Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[christianahannah]

I agree Maresca and Mignini convinced John Kercher of Amanda and Raffaele's involvement in his beloved Mez's murder,they done this at a time when he was a man destroyed by grief as would any of us in his position,as time went on as more people took a critical look at the case Mignini with the support or advice of Maresca found it necessary to do a deal with Rudy Guede to partially point the finger at Amanda and Raffaele,though it will have no bearing on the verdict in the present appeal,it has led to no appeal to Rudy's sentence reduction which will see him released as early as 2014

I have no doubt that Maresca and Mignini know full well that Raffaele and Amanda are innocent,they have full knowledge of the brutality of what Rudy has done neither seem in anyway to care that one day John Kercher will have to face the terrible realisation that through his employment and instruction of Maresca he helped the depraved killer of his beautiful daughter to serve the absolute minimum of time in prison

I don't think either John Kercher or Maresca had anything to do with the time Rudy will serve in prison. Most of that time had to do with the fast-track trial and the additional time off had to do with mitigating factors which were afforded Amanda and Raffaele in their sentencing which were passed on to Rudy. Micheli gave Rudy the maximum sentence 30 years (which was then scaled down per the above).

It was Rudy who was first served with the civil action while he was being tried and subsequently ordered to pay damages to the Kerchers.

 

[RoseMontague]

I don't think there was any dispute as to the easiness of the handle and blade being separated. Since a result was obtained (controversial or not) by not separating the handle from the blade it was probably more effective to leave the knife intact.

As to Maresca objecting to the knife being separated, he was doing so as a matter of procedure. I think if the defense makes a formal request for this to happen to the knife the judge may grant that request if it is necessary. Or maybe the prosecution will make this request. Or maybe both will leave it alone.

But the test used the entire sample leaving nothing further to be tested. There was also a negative test for blood. Then the sample comes up too low and Doctor Steffi has to crank up the knob. It seemed she realized this was going to be a controversial test that had a good chance of being found to be unreliable. So at that point why not open it up test for blood, human tissue, and/or DNA?

Unless she knew there would be nothing there?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the police had left the station

Watch it and weep.
http://www.youtube.com/user/ViaDellaPergola#p/u/4/UyUh5y_8efE

Pilot Padron,

The youtube presentation is intellectually dishonest. Ms. Knox is clearly referring to her being pressured into making the 1:45 and 5:45 statements. The presentation that you provided for us knowing and falsely implies that Ms. Knox is contradicting herself. Her testimony to the effect that she was not pressured refers not to those two early morning statements, but rather to her subsequent gift statement. This video gives strong evidence that someone has indeed lied, just not Ms. Knox.

As of her writing the gift statement, she was beginning to assert her confusion and uncertainty. Too bad that the police had mostly left the station to go arrest Patrick without bothering to check on whether or not he had an alibi. Case closed indeed.

 

[christianahannah]

But the test used the entire sample leaving nothing further to be tested. There was also a negative test for blood. Then the sample comes up too low and Doctor Steffi has to crank up the knob. It seemed she realized this was going to be a controversial test that had a good chance of being found to be unreliable. So at that point why not open it up test for blood, human tissue, and/or DNA?

Unless she knew there would be nothing there?

Well you have a knife which may have caused one of the wounds to Meredith which has tested positive, however controversial, for Meredith's and Amanda's DNA (two separate samples). Why take apart a visual for the prosecution when you don't have to?

I doubt she knew there would be nothing there and even if so, it didn't matter, she got a result from the blade (however controversial).

Further who's to say Stefanoni didn't crank the knob up on the samples of the other too low results only to have nothing appear? And when something appeared by cranking the knob up on the blade sample, well what would you do (even if that result was way controversial)? I'd probably submit my results to the prosecution and then let the court decide what should be kept in, what should be kept out and what should be done with the knife.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>Per..haps you (*unconsciously* of course), avoided putting up the You Tube URL showing Knox's actual verbatim testimony that you attempt to sugar coat and spin in your 'argument'.
I have included the URL so that readers might have something other than your own equally "confirmation-biased" spin type 'argument' to use to draw their own conclusions.

Watch it and weep.
http://www.youtube.com/user/ViaDellaPergola#p/u/4/UyUh5y_8efE
<snip>

I think whoever made that video *unconsciously* believes Amanda is innocent of falsely accusing Patrick, because that video makes a very strong case indeed for exactly the opposite of what it is trying to promote. The average high school student can tell the difference between when Amanda is referring to her memorandum and when she is referring to the interrogation.

Don't the guilters ever ask why the police did not think they might have made a mistake when they arrested Patrick on the word of a so obviously confused suspect? Don't they ever ask why the police clung so tenaciously to the word of a suspect they believed to be a liar?

And why does Amanda sometimes talk in normal-sized white letters and other times talk in GIANT RED LETTERS?

 

[RoseMontague]

Well you have a knife which may have caused one of the wounds to Meredith which has tested positive, however controversial, for Meredith's and Amanda's DNA (two separate samples). Why take apart a visual for the prosecution when you don't have to?

I doubt she knew there would be nothing there and even if so, it didn't matter, she got a result from the blade (however controversial).

Further who's to say Stefanoni didn't crank the knob up on the samples of the other too low results only to have nothing appear? And when something appeared by cranking the knob up on the blade sample, well what would you do (even if that result was way controversial)? I'd probably submit my results to the prosecution and then let the court decide what should be kept in, what should be kept out and what should be done with the knife.

I think you give that knife to be tested to 100 forensic scientists and Dr Steffi is the only one that doesn't open the knife. Insert appropriate onomatopoeia.

 

[RoseMontague]

I think whoever made that video *unconsciously* believes Amanda is innocent of falsely accusing Patrick, because that video makes a very strong case indeed for exactly the opposite of what it is trying to promote. The average high school student can tell the difference between when Amanda is referring to her memorandum and when she is referring to the interrogation.

Don't the guilters ever ask why the police did not think they might have made a mistake when they arrested Patrick on the word of a so obviously confused suspect? Don't they ever ask why the police clung so tenaciously to the word of a suspect they believed to be a liar?

And why does Amanda sometimes talk in normal-sized white letters and other times talk in GIANT RED LETTERS?

Astrology, Jupiter collides with Mars maybe?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Does Maresca care what actually happened?

Further who's to say Stefanoni didn't crank the knob up on the samples of the other too low results only to have nothing appear? And when something appeared by cranking the knob up on the blade sample, well what would you do (even if that result was way controversial)? I'd probably submit my results to the prosecution and then let the court decide what should be kept in, what should be kept out and what should be done with the knife.

christianahannah,

For the knife to be a valid result, several things would have to be true. There should have been a control sample run under identical conditions, including the concentration step. The proecdure should have been repeated at least once, maybe more. The process should have been validated in some way. All of the results should have been turned over to the defense as well as the prosecution. Scientists should be trying to find an answer, not trying to convict someone.

However, all of these things could have been done and there is still no blood on the blade. When I discussed this case with a local police forensics person, without my prompting she said words to the effect of, "Did they open the knife?" Opening the knife would have been a good way to show whether or not this was the murder weapon (maybe not perfect, but good). To oppose it on procedural grounds is very questionable. It makes me ask whether Maresca is interested in knowing the truth. MOO.

 

[Mary_H]

I think you give that knife to be tested to 100 forensic scientists and Dr Steffi is the only one that doesn't open the knife.

Absolutely.

Insert appropriate onomatopoeia.

I think there's some in that video.

 

[komponisto]

It looks like this "Rolf" character is doing little more than plucking totally arbitrary percentages out of thin air and assigning them to certain events about which (s)he knows very little. It seems like a totally bunkum approach to trying to quantify things in this case.

I don't object to Rolf stating his 10% "Vacant Duodenum Hypothesis" if that is his best guess; in fact I'm glad he is willing to do so. Rolf is versed in Bayesianism, and (presumably) understands that merely refusing to reveal one's best guess does not allow one to avoid having such a guess. This is something I appreciate, because being explicit about our beliefs makes the discussion much more interesting and informative.

I also find it astonishing that "Rolf" is engaging in a pretty specialised area of debate without even bothering to find out the specifics of the case he's debating. (S)he could easily have established that there was no food matter in any of Meredith's small intestine (which is, don't forget, some 6 metres - 20 feet - in length), apart from a small amount of matter at the very far end.

In fairness, this is not at all clear from the relevant passage in Massei-Cristiani; one has to read the (untranslated) Sollecito appeal to find it out, and then only by implication:

In addition, the presence of food resudes in the small intestine should be considered, and thus, as hypothesized by Prof. Umani Ronchi, it could be thought that these resides would have been in the duodenum but for an imperfect application of the ligatures, or an application of the ligatures at a time and in a manner such that slippage of material from the duodenum to the small intestine could not be avoided. The fact that the duodeum was empty would [in this case] not be fully reliable.

Prof. Umani Ronchi, at the hearings of 04-19-2008 and 9-19-2009, never discussed "an imperfect application of the ligatures" at the duodenal level, but rather the [supposed] failure to ligature the duodenum on the part of Dr. Lalli during the autopsy (p. 23, hearing of 9-19-2009: "given that the ligatures were not applied, given that without the ligatures this sliding toward the bottom can happen, and that an amount of food that had maybe already passed into the duodenum, could even have, due to gravity, could have gotten all the way to the ileocecal valve.")

The missing ligature, in fact, allowed Prof. Ronchi to conclude that the gastric contents, at least in part, had slipped in the duodenum or that the contexts, having already passed into the duodenum, could have slid due to gravity all the way to the ileocecal valve after traveling 5 meters of small intestine. From this, the Court deduced that the autopsy finding regarding the objective fact that the duodenum was empty was unreliable.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Watch it and weep.
http://www.youtube.com/user/ViaDellaPergola#p/u/4/UyUh5y_8efE

snip

Is it me or does this little presentation conjure up visions of furry frogs and PowerPoint?

Not to mention it seems to be a truthful accounting from someone utterly confused by the police.

 

[JREF2010]

christianahannah,

For the knife to be a valid result, several things would have to be true. There should have been a control sample run under identical conditions, including the concentration step. The proecdure should have been repeated at least once, maybe more. The process should have been validated in some way. All of the results should have been turned over to the defense as well as the prosecution. Scientists should be trying to find an answer, not trying to convict someone.

However, all of these things could have been done and there is still no blood on the blade. When I discussed this case with a local police forensics person, without my prompting she said words to the effect of, "Did they open the knife?" Opening the knife would have been a good way to show whether or not this was the murder weapon (maybe not perfect, but good). To oppose it on procedural grounds is very questionable. It makes me ask whether Maresca is interested in knowing the truth. MOO.

For the defense to push so hard, to have the knife inspected more closely was a huge show of confidence.

In hindsight, maybe it's better Massei rejected the defense request, because he probably would have told Mignini and Stefanoni to retest the knife, not neutral experts.

 

[christianahannah]

For the defense to push so hard, to have the knife inspected more closely was a huge show of confidence.

In hindsight, maybe it's better Massei rejected the defense request, because he probably would have told Mignini and Stefanoni to retest the knife, not neutral experts.

I didn't think it was the defense which requested the opening of the knife but rather the independent experts. The defense did not object to the opening of the knife, however.

I don't think the defense brought up the opening of the knife in the first trial but I am not certain of this.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

For the defense to push so hard, to have the knife inspected more closely was a huge show of confidence.

In hindsight, maybe it's better Massei rejected the defense request, because he probably would have told Mignini and Stefanoni to retest the knife, not neutral experts.

Neither defence teams formerly requested that the knife should be dismantled in the appeal their submissions, the fact that they didn’t could be view as either a lack of confidence or more likely a missed opportunity. Indeed, it was the court appointed experts that made the request not the defence teams.

 

[christianahannah]

christianahannah,

For the knife to be a valid result, several things would have to be true. There should have been a control sample run under identical conditions, including the concentration step. The proecdure should have been repeated at least once, maybe more. The process should have been validated in some way. All of the results should have been turned over to the defense as well as the prosecution. Scientists should be trying to find an answer, not trying to convict someone.

However, all of these things could have been done and there is still no blood on the blade. When I discussed this case with a local police forensics person, without my prompting she said words to the effect of, "Did they open the knife?" Opening the knife would have been a good way to show whether or not this was the murder weapon (maybe not perfect, but good). To oppose it on procedural grounds is very questionable. It makes me ask whether Maresca is interested in knowing the truth. MOO.

Well I think the procedural grounds were what the independent experts were first tasked with doing by the court and if there was to be more than that a formal request would have to be made.

I think Stefanoni was been with the polizia scientifica since 2000. There may be a valid reason why she did not open the knife. Maybe she asked and was told no since a result had been obtained.

As for the tests and valid results and whether this was done I am trying to understand all this and it is difficult. Do you find it easy when looking at the documents?

 

[billyryan]

I don't think either John Kercher or Maresca had anything to do with the time Rudy will serve in prison. Most of that time had to do with the fast-track trial and the additional time off had to do with mitigating factors which were afforded Amanda and Raffaele in their sentencing which were passed on to Rudy. Micheli gave Rudy the maximum sentence 30 years (which was then scaled down per the above).

It was Rudy who was first served with the civil action while he was being tried and subsequently ordered to pay damages to the Kerchers.

I think you are wrong there Christianhannah,if this case had been dealt with as it should as a case of robbery leading to rape and murder against Rudy Guede I firmly believe that he would be serving more than sixteen years, to get where he now is Mignini needed the cooperation of Stefanoni,we can all see in the independent DNA analysis how she cooperated,I think Mignini's chief strategist is Maresca and in their desire at all costs to implicate Amanda and Raffaele they have found it necessary not to appeal Rudy's reduction of sentence to the supreme court in return for his letter claiming that a couple killed Meredith while he was in the bathroom and strongly indicating that couple was Amanda and Raffaele,Maresca objected to the opening of the knife handle when it was suggested,he probably was in on the decision not to test the possible semen stains,he is hired by the Kerchers to represent their interests in court he is way too close to the prosecution in my opinion and the direction the prosecution has taken has enabled Rudy to face a less severe sentence than he should have

 

[RoseMontague]

So here is the bra clasp very close to Amanda's lamp cord and several inches from the place it is again photographed without the cord. There are also some strands of what looks like hair with the cord, does anybody else see this?

 

[RandyN]

I don't think either John Kercher or Maresca had anything to do with the time Rudy will serve in prison. Most of that time had to do with the fast-track trial and the additional time off had to do with mitigating factors which were afforded Amanda and Raffaele in their sentencing which were passed on to Rudy. Micheli gave Rudy the maximum sentence 30 years (which was then scaled down per the above).

It was Rudy who was first served with the civil action while he was being tried and subsequently ordered to pay damages to the Kerchers.

Except that the prosecution failed to appeal this murderers conviction in any phase of the trial. There is a reason Mignini suggested Maresca to Kercher. The truth is the murderer of Meredith got a very light sentence. Part of the reason is that he is penniless. No matter what monetary penalty he is given, the Kerchers will see nothing from Rudy Guede. AK and RS are the deep pockets they seek to punish...truth or no truth.

 

[Fine]

Rose,

Here's a better photograph of the lamp cord and bra clasp, the clasp as re-discovered on December 18.........

///

 

[PhantomWolf]

I didn't think it was the defense which requested the opening of the knife but rather the independent experts. The defense did not object to the opening of the knife, however.

I don't think the defense brought up the opening of the knife in the first trial but I am not certain of this.

Neither defence teams formerly requested that the knife should be dismantled in the appeal their submissions, the fact that they didn’t could be view as either a lack of confidence or more likely a missed opportunity. Indeed, it was the court appointed experts that made the request not the defence teams.

I don't get this. Why the Frak (excuse my Caprican) would the defence want the knife opened?

If there was any teams in the court that should have been objecting to the knife being opened it should have been the defence.

Opening the knife could only have helped the prosecution because it would have shown if there was blood in the handle, something that would have destroyed any defence instantly. The absence of blood in the handle doesn't actually help the defence whatsoever so the defence had ZERO reason to have it opened and plenty of reason not to have it opened.

The entire point of the discussion that it wasn't opened is that the two parties that should have been clamouring to have it opened, The Prosecution and Maresca, were adamently against doing so. It's like me offering you $1,000 and having you say "No I don't want it," then running away. It makes no sense, unless they knew there there would be no blood and so wanted to remove even the slimmist possibility of the defense trying to use a "there was no blood at all on the or in the knife, so it can't have been the murder weapon" arguement and the court not realising that such an arguement is a logical fallacy.

Going on about the defence not requesting it is either totally missing the point, or a smoke screen to avoid that fact that the prosecution and Maresca, both of whom are the ones that should have wanted it opened and been clamouring for it to be opened, actually prevented it from being opened.