changed their alibi 9 times.
4) There is a huge 400 page report that details why they are guilty.

It doesn't even make sense that he follows those points of guilt up with - "It is not up to me to ascertain guilt. I only want justice for Meredith."

IMO, Draca

Draca,

and it's hard to argue against what you say, but atleast he wrote it and to me it's better he acknowledges it rather than not acknowledge it at all.

I'd like to think that someday, after reading criticisms of the case, it dawns on him that these two kids could be innocent. It might not be for a few more years, or maybe sooner, or maybe someday something Maresca says just flips that switch and he realizes just how sleezy he is and what a train wreck the police have been.

Maybe he'll read Ron Hendry's forensic crime reconstruction of how Meredith really died and how all the evidence points to Guede and that he'll probably serve less than ten years for killing his baby. Hopefully he never does. It's a pretty graphic description of how Guede covered her face before trying to rape her so he wouldn't get sprayed with her blood as she desperately tried to clear her lungs to no avail and as a result slowly drowned in her own blood... horrible horrible horrible.

-
 
Rolf Nelson's latest reply concerning the stomach evidence contains some points worth considering:

rolf_nelson said:
komponisto said:
How much slippage do you think may have occurred?

There's a ton of factors here, I'll guess that if there's slippage, it's about 50% that the entire contents would slip; probably our digestion process is evolutionary designed to make the food pass through easily by that stage. Probably another 50% that a suspiciously large amount of food would be found in the small intenstine. I could narrow it down more if I knew how large the volume of the first part of the small intestine to the first bend is, whether the first part of the small intestine was searched, whether the rest of the small intestine was searched, how fast food is evacuated from the duodenum, whether food keeps getting evacuated from the duodenum after the stress of being threatened with a knife occurs, whether peristalsis continues to push food through the small intestine after stress, whether diffusion of food through the small intestine walls continues after stress or even death, and how fast peristalsis and diffusion work.

I'll add that a search for '"empty duodenum" forensics' suggests to me that, as far as I can tell, almost nobody except for Amanda Knox's defense has ever cared whether a duodenum was empty or not. That probably puts an upper-bound on how useful this evidence is; if it were reliable, I would expect it come up more often in online appeals-courts decisions, and in trial reporting. I also can't find any literature on this, which is odd if it's a useful way to narrow down time of death. So based on the "evidence of absence", let me propose the following hypothesis:

Vacant Duodenum Hypothesis: "An empty duodenum is not, by itself, definitive proof for or against any time-of-death. The main reason to search the duodenum is in hopes of actually finding food there; no matter what the time-of-death scenario, there is always at least a 1/10 chance that the duodenum will be empty when examined."
 
Tearing Down The Curtain

It had to happen, and it inevitably did!

Kaosium wrote this post a few days ago.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7429155#post7429155

In it, he clearly used a logical device to point out that, technically speaking, Lumumba could not be excluded from the investigation if the ToD was 11.30pm-plus (since his alibi didn't cover him up to that time). Kaosium was essentially pointing out how ludicrous the police investigation was, and that it was as pretty much as likely that Lumumba was involved as it was that Knox/Sollecito were involved.

In response to this post of Kaosium's, I wrote the following prescient post:




And that premonition has now, depressingly but predictably (and somewhat hilariously) come true. "One could not make it up"........

LOL! I don't even read there anymore, and won't bother to now. I saw the crash, I don't care to see the burn. I suspect they ought to think long and hard about what happened to Daric Ritchie, how I tried to keep that troubled teenager away from them, and how limited the scope of that was in comparison to what they've done. I've seen it before, it won't end well, I'm pretty damn sure. Never quite like this though, on some level I have to salute the dark majesty of the achievement, unless one of the below things is actually true.

If anyone is curious as to what I'm referring to, I will make this claim. It is definite they had a peripheral effect on the media coverage of this case, notably with Andrea Vogt, Barbara Nadeau and possibly others. As John Kercher referred to the online tribute in one of his pieces, and his laundrylist of 'evidence' seems Machine-like and that's Some strange way to count Alibi's, it is possible (remember that doesn't go to probable in my world because I think it might be so) they've had an effect on his understanding of the case and the odds of acquittal. Perhaps even his mental health, though I truly hope that isn't the case.

It is also true they've repeatedly attempted to silence or defame people from speaking out on the case, both in the ether and in the real world. We're talking ex-FBI agents who lost their jobs, judges who faced admonishment, even just school teachers in Hawaii who wanted to teach part of the case in class, or professors from Leeds University who came to the conclusion Amanda and Raffaele were innocent and said something.

It just so happens I'm probably the only one not with them that happened to explore their website last summer hidden back in there somewhere, I think it was the Rabbit Hole though I don't recall for sure, when they were discussing the holes in the case and that they knew Amanda would probably be acquitted, though there was hope amongst some of them conditions in Perugia would allow for a second conviction. They knew the police had botched the whole thing pathetically, I didn't put it all together at once, but what they've done similar to what Rolfe posted recently about prosecutors, created a delusion. One that had an effect on the coverage of the case, though minor. It's also had an effect on conditions here at JREF, though that's irrelevant to me, and kinda funny, though a bit frustrating at times.

How this could happen? Anyone researching a book or trying to write a column about this case and went online in search of information was bound to come across PMF and be amazed, the amount of materials they had accumulated and the number of intelligent, insightful people who were discussing the case was extraordinary in a sense. They no doubt gained credibility with people because they helped dispel some of the atrocious early reporting on the case due to police lies. You can see if you go back to the beginning they did a lot of good work. I don't hate them, I can imagine the attraction of all of a sudden becoming an influence, however minor, on an issue of some attraction to some people, I have sympathy, they're people too, just at this point they need to reconsider what they're doing. There might well be consequences, people don't like being fooled.

However, the ones here at JREF who hold this thread in contempt are right in a sense, this is just about a court case in Italy, it ought not cause such a fuss. It just happens the effect of what poor media can do to an issue or people intrigues me, as that effect caused me to lose all interest in politics. Plus poor Amanda and Raffaele are real people who really got screwed over, I'm interested in how it turns out. They can post whatever they want about me, 'Kaosium' is just a name I picked for a game a dozen or so years ago 'cuz I thought it sounded neat. It's just words on a computer screen, wisps of ether in the end signifying nothing. It seems some take this so very much more seriously, and that's probably not good. I have a different attitude toward it, I found helpful in posting on the internet.

I've been posting some long responses recently in hopes of catching people up who might just becoming interested in the case, and it helps me compose my own ever-changing opinions on what happened and might still. Nobody just coming into this is gonna read the 65k posts now accumulated on this subject, geez when I started posting it was about halfway through the first continuation, though I'd read all the PMF archives beforehand. You're welcome to believe I'm just a propagandist for the Gogerty-Marriot/FOA PR supertanker of doom, but that's not the case, keep that possibility in mind too. I'm interested in the actual truth of the matter here as it fascinates me. Nor do I expect anyone to think this 'discredits' PMF and TJMK, only they can do that to themselves, and the ones whose opinion on the matter I respect most are the ones that can see that for themselves. Just keep in mind the possibility they (hopefully--that was a year ago let us hope it's still something of a game) don't believe the trash they're formulating, though for some reason the guilt of Amanda and Raffaele.

Some people believe whatever they want to believe and can be fooled by anything that has the stamp of authority on it, I'm interested in the people here and elsewhere with the imagination to understand how something like this could happen and the rationality to see through illusions. I bear no ill will towards those who haven't been able, or interested enough, and may never be willing, regardless of whatever words they've posted to the ether.
 
Last edited:
Draca,

and it's hard to argue against what you say, but atleast he wrote it and to me it's better he acknowledges it rather than not acknowledge it at all.

I'd like to think that someday, after reading criticisms of the case, it dawns on him that these two kids could be innocent. It might not be for a few more years, or maybe sooner, or maybe someday something Maresca says just flips that switch and he realizes just how sleezy he is and what a train wreck the police have been.

Maybe he'll read Ron Hendry's forensic crime reconstruction of how Meredith really died and how all the evidence points to Guede and that he'll probably serve less than ten years for killing his baby. Hopefully he never does. It's a pretty graphic description of how Guede covered her face before trying to rape her so he wouldn't get sprayed with her blood as she desperately tried to clear her lungs to no avail and as a result slowly drowned in her own blood... horrible horrible horrible.


Dave,

Thank you for your clarity. You are correct that he at least said it. It did appear to me to be a bit of a softening of his stance, but there is no way to know for sure.

His daughter Meredith's murder was horrifically brutal and it was a horrible way for him to have lost his beloved child. It is a life sentence for the whole family.

There is a lot of anger toward this unjust case. The murderer, incompetent forensic team, corrupt police and prosecution, egomaniacs and terrible journalists. What John Kercher has written about Amanda and Raffaele is hard to justify. What Maresca has done in his name is deplorable and the lawyer himself deserves only disdain.

One thing to remember is John Kercher is also the Father that Meredith loved. She would want us to have compassion and understanding for his grief.

That will be hard to do while Maresca is attacking the DNA experts in the upcoming court date. How to have compassion for the Kerchers when their lawyer is actively seeking to harm innocent people? Maybe in the future that will be easier. I know the Kercher family will be in my thoughts when Amanda and Raffaele are released.
 
Last edited:
Rolf Nelson's latest reply concerning the stomach evidence contains some points worth considering:


I just found a relevant text, which says the following:

Post mortem transport of gastric contents can be excluded (Madea et al. 1986)

(But does this include slippage?)

and

When 90% of the last meal is found in the stomach, the last food intake was probably within the hour before death, with 98% confidence limits not more than 3-4 hours.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom