Continuation Part Six: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[CoulsdonUK]

Did we already talk about how stupid it was for RS to visit MK grave? I suppose...I hate having to work...anyhoo...

I also think it was stupid for AK to express the desire to visit.

Dont these dopes understand that detectives often record grave sites and funerals because the killers often attend? These kids are not getting smarter IMHO. Saying and doing stupid stuff is not advised at this time.

They really are both clueless sometimes.

I agree that it was not the smartest thing to do politically, and that it can also be construed as disrespectful to the Kerchers (who'd previously expressed a desire that only family and friends visit the grave).

On the other hand, the cemetery is a public space, and therefore the Kerchers - whether they like it or not - have no control or say over who stands in front of Meredith's grave. If Sollecito had a genuine personal need to visit the grave for his own reasons, I don't automatically attach anything malicious or hurtful to that.

I suppose the best solution would have been if Sollecito's visit to the grave had remained entirely private and untold. It would appear that this was Sollecito's intention - given that the visit apparently took place back in March. If his father had not talked about it the other day, nobody need ever have known about it.

But having said all that, if I were in Sollecito's shoes I would certainly have refrained from going to the grave at all until and unless I was acquitted of the murder.

I really do not think the Kercher family were asking that much and the combination of Raffaele ignoring Meredith’s family public statements and his Father bizarre need to make the visit public demonstrates a serious lack empathy, it should not have been about Raffaele wishes or feelings but one of respecting the families wishes.

It could be said that the Kercher family show a bizarre lack of respect for two people declared innocent by an Italian court of the murder of their family member. Most recent is John Kercher declaring he had heard all Amanda's rubbish before, and previously Stephanie Kercher declaring we don't read these books, those of Amanda and Raffaele truthfully and laboriously telling everything they knew about the case.

Do you also disagree with LondonJohn’s post which I was responding to or is it just mine, if so why?
ETA: For context I have put the 3 post covering Raffaele’s apparent visit to Meredith’s grave.

 

[Samson]

Do you also disagree with LondonJohn’s post which I was responding to or is it just mine, if so why?
ETA: For context I have put the 3 post covering Raffaele’s apparent visit to Meredith’s grave.

I am expressing my views, isn't this part of the thread's purpose. LondonJohn expressed his, you yours on an important aspect of this case. However I would be extremely interested in a more specific idea of what you think I have wrong.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I am expressing my views, isn't this part of the thread's purpose. LondonJohn expressed his, you yours on an important aspect of this case. However I would be extremely interested in a more specific idea of what you think I have wrong.

I have placed the 3 post covering Raffaele’s visit, do you disagree with the general comments of all the posts or just my post?

 

[Samson]

I have placed the 3 post covering Raffaele’s visit, do you disagree with the general comments of all the posts or just my post?

I'm sorry, but what is a 3 post? I'm new around here.

 

[Samson]

Do you also disagree with LondonJohn’s post which I was responding to or is it just mine, if so why?
ETA: For context I have put the 3 post covering Raffaele’s apparent visit to Meredith’s grave.

I see now what you mean by 3 post. There appear to be two issues, one is about manners the other about strategy. I see expressing the wish to visit a grave as affirming innocence, in contrast I don't expect Rudy to do so though he says he is innocent. Amanda and Raffaele have been so appallingly treated by so many people I give them a leave pass to do and say what they like while they are free.

 

[Mary_H]

I have placed the 3 post covering Raffaele’s visit, do you disagree with the general comments of all the posts or just my post?

I disagree with all three. First, I believe the Kerchers asked Amanda not to visit the grave in response to Amanda's interviews about her book. Raffaele visited the grave before Amanda's book came out.

Second, the Kerchers need to get over their hard feelings toward Amanda and Raffaele. Their feelings are misplaced and are based on being manipulated by people who do not have the Kerchers' best interests at heart. Enough people have told them this that they should seriously be considering the errors of their ways. I'm sick of people cosseting them as if they don't have the skills to figure this out.

Third, Amanda and Raffaele can go wherever and do whatever they want. They have no responsibility for this debacle and should separate themselves from it emotionally to the greatest extent possible, IMO. It is somebody else's problem, not theirs.

 

[Antony]

One can only hope that the Italian prison system has had some measure of success in rehabilitating and re-educating Guede, such that he poses little or no risk upon release. I'm not holding my breath on that one though...

Not a chance. One of the damaging effects of wrongful convictions is how it discredits the system in the minds of the actual perpetrators.

 

[Strozzi]

How And why was either the bra clasp or the knife permitted as evidence? I have yet to hear a reasonable theory as to how a court in a supposed civilized country allowed these items in as evidence.

Machiavelli has adressed this exact issue of how a court can allow in (questionable) evidence. If I understand Machiavelli correctly, the courts do not restrict evidence - everything is permitted to be introduced as evidence if it is brought in by the prosecutor. He is an investigatory official of the court and as such is regarded as normally being above reproach. His word/version is normally accepted as reliable, unless it is proven by the defense to be incorrect.

Now, getting access to the evidence to prove that something or some claim is unreliable is another matter. That depends on the will of the court. As we have seen, the court repeatedly refuses to give the defense access to the evidence it needs to show the prosecution is wrong or unreliable.

One of Hellman's mistakes, as apparently seen by the prosecution and the Italian supreme court, was Hellman not listening to Toto's full testimony. Toto showed he was confusing Holloween night with the next night, and thus the night of which he spoke could not be relied upon as accurate. Toto admitted he was high on heroin on the night he allegedly "observed" what he claimed to observe. Toto told the police the day the murder was discovered that he had observed nothing the previous evening/night from his observation point at the basketball court, just above the house where the murder occurred. So Hellman finally removed Toto from the courtroom as the unreliable tricked-out addict he was. What Hellman should have done was allowed Toto to continue to tell his farce as stage-managed by Mignini or Comodi, and then reflected deeply on Toto's testimony, and then discarded it as rubbish - but only after deep reflection by the court and with some long-winded philosophical comment.

 

[xinonix]

Turin is Torino in English. Italy is Italia in English. Germany is Deutchland in English.
That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but that's just the way things are.
The next time Pakistan does something that we English speaking people find inexcusable we should change the name Islamabad to Islamisbad.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The Court of Supreme Cassation doesn't know beans about DNA

CoulsdonUK,

Based on lack of command of facts and lack of understanding of science, I wonder what Court of Supreme Cassation was possibly thinking. Two of the planks in their section on DNA were that contamination must be proved, and that a six-day gap in testing is enough to guarantee that in-lab contamination did not occur. Both are false, and plenty of evidence can be adduced from case histories to show the errors in their thinking. link here.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I disagree with all three. First, I believe the Kerchers asked Amanda not to visit the grave in response to Amanda's interviews about her book. Raffaele visited the grave before Amanda's book came out.

Second, the Kerchers need to get over their hard feelings toward Amanda and Raffaele. Their feelings are misplaced and are based on being manipulated by people who do not have the Kerchers' best interests at heart. Enough people have told them this that they should seriously be considering the errors of their ways. I'm sick of people cosseting them as if they don't have the skills to figure this out.

Third, Amanda and Raffaele can go wherever and do whatever they want. They have no responsibility for this debacle and should separate themselves from it to the greatest extent possible, IMO. It is somebody else's problem, not theirs.

The Kercher family are not responsible for the fact the judicial process is still continuing, so I am not sure in what way you believe they are being protected. This should not be in my opinion about Raffaele and Amanda’s wishes or feelings but one of respecting the wishes of the family, they simply believe Meredith’s resting place should be for family and friends and if people wish to visit that is up to them but it is bizarre of Raffaele’s Father to make his visit public.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>Amanda and Raffaele have been so appallingly treated by so many people I give them a leave pass to do and say what they like while they are free.

The Kercher family are not responsible for the fact the judicial process is still continuing, so I am not sure in what way you believe they are being protected. This should not be in my opinion about Raffaele and Amanda’s wishes or feelings but one of respecting the wishes of the family, they simply believe Meredith’s resting place should be for family and friends and if people wish to visit that is up to them but it is bizarre of Raffaele’s Father to make his visit public.

It's kind of like this. Mignini and Maresca are the abusive parents of eight children -- the Kerchers, Lumumba, Amanda and Raffaele. Six of the children are still in denial about their abuse, and they side with their parents (very common in families).

Two of the children are not in denial; they want to recover from the abuse and move on with their lives. They go to therapy.

Is the therapist supposed to tell these two children to hold off and not do anything that might hurt their siblings’ feelings, but wait for them to stop siding with the parents, even though it may take years, or forever?

These two abused children had nothing to do with the abuse the others suffered. Do they owe something to the rest of the family just because they are the first to try to recover?

 

[Mary_H]

The Kercher family are not responsible for the fact the judicial process is still continuing, so I am not sure in what way you believe they are being protected. This should not be in my opinion about Raffaele and Amanda’s wishes or feelings but one of respecting the wishes of the family, they simply believe Meredith’s resting place should be for family and friends and if people wish to visit that is up to them but it is bizarre of Raffaele’s Father to make his visit public.

Amanda and Raffaele were Meredith's friends.

The Kerchers are being protected by the public's attitude that they suffered such a great loss that everyone must pussyfoot around them and allow them to be irrational. It's not doing them any favors.

Maybe Raffaele's father thinks this should be about respecting the wishes of his family. And so it should. The Kerchers have no more right to want to control Amanda and Raffaele's behavior than the Mellases, Knoxes and Sollecitos have to want to control the Kerchers' behavior.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

Based on lack of command of facts and lack of understanding of science, I wonder what Court of Supreme Cassation was possibly thinking. Two of the planks in their section on DNA were that contamination must be proved, and that a six-day gap in testing is enough to guarantee that in-lab contamination did not occur. Both are false, and plenty of evidence can be adduced from case histories to show the errors in their thinking. link here.

Halides1

Gosh, I must admit to being gobsmacked that 2 sessions of the appeal has generated over a 100 pages of posts, I look forward to when the appeal court addresses the points you are raising although I doubt it will be in purely scientific.

How do you believe the defence teams should approach this issue?

 

[xinonix]

I have read that the Perugia cops were pressured to solve the case quickly. Well where I am from the cops are pressured to do this job right.
I would think that the people of Perugia would want it proved beyond resonable doubt that the perpetrator is the guy who did it, rather than send innocent people to prison, and I don't think they require that the cops do this quickly, and if they cant, they should just convict the most likely suspect, and get it over with.
The 3 suspects were found quickly because Mignini had a psychic tell him what happened.
Now they cant give the psychic credit for solving the case, so they got the cops subjective impressions of the way the break-seemed fake and the way Amanda acted as a substitute reason for finding out that she was the one who killed Meridith.
Mignini knew who was guilty from the start.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Guidance comes from the Land Down Under

Halides1

Gosh, I must admit to being gobsmacked that 2 sessions of the appeal has generated over a 100 pages of posts, I look forward to when the appeal court addresses the points you are raising although I doubt it will be in purely scientific.

How do you believe the defence teams should approach this issue?

That is a good question. My views are that of a scientist, not a lawyer, and I have no idea whether what I suggest is good legal strategy. I would make direct arguments that show that the CSC's views are wrong, but I would cite both science and law in my address. I would try to quote from judges and respected legal scholars where possible, and I would use cases from Australia, rather than America, where possible:

In his 2010 report on the Farah Jama case, Former Australian Supreme Court Judge Frank Vincent wrote (p. 24), “Precisely how it [contamination] may have happened cannot be determined as the deposition of the minute quantity of material involved could have occurred in a number of ways. It is possible to speculate about the probability of transference through various mechanisms, but ultimately pointless to do so.” Judge Vincent also wrote (p. 45), “Whilst there is no absolute bar to conviction based solely on DNA evidence, the better view is that a conviction should only be returned where there is DNA evidence and at least one other item of evidence present which is consistent with the guilt of the offender.” (highlighting mine)

 

[CoulsdonUK]

It's kind of like this. Mignini and Maresca are the abusive parents of eight children -- the Kerchers, Lumumba, Amanda and Raffaele. Six of the children are still in denial about their abuse, and they side with their parents (very common in families).

Two of the children are not in denial; they want to recover from the abuse and move on with their lives. They go to therapy.

Is the therapist supposed to tell these two children to hold off and not do anything that might hurt their siblings’ feelings, but wait for them to stop siding with the parents, even though it may take years, or forever?

These two abused children had nothing to do with the abuse the others suffered. Do they owe something to the rest of the family just because they are the first to try to recover?

Well I kind of look at it from the factual perspective that Meredith Kercher was brutally murdered and the Italian judicial process is yet to come to verdict, therefore, I fail to see how the Kercher family are being cosseted or protected. Indeed, given the nature of Meredith’s death I do not believe it is unreasonable for the family to want her resting place to be for family and friends. I do not believe Mr Sollecito has done Raffaele any public relations favours by making his visit public, it’s just weird.

As you stated when Amanda mentioned she would like to visit Meredith’s grave the Kercher family effectively asked her not to.

 

[LondonJohn]

That is a good question. My views are that of a scientist, not a lawyer, and I have no idea whether what I suggest is good legal strategy. I would make direct arguments that show that the CSC's views are wrong, but I would cite both science and law in my address. I would try to quote from judges and respected legal scholars where possible, and I would use cases from Australia, rather than America, where possible:

In his 2010 report on the Farah Jama case, Former Australian Supreme Court Judge Frank Vincent wrote (p. 24), “Precisely how it [contamination] may have happened cannot be determined as the deposition of the minute quantity of material involved could have occurred in a number of ways. It is possible to speculate about the probability of transference through various mechanisms, but ultimately pointless to do so.” Judge Vincent also wrote (p. 45), “Whilst there is no absolute bar to conviction based solely on DNA evidence, the better view is that a conviction should only be returned where there is DNA evidence and at least one other item of evidence present which is consistent with the guilt of the offender.”

I am hoping - perhaps even expecting - that the defence lawyers will use tomorrow's appearance by the Carabinieri forensic scientists to question them on the wider issues of low-template contamination, and perhaps even get them to give an expert opinion on Stefanoni's work.

I think it's vital that both defence teams convince the court that the alleged Meredith DNA on the knife and the alleged Sollecito DNA on the bra clasp are both unreliable and inadmissible. It's obvious to anyone with a little scientific knowledge and an ounce of logic that Stefanoni's work was so egregiously sloppy and incompetent that contamination (or worse...) is a very real possibility. Indeed, in the case of Meredith's DNA on the knife, I think it's arguable that contamination is a probability, given the amount of Meredith's DNA that had been in and around the testing equipment in Stefanoni's laboratory, and her proven failures to follow low-template cleaning protocols.

In my view, if the defence teams cannot convince the courts on this crucial issue, convictions will follow. I think this also applies to a firm discrediting of the alleged Sollecito match to the bathmat partial print, to the discrediting of the "staged break-in" theory, and to a forceful demonstration that the evidence is wholly compatible with a sole assailant - Guede.

 

[Mary_H]

Well I kind of look at it from the factual perspective that Meredith Kercher was brutally murdered and the Italian judicial process is yet to come to verdict, therefore, I fail to see how the Kercher family are being cosseted or protected. Indeed, given the nature of Meredith’s death I do not believe it is unreasonable for the family to want her resting place to be for family and friends. I do not believe Mr Sollecito has done Raffaele any public relations favours by making his visit public, it’s just weird.

As you stated when Amanda mentioned she would like to visit Meredith’s grave the Kercher family effectively asked her not to.

They did ask her, but she is under no obligation to respect their wishes. I am sure she will, though, because that's the way she is.

Dr. Sollecito, on the other hand, strikes me as the kind of person who is used to having a lot of power in his life, and who may put less store in other people's opinions of his behavior. He may be able to cause just the kind of discomfort that would be helpful in snapping some people out of their delusions.

How do you think the Kerchers would feel is they expressed a desire to come to Seattle, and Amanda's family asked them not to out of respect for what Amanda had been through?

You are still looking at this as if the Kerchers have more rights than the defendants' families -- that is, as if the defendants and their families had something to do with the Kerchers' loss. Keep in mind, their beliefs (and apparently yours) are not based on the evidence.

 

[Grinder]

In fact,the TMB test absolutely showed it tested negative for blood. The Luminol provided a presumptive positive reaction for blood and the TMB provided a presumptive negative reaction for blood.
Maybe this math equation is illuminating.
1 -1 =0

That just isn't true. TMB can have a negative result on blood. It has to do with sensitivity. TMB doesn't pick up blood in the same dilution that luminol does.

Would you bet a yacht that a blood solution never tests negatively with TMB?