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

[LondonJohn]

And that bank was the Abbey. The first listing in the alphabetical listing of her stored phone numbers. Exactly the number most likely to be called accidentally by someone unfamiliar with the phone, pushing buttons trying to stop it bleeping or turn it off.

Rolfe.

Exactly. It may also be worth noting that while Meredith's UK phone remained switched on, her Italian phone was successfully switched off (contrary to the mistaken understanding by many pro-guilt commentators, who seem to think that both handsets were switched on when they were discovered the next day in the garden).

In my view, this might tend to suggest that the person in possession of her phones could figure out how to turn off the Italian phone (a common model in Italy, probably with an Italian-language menu), but could not figure out how to turn off the UK handset (an unfamiliar model, with an English-language menu).

And this in turn corresponds with these instances of curious misdialling/aborted activity (Abbey and UK voicemail) on the UK handset - and only the UK handset - at around 10pm: they certainly are compatible with somebody pushing random buttons in an attempt to turn off the handset.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Does anyone know what John Kercher Jr job actually is within the BBC?

I thought I saw Raffaele on a BBC News programme (hard talk) last summer.

How do I know for example that Piers Morgan isn’t Harry Rag, he was the editor of the Daily Mirror, one of the newspaper John Kercher Sr worked for.

 

[Bill Williams]

Does anyone know what John Kercher Jr job actually is within the BBC?

I thought I saw Raffaele on a BBC News programme (hard talk) last summer.

How do I know for example that Piers Morgan isn’t Harry Rag, he was the editor of the Daily Mirror, one of the newspaper John Kercher Sr worked for.

How would any of this change your views?

 

[Rolfe]

If that blog report about the Kercher brother being Harry Rag isn't true, it's grossly defamatory. He better have some pretty copper-bottomed evidence, I think.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I remember the first number stored in a phone I once had was that of a friend called Andrea. She died. A little while later I pressed a button that called the first number in the address book, by accident, and got a terrible shock when I heard Andrea's voice on her answering machine message, recorded before she fell ill, and not yet disconnected by her family.

It's not hard to do.

Rolfe.

 

[Bill Williams]

Does anyone know if Doug Bremner has sufficiently reliable evidence to state that harryrag/Machine is John Kercher jr?

If he does not have such evidence, then this would be an egregiously bad mistake of "outing", given that it concerns the brother of the murder victim.

If, however, he does have such evidence, then I add my voice to those who say it's shocking and sad. Furthermore, if there is solid supporting evidence for this assertion, I think it's appropriate to reveal the link: if people intimately related to the case are blogging/posting/agitating under anonymous pseudonyms, then they ought to be offered no protection against outing (again, with the proviso that the evidence is sufficiently strong and reliable).

Does anyone have sufficient contact with Doub Bremner to ask him if he has sufficient evidence to make this claim with confidence - and if he does, will he consider sharing that evidence?

I don't know Doug Bremner at all, but his sister, Anne, has been shamelessly vilified for her role in FOA. My assumption is that none of the Bremner's would say such things without being sure - but then that is rank speculation, and perhaps even bias, on my part.

I hope Bruce Fischer doesn't mind me porting over to here what he said on this at IIP:

The article linked above does contain many factual statements about how the pro-guilt community likes to conduct business, but I have not seen any definitive proof that Harry Rag/The Machine is a member of the Kercher family.

Harry Rag/The Machine, is a vile human being that has attacked innocent people for the past 6 years. I think accusations like the one above from Doug Bremner need solid proof before being made.

If it ever becomes clear that a member of the Kercher family is behind the Harry Rag persona, it will truly be very sad. I really hope that is not the case. I cannot support the speculation about John Kercher Jr. that appears in Doug's article and I would urge others to use caution as well.

If Harry Rag were a member of the family, that would simply put this at a whole new level of sadness. If HR is not, then an apology all around needs to be forthcoming.

 

[Bill Williams]

If that blog report about the Kercher brother being Harry Rag isn't true, it's grossly defamatory. He better have some pretty copper-bottomed evidence, I think.

Rolfe.

True.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

G-Man case file

Steve Moore has a blog entry on the families of victims of violent crimes. IMO it is a good mix of compassion and common sense.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

If that blog report about the Kercher brother being Harry Rag isn't true, it's grossly defamatory. He better have some pretty copper-bottomed evidence, I think.

Rolfe.

Indeed.

 

[Rolfe]

As I said, that article goes well beyond apology territory. If it's not true, it's grossly defamatory. Would that be libel, in England? You do not want to mess with the English libel laws, ask Simon Singh. If it's not true, Mr. Bremner should be expecting to hear from a lawyer in the very near future.

I know that sometimes people post stuff like this in order to test the theory. The absence of a lawyer's letter is then taken as confirmation of the truth of the allegation. But in this case, it seems to go too far. He's already said enough to justify a full-dress lawsuit. I'd say it goes well beyond what might be stopped by taking it down and apologising.

Rolfe.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

How would any of this change your views?

I am doing what everyone else here is doing; waiting for the verdict but regardless of the verdict the devil is in the professional judge’s motivation report.

ETA:> What do I know? I am just your average knuckle dragging Brit!

 

[LondonJohn]

Does anyone know what John Kercher Jr job actually is within the BBC?

I thought I saw Raffaele on a BBC News programme (hard talk) last summer.

How do I know for example that Piers Morgan isn’t Harry Rag, he was the editor of the Daily Mirror, one of the newspaper John Kercher Sr worked for.

The issue currently "live" is that Doug Bremner has made an accusation that Harryrag/Machine is John Kercher jr.

We are trying to ascertain whether there is any solid, reliable evidence underpinning this accusation - since it's potentially a horrible (and defamatory) error if it's not properly supported by evidence, and it's a shocking and sad turn of events if it is properly supported. Either way, there is currently a published claim about the real identity of Harryrag/Machine.

Outside of this specific claim (which is obviously the focus of discussion), one might as well say that we don't know that Harryrag/Machine isn't Peter Quennell, Hugo Barnacle, Sir Trevor MacDonald or Barack Obama. What we're currently trying to ascertain is whether the published claim that Harryrag/Machine is John Kercher jr is true and verifiable.

 

[LondonJohn]

As I said, that article goes well beyond apology territory. If it's not true, it's grossly defamatory. Would that be libel, in England? You do not want to mess with the English libel laws, ask Simon Singh. If it's not true, Mr. Bremner should be expecting to hear from a lawyer in the very near future.

I know that sometimes people post stuff like this in order to test the theory. The absence of a lawyer's letter is then taken as confirmation of the truth of the allegation. But in this case, it seems to go too far. He's already said enough to justify a full-dress lawsuit. I'd say it goes well beyond what might be stopped by taking it down and apologising.

Rolfe.

Indeed. One should never throw around accusations that are potentially libellous if untrue - therefore one should always be certain of the quality/reliability of evidence before making an such accusations.

I hope, for Doug Bremner's sake, that he does have sufficient evidence to prove this accusation to a high standard of probabilities.

 

[Belz...]

The evidence of Meredith's digestive tract shows beyond any reasonable doubt that she died not long after 9 pm. Knox and Sollecito have an alibi for that time.

The entire history of the case indicates that Meredith was surprised by a burglar, Rudy Guede, who was already in the house when she returned unexpectedly. Somehow, a confrontation escalated to sexual assault and murder. Not necessarily in that order. There is not a single piece of solid evidence that suggests anything else.

The real interest is in why the law enforcement authorities jumped to the conclusion that Knox was the murderer, or was involved in the murder, before the forensics results were in. Then, why they continued to insist that she and Sollecito were involved when these results showed a pretty straightforward story of burglary and opportunistic murder on the part of Guede.

The answer is as simple as a desire not to lose face, and people digging themselves deeper and deeper rather than acknowledge that they made a mistake right at the beginning.

Rolfe.

Thank you, Rolfe. That's a much better summary of your position.

short version, the evidence that was used in the first trial turned out to be pure baloney.

DNA on Knife - Poor Science not up to international standards, or even Italian Standards.
DNA on Bra - contaminated with multiple donors
Witnesses - One was a heron addict who couldn't get the day right, another had no ability to determine the time and might even have the day wrong, another claimed to have seen nothing for months, until "remembering" seeing something that made zero sense.
Break in room was contaminated and poorly investigated.
Claims of a clean up fell apart
Prosecution's Time of Death was wildly out

and so on

So, reasonable doubt, then.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

The issue currently "live" is that Doug Bremner has made an accusation that Harryrag/Machine is John Kercher jr.

We are trying to ascertain whether there is any solid, reliable evidence underpinning this accusation - since it's potentially a horrible (and defamatory) error if it's not properly supported by evidence, and it's a shocking and sad turn of events if it is properly supported. Either way, there is currently a published claim about the real identity of Harryrag/Machine.

Outside of this specific claim (which is obviously the focus of discussion), one might as well say that we don't know that Harryrag/Machine isn't Peter Quennell, Hugo Barnacle, Sir Trevor MacDonald or Barack Obama. What we're currently trying to ascertain is whether the published claim that Harryrag/Machine is John Kercher jr is true and verifiable.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Rolfe]

Thank you, Rolfe. That's a much better summary of your position.

Thank you.

So, reasonable doubt, then.

Not as such, no. I don't see any reasonable doubt that Knox and Sollecito had nothing at all to do with it. Meredith was killed around 9.20 pm, and they have an alibi for that time. There is no reason at all to drag them into it in the first place. None of the talking points of the "guilters" stands up to any serious scrutiny.

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

Thank you, Rolfe. That's a much better summary of your position.



So, reasonable doubt, then.

Well, to most reasonable observers, this case goes well beyond being a mere "reasonable doubt" case. Rather, an objective, sceptical, logical view of all the evidence (and lack of evidence) suggests that there is in fact not a single credible, reliable piece of evidence which indicates that Knox and/or Sollecito were involved in the murder.

That's really the reason why this case is so extraordinary, and why some of us have devoted so much effort to debating it. If it were a case of whether or not the evidence fell just above or just below the BRD standard, then it would be far less debate-worthy in this sort of forum. It's the apparent fact that it falls so far below the BRD standard - juxtaposed against the series of judgements and reversals in various Italian courts - that makes it so fascinating and shocking.

 

[LondonJohn]

ETA:> What do I know? I am just your average knuckle dragging Brit!

I don't think this is a fair self-assessment at all.

I think you know quite a bit, and that you add a significant amount (and a significant alternative insight) into the debate here.

I think (I hope) that the overwhelming majority of us on this thread are only interested in getting closer to the truth, with no preconceived agendas or closed minds. Any and all debate is therefore welcome and to be valued - and all the more so if it tends to challenge the status quo or the majority viewpoint.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, to most reasonable observers, this case goes well beyond being a mere "reasonable doubt" case. Rather, an objective, sceptical, logical view of all the evidence (and lack of evidence) suggests that there is in fact not a single credible, reliable piece of evidence which indicates that Knox and/or Sollecito were involved in the murder.

That's really the reason why this case is so extraordinary, and why some of us have devoted so much effort to debating it. If it were a case of whether or not the evidence fell just above or just below the BRD standard, then it would be far less debate-worthy in this sort of forum. It's the apparent fact that it falls so far below the BRD standard - juxtaposed against the series of judgements and reversals in various Italian courts - that makes it so fascinating and shocking.

Can't disagree with that at all.

Rolfe.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

How much influence has the Harry Rag character had in the whole internet guilter campaign? Is it possible that he has been central to the entire phenomenon? We have commented several times on how weird it is, but of course if these freaks had someone who was personally involved in the case to crystallise round it could explain an awful lot.

Rolfe.

He has been the most tenacious of guilters, posting his cut-and-paste screeds on every news comment board on the Internet for lo these many years.

He is not central to the guilter phenomenon. Similar groups have formed to vilify suspects in other controversial cases.

He has had some impact, in that his intransigence and hostility helped to galvanize support for Amanda and Raffaele, especially among reporters. From a media relations POV, he was almost too good to be true, to the point where a couple of reporters wondered if I might be Harry Rag. But I'm not. I don't know who he is, and I question whether Doug Bremner does either.