Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Grinder]

If an independent review of the bath mat print, the break-in (was the stone thrown from outside or inside) and a thorough investigation of the interrogation delayed the results for a month. I'd take that trade-off.

I think an independent review would say that the bath mat print can not be attributed to either RS or RG definitively. The stone would shown to have been thrown from outside. Whether or not the police interrogators would "buckle" is probably not as likely.

No one has answered about whether defense will be able to expand their questioning of Stef to other bad practices or if Napolitano will be made to testify about all the mistakes made by the police.

 

[smkovalinksy]

If an independent review of the bath mat print, the break-in (was the stone thrown from outside or inside) and a thorough investigation of the interrogation delayed the results for a month. I'd take that trade-off.

I think an independent review would say that the bath mat print can not be attributed to either RS or RG definitively. The stone would shown to have been thrown from outside. Whether or not the police interrogators would "buckle" is probably not as likely.

No one has answered about whether defense will be able to expand their questioning of Stef to other bad practices or if Napolitano will be made to testify about all the mistakes made by the police.

Yes, if more review in earnest were the cause for the delay, it would be well worth it. I have wondered also about expansion of questioning, and reviews, and am never able to obtain any clear answer. Must always wait for court reporting after the fact...

 

[snook1]

I also thought it was curious to have one day between closing arguments and a verdict. I court cases I am used to, the deliberation time is unknown, it takes as long as it takes. If these dates are firm, it does seem Hellmann already knows how it is going to go, although to do that so blatently before closing arguments seems wrong -- and could be objected to be either side.

And, in your opinion, what will be the final outcome on Sept 28th?
I'm baffled by this schedule and have no clue about what will happen.

Also, what's with the prisoners' testimony filled by the prosecution just yesterday? Anyone know what's that all about?

 

[christianahannah]

Unfortunately, I have to agree with smkovalinsky. The Kerchers have by now made it amply clear that they have taken a side in this fight. When they say "Meredith has been forgotten amidst the media frenzy", what they mean is "Media attention on the flaws in the case may increase the likelihood that Knox and Sollecito are let off; so please stop it!"

Of course the Kerchers have taken a side in the trial, especially after the verdict in the trial of first instance for Amanda and Raffaele and the verdict in the fast track trial of Rudy. I read the letter differently than you but that is probably no surprise.

I understand the temptation to try to resist this unpleasant conclusion, but they have forced it upon us. Every letter, every statement, every op-ed they have released has made it yet more plain that they are not simply neutral observers awaiting the outcome of the judicial process; rather, they have made their decision, and are expecting the courts to agree.

There is no temptation on my part and nothing has been forced by the Kerchers onto anyone, just as nothing has been forced by the Knox/Mellas onto anyone. Of course the Kerchers are not neutral observers (as are the majority who post and blog about this case), nor should they be, it is their daughter, sister who was murdered. That they believe the three who have been convicted in their first trials (though still presumed innocent until the end of appeals) are guilty is not unusual at all. I think there are many cases in which the family and loved ones of a victim believe the guilt of those involved even through the appeal process. And obviously, if you believe someone guilty you want the courts to agree with you.

I also don't think the Knox/Mellas are neutral observers. I wouldn't expect them to sit idly by and not use whatever means are available to them to advocate for their daughter while the hearings are proceeding. This same also applies to Raffaele's family and friends.

They have allowed "justice for Meredith" -- indeed, even "remembering Meredith" -- to become code for "convicting Knox and Sollecito". More than allowed, they have encouraged it, as Stephanie Kercher's letter shows:

Here we clearly see "remembering Meredith" being directly equated with "believing in the rest of the prosecution's case, notwithstanding the findings of Conti and Vecchiotti regarding the knife and clasp". I find this appallingly manipulative -- so much so that I feel compelled break the taboo against criticizing the Kerchers by saying so.

What you see as manipulative I see as concern. If someone is set free on a technicality (this is not the right word for me to use but I can't think of another), despite other evidence which a family may feel still points to their guilt, it is understandable that the family may have feelings of concern.

Remember that Maresca represents them. Everything he says about this case -- and every shameless courtroom trick he pulls -- can be assumed to have the full endorsement of the Kercher family (unless and until explicitly disclaimed by them).

That is the sad reality. I hope it eventually changes.

Yes, Maresca is a good attorney who represents the Kerchers. I assume you have read some of the transcripts of his questioning/comments. I think all the attorneys in this case are good and advocate strenuously for their clients. I would expect nothing less. Their emotional exuberance is part of that advocacy.

 

[Draca]

Unfortunately, I have to agree with smkovalinsky. The Kerchers have by now made it amply clear that they have taken a side in this fight. When they say "Meredith has been forgotten amidst the media frenzy", what they mean is "Media attention on the flaws in the case may increase the likelihood that Knox and Sollecito are let off; so please stop it!"

I understand the temptation to try to resist this unpleasant conclusion, but they have forced it upon us. Every letter, every statement, every op-ed they have released has made it yet more plain that they are not simply neutral observers awaiting the outcome of the judicial process; rather, they have made their decision, and are expecting the courts to agree.

They have allowed "justice for Meredith" -- indeed, even "remembering Meredith" -- to become code for "convicting Knox and Sollecito". More than allowed, they have encouraged it, as Stephanie Kercher's letter shows:

Here we clearly see "remembering Meredith" being directly equated with "believing in the rest of the prosecution's case, notwithstanding the findings of Conti and Vecchiotti regarding the knife and clasp". I find this appallingly manipulative -- so much so that I feel compelled break the taboo against criticizing the Kerchers by saying so.

Remember that Maresca represents them. Everything he says about this case -- and every shameless courtroom trick he pulls -- can be assumed to have the full endorsement of the Kercher family (unless and until explicitly disclaimed by them).

That is the sad reality. I hope it eventually changes.

Komponisto,

I agree. This letter is hard to read. What is interesting also is what she does not list as evidence: knife, bra clasp, Toto. That is indicative that she knows that evidence is gone. So even though three of the main pieces of evidence used to convict are gone she still sees the conviction as safe? No reasonable doubt? It is an emotionally manipulative letter. It also shows her and the Kercher family as not understanding that there is no 'mixed blood' and the luminol prints tested negative with TMB. It's one thing for Barbie Nadeau and Andrea Vogt to not understand. For the Kercher's to believe that is due to Francesco Maresca giving them incorrect information.

It said in one article that the Kerchers will be at the verdict. It will hopefully be a joyous day for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and their families. A day of freedom returned and a wrongful conviction overturned. I do not look forward to the reaction of the Kercher family.

 

[christianahannah]

Yes, if more review in earnest were the cause for the delay, it would be well worth it. I have wondered also about expansion of questioning, and reviews, and am never able to obtain any clear answer. Must always wait for court reporting after the fact...

An article concerning the court schedule. It mentions a possible delay of the schedule (last paragraph) if questioning of experts should go longer or if the prosecution requests additional witnesses (upon court acceptance) but does not say anything about the defense, however, I assume the same would apply to them (request of additional witnesses). I think I have read this correctly but please feel free to correct if not.

http://www.lanazione.it/cronaca/201...h_ecco_possibile_scaletta_delle_udienze.shtml

 

[Kaosium]

I supposed it must be blood from the crime scene as well. If it were some other substance containing metal ions, where did it come from? Perhaps it is something inherent in the composition of the booties, just as luminol reacts to fire retardant automobile fabrics.

That's an interesting speculation, although it would be interesting to find out what was the source of that blood on the booties, forty-some days after the first forensic evidence collection? Or do you suppose they recycled those booties (save the planet!) without properly cleansing them?

That does make me wonder, what with the Polizia Scientifica clod-hopping about the corridor, and the Postal police and Amanda and Raffaele walking around the crime scene with Rudy's bloody shoeprints in that corridor, and many of those 'footprints' looking as much or more like abstract art than actual footprints, why is it considered evidence of murder by you? For those who insist anything luminol lights up at a crime scene ought to be considered blood until proven otherwise, regardless of things like negative TMB tests and the remarkably curious lack of a confirmation test, how can you assume they came from the night of the murder and not sometime afterward (or before) when there were far more opportunities for bloody traces to get spread from the murder room (or from Rudy's shoeprints) to that corridor, with actual evidence there was the opportunity for that to happen?

Also, whatever makes you think that an evidence collection 'mission' forty-some days after the last, which results in as absurd a piece of 'evidence' as that bra-clasp, and the utterly astonishing presentation of luminol shapes as 'bloody footprints' that tested negative for blood and no confirmation test done, would necessarily show anything else that might invalidate them, like other luminol hits that disrupt or suggest another basic pattern?

Where does the assumption come from that they have to be the result of Amanda and Raffaele being involved in the murder when they're just stains on the floor that tested negative for blood, and they never even tried to confirm as such and it required destruction of the computer data to even allow for a minimal chance they could even have been there to make them?

What if they're just looking for anything they think they can make sound 'suspicious?' Why would you discount that probability, considering that caging Raffaele and Amanda for life seems to be a primary goal?

I think there's no question the Knoxes did not understand the formality that was required of them in such a serious situation. The attire was casual at best and short skirts and shorts and baseball hats are out of place in a courtroom. I'm not judging any of them by that, just pointing out what should have been the obvious. They seem a close knit, loyal, and nice family, and I am impressed at their devotion to their daughter.

However, attire is considered so important in a courtroom here in Canada even that my boyfriend who is a lawyer councils his clients on what to wear in court, what demeanor to adopt and even has on occasion given a client clothing to wear from his own closet to help him make a better impression.
It may seem petty to comment on what someone wears but there is truth to the notion that you can be judged on your appearance, especially in highly formal and tradition rich venues such as courts of law. JMO.

I don't think they realized they were on trial too, but that definitely seemed to be the attitude of some press. I would tend to agree that more cordial attire didn't help themselves with some, and apparel choices were more important in that environment than they might have realized. Much like I think that while far too much was made of Amanda's Beatles T-shirt on Valentine's Day, when they're looking to burn you at the stake dousing yourself with kerosene may not be the wisest course of action. However, personally if what I have read about the Scazzi case and this one is representative, I think some elements of the Italian media and those sympathetic to their current zeitgeist ought to be visited in their dreams by Uomo senza nome, one of the enduring tributes to Italian-American cooperation in other media....


That does bring to mind a question, one of life's imponderables I've found, just exactly how does a guy tactfully (and safely!) influence female clothing choices when they get big enough you can't outright tell them? I've noticed (from other's mistakes!) anything resembling 'that makes you look fat' 'that shows too much,' 'that doesn't show enough,' 'that color doesn't look good on you' and 'that's ugly as hell' just doesn't tend to lead to a cordial exchange of views. Study on the subject leads me to the observation 'that looks great!' or some variation thereof with enough enthusiasm and detail so they don't guess you don't care that much, or really think that it looks kinda odd is the only acceptable course of action, all others are fraught with peril.

 

[smkovalinksy]

An article concerning the court schedule. It mentions a possible delay of the schedule (last paragraph) if questioning of experts should go longer or if the prosecution requests additional witnesses (upon court acceptance) but does not say anything about the defense, however, I assume the same would apply to them (request of additional witnesses). I think I have read this correctly but please feel free to correct if not.

http://www.lanazione.it/cronaca/201...h_ecco_possibile_scaletta_delle_udienze.shtml

Thanks for this link, and yes, I think you are correct---which is why Nadeau called it a tentative schedule - there may be requests from both sides for extra questioning, witnesses, and the like. As with the Casey Anthony trial, a tentative date for closing arguments was set, but it went 2 weeks beyond that for various cancellations and postponements. I would say we are in the home stretch, but should not be surprised if the verdict comes 2-3 weeks after Sep 28.

 

[LondonJohn]

Komponisto,

I agree. This letter is hard to read. What is interesting also is what she does not list as evidence: knife, bra clasp, Toto. That is indicative that she knows that evidence is gone. So even though three of the main pieces of evidence used to convict are gone she still sees the conviction as safe? No reasonable doubt? It is an emotionally manipulative letter. It also shows her and the Kercher family as not understanding that there is no 'mixed blood' and the luminol prints tested negative with TMB. It's one thing for Barbie Nadeau and Andrea Vogt to not understand. For the Kercher's to believe that is due to Francesco Maresca giving them incorrect information.

It said in one article that the Kerchers will be at the verdict. It will hopefully be a joyous day for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and their families. A day of freedom returned and a wrongful conviction overturned. I do not look forward to the reaction of the Kercher family.

It seems pretty conclusive that the John and Stephy Kercher have both come to the conclusion that a) Knox and Sollecito were participants in the murder of their daughter/sister; b) any acquittal would therefore be improper and would mean by extension that Knox/Sollecito had "got away with murder"; c) Knox's family in particular are attempting to flood the media with "positive propaganda"; and d) this is all designed to deflect attention away from Meredith Kercher.

Unfortunately, they are wrong on all counts. Of course they are perfectly entitled to their opinion. But their opinion is just wrong. And that's not only saddening, but also somewhat to their intellectual and moral discredit. After all, they should be fundamentally concerned with ensuring that the right person(s) is/are correctly convicted for Meredith's murder. Many of the things that they have said and written over the past few years clearly indicates that they have reached conclusions based on bogus reasoning and sheer ignorance. For example, I happened to re-read John Kercher writing in The Sun the following totally ignorant paragraph about the DNA evidence:

The defence have argued that as it (the bra clasp) 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.

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

This is a comparison which most people with an ounce of logic and reason can easily see is ridiculous and incorrect (although it's still parroted by various pro-guilt commentators who also apparently can't see the faulty logic in the comparison). In a similar vein, other utterances of the Kercher family show clearly that unfortunately - and sadly - they do not understand the case properly.

I can reach no other conclusion than that the Kerchers have been convinced of Knox's/Sollecito's culpability by a combination of Maresca, Mignini and the Massei verdict. I think they have adopted a tribal approach to the case, and have sadly also fallen into the trap of thinking that Knox's/Sollecito's quest for justice is incompatible with "justice for Meredith". While again it's worth stating that I respect the Kerchers' right to hold any views whatsoever in relation to the murder of Meredith, I think that the views they do apparently hold are distasteful, ill-informed and ignorant.

I am virtually certain that Knox and Sollecito will correctly be acquitted in Hellmann's court, and I am pretty confident that they had absolutely nothing to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher. As and when the acquittal happens, I hope that the Kercher family take a big step back, and refrain from making any ill-chosen and ugly comments towards Knox/Sollecito. And I hope that in timer they will come to realise that they looked at the case against Knox/Sollecito through a warped prism, aided and abetted by mendacious lawyers and an incompetent first trial judge.

 

[Alt+F4]

Unfortunately, they are wrong on all counts. Of course they are perfectly entitled to their opinion. But their opinion is just wrong. And that's not only saddening, but also somewhat to their intellectual and moral discredit.

You should really read what you type before making judgements on other people's intelligence.

 

[RoseMontague]

Of course the Kerchers have taken a side in the trial, especially after the verdict in the trial of first instance for Amanda and Raffaele and the verdict in the fast track trial of Rudy. I read the letter differently than you but that is probably no surprise.

There is no temptation on my part and nothing has been forced by the Kerchers onto anyone, just as nothing has been forced by the Knox/Mellas onto anyone. Of course the Kerchers are not neutral observers (as are the majority who post and blog about this case), nor should they be, it is their daughter, sister who was murdered. That they believe the three who have been convicted in their first trials (though still presumed innocent until the end of appeals) are guilty is not unusual at all. I think there are many cases in which the family and loved ones of a victim believe the guilt of those involved even through the appeal process. And obviously, if you believe someone guilty you want the courts to agree with you.

I also don't think the Knox/Mellas are neutral observers. I wouldn't expect them to sit idly by and not use whatever means are available to them to advocate for their daughter while the hearings are proceeding. This same also applies to Raffaele's family and friends.

What you see as manipulative I see as concern. If someone is set free on a technicality (this is not the right word for me to use but I can't think of another), despite other evidence which a family may feel still points to their guilt, it is understandable that the family may have feelings of concern.

Yes, Maresca is a good attorney who represents the Kerchers. I assume you have read some of the transcripts of his questioning/comments. I think all the attorneys in this case are good and advocate strenuously for their clients. I would expect nothing less. Their emotional exuberance is part of that advocacy.

I both agree and disagree. I have no problem with the Kercher's having an opinion of guilt. My problem is that all the indications are they have that opinion based only on the information from the cops, prosecution, and their lawyer.

I have to judge them by what I believe I would do if I were in their shoes. I would not pay an attorney to back the side of guilt and possibly keep two innocent people in jail for 25+ years without at least looking at the evidence the defense has put forward.

The machine like list advanced by Mr. Kercher and now the letter from the sister indicating the sources of their information I have listed make it obvious they are only getting one side of the debate.

 

[Alt+F4]

I have no problem with the Kercher's having an opinion of guilt. My problem is that all the indications are they have that opinion based only on the information from the cops, prosecution, and their lawyer.

So you don't think they have access to the Internet, just like you do?

 

[Alt+F4]

The machine like list advanced by Mr. Kercher....

?

 

[LondonJohn]

Thanks for this link, and yes, I think you are correct---which is why Nadeau called it a tentative schedule - there may be requests from both sides for extra questioning, witnesses, and the like. As with the Casey Anthony trial, a tentative date for closing arguments was set, but it went 2 weeks beyond that for various cancellations and postponements. I would say we are in the home stretch, but should not be surprised if the verdict comes 2-3 weeks after Sep 28.

I think it's a wishful-thinking schedule. I think that a verdict won't arrive before mid-October at the earliest. There's a lot of evidence/testimony from the first trial to add to the new evidence/testimony from the appeal trial, a combination of which will be used as the basis of the closing arguments.

The only way that I can see such an abbreviated argument phase is if Hellmann essentially decides that the prosecution cannot now prove its case, and thus decides that the court does not need to hear a lengthy defence argument. And we may get some indication of that by the end of next week.

Either way, I am certain that most of the pro-guilt commentators will not enjoy the outcome of Monday's/Tuesday's hearings - regardless of their current wishful thinking to the contrary. Ms Stefanoni's numerous huge errors will be exposed in court, and it won't be pleasant. I also personally suspect that either she or Comodi (or both) have misled the court in regard to "quarantine periods" and control testing. I have a funny feeling that in addition to an exposition of her incompetence and malpractice, Ms Stefanoni might also be exposed as a liar by the end of Tuesday. Just my hunch.

 

[LondonJohn]

You should really read what you type before making judgements on other people's intelligence.

Why? I'm making a judgement based on the evidence before me. Do you think I'm wrong?

 

[LondonJohn]

So you don't think they have access to the Internet, just like you do?

The idiots on PMF have access to the internet. But they are ignorant and incapable of logic and reasoning. If they were not ignorant and were capable of logic and reasoning, they would easily be able to see that this case is quite definitely a reasonable-doubt case at the very least, and that in all likelihood Knox and Sollecito had nothing to do with the murder or Meredith Kercher.

Having access to the internet is not a universal panacea against ignorance, bias and bad reasoning skills.

 

[christianahannah]

I both agree and disagree. I have no problem with the Kercher's having an opinion of guilt. My problem is that all the indications are they have that opinion based only on the information from the cops, prosecution, and their lawyer.

I have to judge them by what I believe I would do if I were in their shoes. I would not pay an attorney to back the side of guilt and possibly keep two innocent people in jail for 25+ years without at least looking at the evidence the defense has put forward.

The machine like list advanced by Mr. Kercher and now the letter from the sister indicating the sources of their information I have listed make it obvious they are only getting one side of the debate.

I believe I read when the Kercher's filed the civil suit it gave them access to the evidence submitted in court (court file/record). I may be wrong on this and will try to locate that information.

I don't think the letter states that the Kercher's have received their information only from the police, prosecution and attorney but rather they have faith in and receive support from those named. And Stephy mentions the DNA evidence under review (as requested by the defense) so it is very possible they have looked at the report.

 

[LondonJohn]

Let me make a small comparison about the "search for justice" by victims' families.

Jim Swire's daughter, Flora, was murdered aboard PanAm 103 in 1988. From the very beginning, Swire was passionately involved in seeking justice for his daughter and the other victims. He campaigned vociferously but in a non-retribution manner to expedite the investigation and legal proceedings. When the two Libyans were identified by the authorities, Swire was uncertain of their involvement but supported the trial process as a means of (hopefully) getting closer to the truth of what happened and who was responsible.

When the Camp Zeist court heard the case, Swire was constantly present and heard all the evidence presented. He quickly became convinced that the Libyans had nothing to do with the bombing, and concluded - correctly - that the trial had been a railroading with political/economic undertones. While other of the victims' families cheered at Al-Megrahi's conviction, Swire became more and more concerned with the exoneration of Al-Megrahi and a renewed investigation into the real perpetrators.

To my mind, Jim Swire has conducted himself with dignity, intelligence, honour and integrity throughout. He has cast aside all thoughts of emotionally-charged retribution and revenge, in favour of objective, rational analysis. I find it somewhat moving that he is campaigning on behalf of the man convicted of killing his daughter, because he has the intelligence and compassion to understand that the conviction is manifestly unsafe and unjust.

That's the difference.......

 

[Rolfe]

Yeah, well....
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7522198

Unfortunately not all Lockerbie relatives are prepared to look at the evidence so dispassionately.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=218217

It's not easy to be objective in these circumstances.

Rolfe.

 

[Kaosium]

Of course the Kerchers have taken a side in the trial, especially after the verdict in the trial of first instance for Amanda and Raffaele and the verdict in the fast track trial of Rudy. I read the letter differently than you but that is probably no surprise.

Is that because you've as much knowledge of the subject, or that you think any opinion is as valid as another regardless of merit? Her talking about 'bloody footprints' and 'mixed blood' means something. It means Maresca is not being honest with them, and that they've not the wit to realize no one would care about that ridiculous DNA evidence either way if there were actually footprints made in blood or Amanda's blood mixed with Meredith's. That would be (if true) 'DNA evidence' as well, and far more damning than the knife that doesn't match the wounds and tested negative for blood, and the clasp which had the traces of three others as well.

There is no temptation on my part and nothing has been forced by the Kerchers onto anyone, just as nothing has been forced by the Knox/Mellas onto anyone. Of course the Kerchers are not neutral observers (as are the majority who post and blog about this case), nor should they be, it is their daughter, sister who was murdered. That they believe the three who have been convicted in their first trials (though still presumed innocent until the end of appeals) are guilty is not unusual at all. I think there are many cases in which the family and loved ones of a victim believe the guilt of those involved even through the appeal process. And obviously, if you believe someone guilty you want the courts to agree with you.

How many cases can you name where there was a perpetrator convicted of the crime who was the only person for whom evidence was found at the scene when the forensics were processed, but that the family still blamed two college kids (meaning they weren't like mafia dons or criminal masterminds) for the crime? Isn't it the case in all these other instances that there's no basically nobody else to blame, unless it's someone who might have ordered it happen and it was believable that could occur?

I also don't think the Knox/Mellas are neutral observers. I wouldn't expect them to sit idly by and not use whatever means are available to them to advocate for their daughter while the hearings are proceeding. This same also applies to Raffaele's family and friends.

Is defending oneself in a lawsuit the same thing as initiating one? Is one side not considered more aggressive? Is helping someone up the same as pushing them down? It is perfectly 'legal' to cheat on one's mate--does that make it right? It is (oftentimes) perfectly legal to lie behind someone's back and hurt their chances of promotion if it's the sort of thing that couldn't be proven, is that 'right?'

Defending someone from a bizarre charge is far different than condemning that person before due process is complete and sabotaging the efforts of people trying to help them and trying to put those people in jail too or at the very least intimidate them with scurrilous charges.

What you see as manipulative I see as concern. If someone is set free on a technicality (this is not the right word for me to use but I can't think of another), despite other evidence which a family may feel still points to their guilt, it is understandable that the family may have feelings of concern.

Should they lead a lynch mob to exact 'justice' anyway? Why not? What more could they do to hurt Raffaele and Amanda than tell public lies (and Maresca knows they're lies, he isn't stupid) to defame the defendants in the eyes of the unsequestered jury to manipulate it, try to put Amanda in jail anyway for 'slander,' her parents as well for 'daring' to try to speak out, and five members of the Sollecito family for exposing the bogus evidence against Raffaele? It would be a helluva a lot less harmful if John Kercher just tried to strangle them with his bare hands in court if acquitted.

Is there anything the Kerchers could do that would earn condemnation from you? Now, if Amanda and Raffaele are acquitted, what would you think if they and their families went after everything the Kercher's owned and tried to put them away with libel charges and whatever they could for the rest of their lives, and done it entirely legally? Because that's exactly what the Kercher's tried to do to them, through the Jackal Maresca. If Amanda and Raffaele are acquitted, they are legally innocent, just as they are already to every cogent and rational observer of this case now. They are victims here, mainly of the police and prosecution, but also of the Kerchers through the actions of Maresca.

If they did that they would be entirely justified as there's no doubt whatsoever that Maresca tried every last thing he could think of to harm the interests of Amanda, Raffaele, and their families. On the other hand, the Kerchers, through the Jackal Maresca, will have done great evil to innocent people and have earned nothing but condemnation. They didn't sit back in reserved dignity, that is perhaps the most idiotic lie told in this case. It is something people would simply prefer they had done and want to believe, the actual evidence is entirely to the contrary.

There's a reason behind the presumption of innocence, and this case is an object lesson for all who would forget it. It also shows just how badly something that sounds good can become when (especially) sleazy lawyers get involved. No civil case should ever have been filed, and no lawyer should ever have taken it even if they wanted to. This should have been as obvious to them as it was to Paul Ciolino who figured it out after talking a little while to Giobbi and poking around the neighborhood.

Yes, Maresca is a good attorney who represents the Kerchers. I assume you have read some of the transcripts of his questioning/comments. I think all the attorneys in this case are good and advocate strenuously for their clients. I would expect nothing less. Their emotional exuberance is part of that advocacy.

I disagree, he sold his clients interests out, he has failed to properly advise them, and he has exposed them to action against them, and he might have invested them so much in a ridiculous action against two innocents they may be scarred for life. He should be jailed for his crimes, but instead he will probably dance between the raindrops, leaving devastation in his wake.

Of course his reputation is going to take a big hit. For that I'm grateful.