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

[Diocletus]

I disagree, relatively speaking they haven’t said that much publicly; how many articles has John Kercher written in the past six years?

I realise you and others may believe he shouldn’t have written a book but that is no more than what Raffaele and Amanda have done.

If one is to accept that the Sollecito and Knox families have the right to speak about the case from their perspective, I do not understand how the same right should not be applied to the murder victim’s family.

It is not about whether you agree or disagree with their view of the case but acknowledging they have the right to speak about how the murder of their daughter\sister has affected them.

Of course they have the "right". Under Italian law, they even have the "right" to participate in the trial. Curiously, though, I don't know that they would have either "right" under their own country's laws.

So, they have their "rights," and their beliefs, but is there a moral equivalence? Doesn't it all come down to right and wrong, and if the Kerchers are wrong, then they have done something awful. And they are wrong.

 

[christianahannah]

It would be helpful if you specified exactly what evidence you wanted.

1) Is it that AK and RS were charged and convicted by Massei of sexual assault and theft (see Massei) art 110, 609 b) and c), art 624

2) Is it that RG DNA found in MK vagina? Micheli report

3) Is it That no AK and no RS DNA found on the body of MK? Micheli / Massei reports

4) Is it that RG DNA found on MK purse /handbag Micheli report

5) Is it that RG was not charged or convicted of theft? Micheli report

6) Is it that RG was not charged with sexual assault? Micheli report

RG only charged and convicted under article 576 (homicide).

It is true that Rudy was convicted under art. 576 but I think the sexual assault was an aggravating circumstance integrated into the murder charge and as such Rudy was given a sentence of 30 years by Micheli. There are articles given with paragraphs explaining the verdict at the end of Micheli (which is a bit above my ability to understand).

I had always thought from reading the various trial reports that Rudy was considered the main instigator of the sexual assault with Amanda and Raffaele as accomplices, however, my interpretation could be wrong.

 

[anglolawyer]

Of course they have the "right". Under Italian law, they even have the "right" to participate in the trial. Curiously, though, I don't know that they would have either "right" under their own country's laws.

I do. They wouldn't.

So, they have their "rights," and their beliefs, but is there a moral equivalence? Doesn't it all come down to right and wrong, and if the Kerchers are wrong, then they have done something awful. And they are wrong.

They would not have down anything wrong (in my book) if they reasonably reposed trust in their legal advisers.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Stefanoni taught us how to store critical evidence

I disagree, relatively speaking they haven’t said that much publicly; how many articles has John Kercher written in the past six years?

I realise you and others may believe he shouldn’t have written a book but that is no more than what Raffaele and Amanda have done.

If one is to accept that the Sollecito and Knox families have the right to speak about the case from their perspective, I do not understand how the same right should not be applied to the murder victim’s family.

It is not about whether you agree or disagree with their view of the case but acknowledging they have the right to speak about how the murder of their daughter\sister has affected them.

The problem that I addressed in my previous comment is that the creators of the documentary did not actually represent what the Kercher family had done. I don't claim that the family has no right to speak out, but I do wish that more of John Kercher's book had been about Meredith and less about the case (IIRC he did not present the facts accurately). Having the victim's family take part in the criminal proceedings prior to the rendering of a final judgment is problematic, as anglolawyer has said much better than I could. But I will point out at least one instance I find troubling. Their lawyer Mr. Maresca said in effect that Italy was teaching the whole world how to do forensics. The exact opposite is true.

 

[Bob001]

.....
It is not about whether you agree or disagree with their view of the case but acknowledging they have the right to speak about how the murder of their daughter\sister has affected them.

Of course they have the "right" to say what they want (and if you Google "Kercher family" you can see they've had quite a lot to say over the years), but when they embrace and promote the prosecution's theories wholeheartedly and unreservedly they open themselves to well-deserved criticism. "Remembering Meredith" doesn't have to mean putting two innocent people in prison for most of their lives. The Kerchers could have been a voice of reason, but they chose a different path, and grief doesn't excuse them.

 

[Bill Williams]

"Never-before-heard audio from Amanda Knox's interrogation by Italian police"

"In the recording from 17 December 2007, Knox can be heard explaining she falsely named Patrick Lumumba, her manager at a local cafe, as the murderer under extreme stress and harsh questioning"

- The Guardian

If this is true, can we at least put to rest the tired guilter-meme that Knox was, "constantly changing her story"?

 

[Bill Williams]

I disagree, relatively speaking they haven’t said that much publicly; how many articles has John Kercher written in the past six years?

I realise you and others may believe he shouldn’t have written a book but that is no more than what Raffaele and Amanda have done.

The problem that I addressed in my previous comment is that the creators of the documentary did not actually represent what the Kercher family had done. I don't claim that the family has no right to speak out, but I do wish that more of John Kercher's book had been about Meredith and less about the case (IIRC he did not present the facts accurately). Having the victim's family take part in the criminal proceedings prior to the rendering of a final judgment is problematic, as anglolawyer has said much better than I could. But I will point out at least one instance I find troubling. Their lawyer Mr. Maresca said in effect that Italy was teaching the whole world how to do forensics. The exact opposite is true.

CoulsdonUK - please answer at least one question - when Maresca speaks, is that not the same as that the Kerchers' are speaking?

Please answer this, because this for me is part of how the goalpost keep getting moved when someone claims they've had a "dignified silence".

 

[Diocletus]

They would not have down anything wrong (in my book) if they reasonably reposed trust in their legal advisers.

Well, you've put the rabbit in the hat, haven't you?

 

[Bill Williams]

But pieces of evience must not be objected each one with a single "innocent" exllanation. In order to object evidence, you would need an innocent explanation that explaisn the pieces of evidence altogether.

There is. It's called Rudy Guede the lone thief that broke in and murdered the resident when she unexpectedly returned. The lone thief scenario accounts for all the acceptable evidence including time of death. The evidence that it doesn't fit is evidence that is inconsistent with itself and therefore not acceptable. Curatolo who mashes together fragments of events from several days to create an impossible testimony of seeing a couple watching the cottage from the basketball court on a night the disco busses were running and the next morning seeing the white suited police and ambulance at the cottage. Nara who hears a most terrifying scream and doesn't call the police and reads about the murder at the news kiosk the next morning and still doesn't call the police. Quintavalle who remembers a girl waiting outside his shop the morning after the murder who comes into his store but doesn't buy anything but he remembers those unforgettable blue eyes which he didn't recognize in the photos shown to him by the police in the days immediately after the murder.


Now where is that guilter theory that explains the evidence altogether?

Machiavelli - please reread Dan O.'s post. It is the clearest explanation of your own doublestandard here.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, you've put the rabbit in the hat, haven't you?

I sort of knew you would batten onto that like a leech in a swamp.

 

[Dan O.]

, and there have been mistakes assessing TOD of up to 12 hours based on stomach contents.

This is Machiavelli showing he has delusions of being an Italian prosecutor. While the statement itself is not necessarily incorrect, it is not applicable in a case where the stomach contained the recognizable contents of the last meal and none had yet entered the duodenum.

With Mach's willingness to so misrepresent the facts on a subject that has been so heavily discussed here, just imagine what he is willing to do in less known areas.

 

[Kestrel]

From the article:

A prosecution lawyer, Manuela Comodi, told the documentary: "One person couldn't – all at the same time – hold Meredith still and hold back her hands, because there are very few defensive wounds, inflict those wounds with a smaller knife and then give her the fatal blow with the larger knife. It's impossible. Not even Superman could do it.

"The principal evidence was mixed blood traces from which were extracted mixed DNA of Amanda and Meredith. The only explanation for that mix is that Amanda was bleeding and touched objects that were covered in Meredith's blood. There's no other explanation."​

Even with my shallow knowledge of the case, of physical combat, and of forensic collection techniques, it's clear to me that these claims are complete nonsense. How is it that people go on making them, 6 years on, and get taken seriously?

They do it by using the classic tools. Argument by authority, argument by popularity and argument by repitition. It works because most people don't recognize that these forms of argument are fallacies.

The script shortcuts taken in crime dramas also helped shape public understanding of what a DNA match proves. On TV shows, DNA is a magical tool that points to the guilty party. DNA evidence is ppresumed to be associated with the crime and is only left by victims and perpetrators. The real world issues of contamination, mixed samples and noise are never discussed.

 

[Bill Williams]

A narcissist is not in love with themselves. Nascissists despise themselves. Narcissists are in love with and invested into idealized projection of themselves, called the "grandiose self". Which is a unreal self.



The chaplain Don Saulo is a notorious idiot. He was known for being an redneck when he was working as a priest in a parrish in the outskirts of Perugia.

[/b]

Could you kindly refer me to any primary sources or links to newspaper articles, or anything you consider relevant to back up this assertion? Thanks if you do reply.

Machiavelli only makes assertions. The basis of his assertions regarding others, is the views they hold. Specifically, if they hold views contrary to Machiavelli's, then they are fair game to be called a "red-neck".

Here is a pic of Don Paolo presiding at a red-neck wedding....

 

[Bill Williams]

and there have been mistakes assessing TOD of up to 12 hours based on stomach contents.

This is Machiavelli showing he has delusions of being an Italian prosecutor. While the statement itself is not necessarily incorrect, it is not applicable in a case where the stomach contained the recognizable contents of the last meal and none had yet entered the duodenum.

With Mach's willingness to so misrepresent the facts on a subject that has been so heavily discussed here, just imagine what he is willing to do in less known areas.

Please also note that Machiavelli concedes that 90% of the time, stomach content analysis is reliable. Especially if some of the important variables are known.

When Machiavelli makes statements like above, even from his own point of view, he's only talking about the 10% of the time when stomach content analysis becomes unreliable.

The main markers in the Kercher case are known. Most important is the beginning of the meal, which in this case was 6 pm. Between 6 pm and 9 pm, Meredith was under no known stress, or any of the other conditions Machiavelli applies to the 10% of the time things become shaky in analysing.

What is strange is to read Machiavelli support the innocence case with regard to this, and then go off on the 10% as if it means something here.

 

[Bill Williams]

With regard to this Nov 17 recording, to be played tonight with the BBC3, Andrea Vogt produced documentary... in my mind, they have just proved Knox is innocent of calunnia.

Why was this recording not available to any of the Italian courts?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/feb/16/amanda-knox-police-interrogation-audio?CMP=twt_gu

It also puts the lie to that Knox was continually changing her story.

More and more it is demonstrated that the Massei/Nencini convictions were wrongful.

 

[Bill Williams]

What is also notable about that recording is how dependant Knox and the police were on faithful interpretation.

Was there a translator at this interview who saw it as her mandate to "mediate" a chaotic scene between cops and accused? Did she need to place herself into the interrogation with her own experiences of memory loss?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

who is that other guy?

A documentary called "Is Amanda Knox Guilty?" will be broadcast on BBC 3 at 9pm Monday February 17th.
SNIP
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/17/meredith-kercher-knox-sollecito-family-murdered

What about what's-his-name? Will the program talk about whether or not he is guilty?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

The problem that I addressed in my previous comment is that the creators of the documentary did not actually represent what the Kercher family had done. I don't claim that the family has no right to speak out, but I do wish that more of John Kercher's book had been about Meredith and less about the case (IIRC he did not present the facts accurately).

What the Kercher family have done?

There are people who may have the same opinion of Raffaele and Amanda’s publications, does that mean they shouldn’t have published; of course not.

Having the victim's family take part in the criminal proceedings prior to the rendering of a final judgment is problematic, as anglolawyer has said much better than I could. But I will point out at least one instance I find troubling. Their lawyer Mr. Maresca said in effect that Italy was teaching the whole world how to do forensics. The exact opposite is true.

Ok given your position on the case I do not find your post particularly surprising, it would be bizarre if you or anyone else approved of Maresca. The Kercher family continue to rely on what their legal representatives in Italy advise that appears to be the relationship again no different than Raffaele or Amanda.

Italian law allows civil and criminal proceedings to run concurrently, you know this.

CoulsdonUK - please answer at least one question - when Maresca speaks, is that not the same as that the Kerchers' are speaking?

Please answer this, because this for me is part of how the goalpost keep getting moved when someone claims they've had a "dignified silence".

The “dignified silence” is a media description, they have certainly been less vocal than I would have been, so I admire their restraint.

 

[MDDVS]

What about what's-his-name? Will the program talk about whether or not he is guilty?

He isn't because he was (and still is) being mind controlled. Didn't you know witches have magical powers?

 

[Bill Williams]

CoulsdonUK - please answer at least one question - when Maresca speaks, is that not the same as that the Kerchers' are speaking?

Please answer this, because this for me is part of how the goalpost keep getting moved when someone claims they've had a "dignified silence".

The “dignified silence” is a media description, they have certainly been less vocal than I would have been, so I admire their restraint.

With all due respect, CoulsdonUK, you are now yourself moving the goalposts and blaming the media for it.

A wonderful book by John Kercher is spolied by him devoting half of it to the prosecution's case against Amanda Knox, Raffaele being almost forgotten. Little mention of Guede.

What I agree with you on, is that if I had had a loved one murdered, and I had had authorities telling me that two convictions were sound, and that the acquittal was a travesty, I would have been far, far, far less restrained than them. Indeed, that is the one part of this I actually do understand. So I am with you on that one.

But, with due respect.... I've just finished a convo with a friend in England who is leaning towards innocence for K/S, but the surest way to press his button is to say anything remotely "critical" of the Kerchers.

What he agrees with is that innocent people should not go to jail, and on that even Lyle Kercher agrees. In fact, I cannot imagine ANYONE in the Kercher family wishing innocent people to pay for this horror.

What I don't get, though, is now that "the gloves are coming off", the Kerchers can still be defended - only on the point of them, themselves, inserting themselves into the adjudication of this travesty against K/S.

Once again, is it only the media which is the problem here? Is the media ignoring their demands to have Rudy Guede locked up? Is it the media who put the spin to it that the Kerchers only focus upon Knox, and everyone else is forgotten?