Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

If the prosecution were not acutely aware that he would have been a major liability and that his story would have totally fallen apart under cross examination, they would have done everything in their power to get him to testify against the other two

Instead, they mostly just ignore Guede or minimise his involvement to also there

NancyS this is tantamount to saying the prosecution know A and R were uninvolved. Is that your view, or something in between?
Certainly at PMF they seem to truly believe in their involvement or the hatred could not be sustained, it is getting more savage daily.

 

[Samson]

-


-

Yeah, I'd suspect you're right about that, but I wouldn't limit it to a yes or no answer, but Mach might surprise us with an actual straightforward yes or no, and CoulsdonUK too, but I'm not holding my breath.

Another thing I'd like done is to have that knife opened up and if they found an abundant amount of Meredith's blood AND DNA under there, that would be enough for me to rethink my position on their probable innocence, but I highly doubt that would happen, especially with my TOD probabilities being that death occurred before 9:30, at least in my opinion anyway.

BUT, and I emphasize this very strongly, I WOULD NOT LET STEFFY ANYWHERE NEAR THAT KNIFE while that was being done,

d

-

When I alluded to the have you stopped beating your wife question, which can not be answered with a yes or no, I was making the point that this question can be.
If a guilter says no, he has doubts, but if he says yes, he has none. Their position is there is no doubt, so the question cannot be finessed in my opinion. I would value highly their participation in this debate, particularly their reasons for requiring a third option in the answer.

 

[AmyStrange]

I don't even want Steffy in the freakin' room or even in the same city...

-

When I alluded to the have you stopped beating your wife question, which can not be answered with a yes or no, I was making the point that this question can be.
If a guilter says no, he has doubts, but if he says yes, he has none. Their position is there is no doubt, so the question cannot be finessed in my opinion. I would value highly their participation in this debate, particularly their reasons for requiring a third option in the answer.

-

Yes, I see your logic and it makes sense, but I would say yes because I do have doubts and that's why I'm willing to be convinced otherwise that my belief in probable innocence may be wrong and that's why I say let all the evidence be tested and re-examined again, especially the knife and bra-clasp and even the evidence against Rudy, and especially I'd like to see Rudy be cross-examined, I JUST DON'T WANT STEFFY ANYWHERE NEAR ANY OF THAT FREAKIN' DNA EVIDENCE,

d

-

 

[CoulsdonUK]

That's the good thing about never talking about any issue of substance. You can never be shown to be wrong about any issue of substance.

I would be pleasantly surprised if you ever told a coherent story about what you did intend to convey with your "random" rumination about race but I won't be holding my breath.

You can imagine I am absolutely distraught by your comments. I guess I’ll just have to try and struggle on.

 

[Samson]

The above is the test meal in the 2006 study by Hellmig. There is also a study by Chen and coworkers (Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (2003) 18, 41–46) that uses a similar test meal.
one egg yolk and two egg whites were microwaved
2 slices of white bread
7 grams of margarine
8 grams of of grape jelly
150 mL of water

The total number of kilojoules of the test meal was 1088.

Chris, I agree the homework should be done to tighten the variables in this matter. I am a little surprised so many people allow a time as late as 10pm, and where these studies that differ from all those I have cited, suggesting 90 minutes is a long time with the known facts.
There is much at stake, and I would expect a specific neutral test with volunteers from a suitable demographic base could resolve this, at a teaching facility.
Variables such as alcohol, times since last meal and different menu ingredients could be included.
My best guess is that the uncertainty of digestive evidence would be quickly resolved in favour of A and R and their various early evening alibis.

 

[Samson]

You can imagine I am absolutely distraught by your comments. I guess I’ll just have to try and struggle on.

Coulsdon, would you like Rudy Guede to be cross examined? He accused the two of murder as a witness. I bet you will either not answer, or answer with something other than
Yes.

or

No.

 

[Desert Fox]

You can imagine I am absolutely distraught by your comments. I guess I’ll just have to try and struggle on.

Since you posted, I have a question for you.
Are you suggesting that there are not people imprisoned in Italy for crime that they did not commit and were confirmed by their Supreme Court?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Coulsdon, would you like Rudy Guede to be cross examined? He accused the two of murder as a witness. I bet you will either not answer, or answer with something other than
Yes.

or

No.

It isn’t a yes or no answer under Italian law, which as I am sure you know defendants cannot be compelled to be cross-examined. However, I would have liked Raffaele and Guede to at least have testified as Amanda did.

Since you posted, I have a question for you.
Are you suggesting that there are not people imprisoned in Italy for crime that they did not commit and were confirmed by their Supreme Court?

I am sure like in every other western or southern justice system wrongful convictions do and have happened in Italy. Do you know of any?

 

[Samson]

It isn’t a yes or no answer under Italian law, which as I am sure you know defendants cannot be compelled to be cross-examined. However, I would have liked Raffaele and Guede to at least have testified as Amanda did.



I am sure like in every other western or southern justice system wrongful convictions do and have happened in Italy. Do you know of any?

Under all common law a defendent is entitled to cross examine his accuser, so Guede's status is not as a defendent, but as an accuser.
The yes or no question is both legal and ethical, and there is nothing to constrain you or any guilter here from answering the question.

 

[Desert Fox]

Since you posted, I have a question for you.
Are you suggesting that there are not people imprisoned in Italy for crime that they did not commit and were confirmed by their Supreme Court?

I am sure like in every other western or southern justice system wrongful convictions do and have happened in Italy. Do you know of any?

So why do you seem to believe that the Italian justice system will make the right call with Amanda and Raff especially with the horrible nature of the evidence?

 

[Numbers]

David McCallum - from the National Registry of Exonerations
A Joint Project of University of Michigan Law and Northwestern University Law

Currently 1,448 Exonerations

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=4524

McCallum and Stuckey were brought in for questioning on October 27, 1985. Detective Butta said both confessed to carjacking and killing Blenner, although their confessions did not match. Stuckey said McCallum killed Blenner and shot him three times. McCallum said Stuckey shot Blenner and fired just once.

Both said Blenner was shot at night. However, the medical examiner said an autopsy indicated Blenner was shot during the day shortly after he was abducted.

McCallum and Stuckey recanted the confessions almost immediately and claimed that detectives had slapped them. McCallum also said that the detectives threatened to hit him with a chair unless he confessed.

In 2011 DNA tests were performed on cigarette butts and a marijuana roach that had been found in Blenner’s car (Blenner had prohibited smoking in his car). The DNA profile of a man with a criminal record was identified, but neither Stuckey’s nor McCallum’s DNA was found.

Exoneration granted in October, 2014

...........

How a 1985 crime was "solved" by the New York Police and Brooklyn (Kings Cty,) prosecutor; conviction was in 1986.

Note that "slapping" and threats were used to gain the false confessions.

Does this seem similar to the methods used to gain her false statement as alleged by Amanda Knox? Note the similar lack of physical forensic evidence. In 1985-86, forensic DNA testing was of course just coming on line.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The mother-daughter miscarriage of justice

I am sure like in every other western or southern justice system wrongful convictions do and have happened in Italy. Do you know of any?

CoulsdonUK,

The murder of Sarah Scazzi with the wrongful imprisonment of Sabrina Misseri and her mother. IIUC Alberto Stasi had his appeal quashed by the SCC. I don't know this case as well as I would like to, but I am unaware of any convincing evidence of his guilt.

 

[Machiavelli]

On reflection, you are quite right. I wonder whether from Mignini down, any of them want Rudy subjected to cross examination. All prevarication can be only attributed to doubt of Amanda's and Raffaele's involvement.
If I were to ask Machiavelli or Mignini for example, would you like Rudy to be interrogated/ cross examined in order to find exactly what happened,
Who on this thread believes the answer would be a straight yes?
Who on this thread does not expect a rambling dissertation on the judicial reasons this question is now irrelevant.

Mignini requested to interrogate Guede and as far as I know Gede accepted, so the question if Mignini wanted to interrogate Guede has an obvious answer: yes.
Guede was not subject to cross questioning in trial sessions; he was called to testify but he refused, then he refused again in 2011.

The answer is not a "rambling" dissertation but a simple principle: cross-questioning of a suspect is based on the person's agreement.
The cross-questioning could make some sense only when the person agrees to be questioned.

Your definition "cross examined in order to find exactly what happened" makes no sense, because the cross-questioning of a suspect is NOT an action by which an investigator seeks to understand what happen. A suspect's cross questioning is an action always decided by the defense, meant to attempt to push some defensive version; it is not aimed at understanding what happened (unless the defendant himself decides to be a truthful cooperator).

If I were a defence attorney of Knox/Sollecito, and if some peculiar circumstances were given, I may find myself thinking I wish I could interrogate Rudy Guede in order to exploit something he says (but I don't believe Ghirga and Maresca wanted to cross-question Guede from the beginning); but if I were a prosecutor I would assume that the cross-questioning of a person who does not intend to tell the truth would not bring any further information about what happened.

Unless Guede decides to be a truthful witness, a cross questioning of Guede would elicit a mass of lies so would be of no interest; personally I would have little interest in cross questioning a lying witness, it seems to me a waste of time and legally makes no sense.

But there is instead another question that I turn to the pro-Knox crowd: who among them would have liked Raffaele Sollecito to be questioned?

Because since this is the Knox-Sollecito trial, Rudy Guede is not the person whose credibility is interesting; the testimony of an already convicted person and proven liar is not very important, but it's rather the defendants who have an interest to appear credible, and what would make a difference in the trial is evidence of their truthfulness or instead evidence of their inconsistence. This would help the judge to understand what happened and decide on the question of their guilt or innocence.

Raffaele Sollecito refused to testify, when he was called for interrogation he invoked his right not to answer saying he was satisfyied with what he already said to Matteini.

Isn't there anyone on this forum who fwould have liked him to make a different choice?

 

[carbonjam72]

Oh my goodness, I did say; 2 or 3 the last links posted in relation to wrongful convictions involved people of colour! To be more direct, I do not see the slightest connection to this case.

I think what CoulsdonUK is saying, and I'm sure he/she can correct me if I've misunderstood, but that since the examples people have pointed out in the last few pages have been wrongful convictions of people of color in the US, since Amanda is neither a person of color nor on trial in the US, she is therefore less likely objectively to have suffered a miscarriage of justice in Italy.

I think that's what C is hinting at.

What CoulsdonUk doesn't seem to want to address, is the complete lack of any evidence of any kind that would allow a rational person to believe that anyone other than Rudy Guede committed the murder of Meredith Kercher all by himself.

Why CoulsdonUK is married to the notion that Amanda and Raf might be guilty, or know more, is not a question that can be answered by reason, logic or argument. He/She simply believes it, and is not amenable to discourse.

CoulsdonUK loves his/her belief in guilt, and clings to it for dear life. Abandon all ye of hope that pass through these pages, CoulsdonUK does not speak your language, and is in it for the long haul.

 

[anglolawyer]

Mach

I read in one of the books that Bongiorno, when making closing submissions to Hellman (IIRC) severely criticised Mignini for not scheduling Sollecito for questioning during the trial. It is bizarre, to me, that Sollecito himself seemed not to know why even his own lawyers did not want to question him at trial. There must be something about the system I don't understand. If you know what it is, I would appreciate an explanation.

 

[carbonjam72]

The odd thing for me is the double standard in use in the conviction of Sollecito and Knox. So we have the supreme court criticising Hellman for including as evidence Guede's not mentioning the presence of Sollecito or Knox in his Skype call; but Nencini can use Guede's statement that Kercher believed Knox stole her money. Either Guede's statements ca be accepted or not, but it does not seem just to say only those statements of Guede's that diminish his guilt are to be believed. Most people would tend to distrust self serving statements, but not apparently Nencini.

Daer Planplan, I don't know how to implore you to please kindly stop trying to see this from the convicting judge's point of view. These opinions are not honest. They are logical fabrications made to justify a predetermined finding of guilt. They are not logical constructs based on evidence, truth or justice. It is physically painful for me to watch you and others wrestle with these motivations. There is no basis for the convictions of Amanda and Raf. The arguments are not real. They are contrived, rigged, fixed, false, a ruse for the gullible. Please stop feeding the judicial trolls. They deserve prison for their efforts, not the courtesy of credulity.

 

[Samson]

Mignini requested to interrogate Guede and as far as I know Gede accepted, so the question if Mignini wanted to interrogate Guede has an obvious answer: yes.
Guede was not subject to cross questioning in trial sessions; he was called to testify but he refused, then he refused again in 2011.

The answer is not a "rambling" dissertation but a simple principle: cross-questioning of a suspect is based on the person's agreement.
The cross-questioning could make some sense only when the person agrees to be questioned.

Your definition "cross examined in order to find exactly what happened" makes no sense, because the cross-questioning of a suspect is NOT an action by which an investigator seeks to understand what happen. A suspect's cross questioning is an action always decided by the defense, meant to attempt to push some defensive version; it is not aimed at understanding what happened (unless the defendant himself decides to be a truthful cooperator).

If I were a defence attorney of Knox/Sollecito, and if some peculiar circumstances were given, I may find myself thinking I wish I could interrogate Rudy Guede in order to exploit something he says (but I don't believe Ghirga and Maresca wanted to cross-question Guede from the beginning); but if I were a prosecutor I would assume that the cross-questioning of a person who does not intend to tell the truth would not bring any further information about what happened.

Unless Guede decides to be a truthful witness, a cross questioning of Guede would elicit a mass of lies so would be of no interest; personally I would have little interest in cross questioning a lying witness, it seems to me a waste of time and legally makes no sense.

But there is instead another question that I turn to the pro-Knox crowd: who among them would have liked Raffaele Sollecito to be questioned?

Because since this is the Knox-Sollecito trial, Rudy Guede is not the person whose credibility is interesting; the testimony of an already convicted person and proven liar is not very important, but it's rather the defendants who have an interest to appear credible, and what would make a difference in the trial is evidence of their truthfulness or instead evidence of their inconsistence. This would help the judge to understand what happened and decide on the question of their guilt or innocence.

Raffaele Sollecito refused to testify, when he was called for interrogation he invoked his right not to answer saying he was satisfyied with what he already said to Matteini.

Isn't there anyone on this forum who fwould have liked him to make a different choice?

Thank you, I will read better later, but my question was only whether you would like Guede cross examined as an accuser. He accused Amand and Raffaele of the murder of Meredith, and common criminal law affords an inalienable right for the defendents to question their accuser. My question is easily answered by a yes or no, but neither you nor Coulsdon are prepared to.

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach

I read in one of the books that Bongiorno, when making closing submissions to Hellman (IIRC) severely criticised Mignini for not scheduling Sollecito for questioning during the trial. It is bizarre, to me, that Sollecito himself seemed not to know why even his own lawyers did not want to question him at trial. There must be something about the system I don't understand. If you know what it is, I would appreciate an explanation.

But Sollecito was scheduled for questioning. He requested the questioning himselv. It was in December 2007. Then, when he came he apparemntly changed his mind, he declared to Mignini that he was satisfied with what he had already answered to Matteini.
He was not summoned for questioning again (given that this was his last position).

Bongiorno's remark is bizarre not only because, as I said, Sollecito was summoned and nad invoked his right to remain silent, but also because, if the defence ever changed idea again and wanted Sollecito to be scheduled for questioning (in the 2009 trial for example), they would have had the right to do it and a questionig would have taken place.

This is what Amanda Knox did: it was not the prosecution who summoned her in 2009 (the prosecution already interrogated her in 2007), it was Knox defence who requested she be cross-questioned and the request was promply satisfied.

 

[Machiavelli]

Thank you, I will read better later, but my question was only whether you would like Guede cross examined as an accuser. He accused Amand and Raffaele of the murder of Meredith, and common criminal law affords an inalienable right for the defendents to question their accuser. My question is easily answered by a yes or no, but neither you nor Coulsdon are prepared to.

No, the problem is that Guede is a co-defendant. You cannot put such question within Italian law becaue such kind of bizarre request (question "as an accuser" - that sounds like question as a witness in a American-Style procedure) would be a like a request to strip him from his rights as an accused in a related trial. This would be a denial of principles of Roman Law and Italian law in particular.
I am based on Italian law, so If I understand your question as a question wether I wish Guede to be forced to undergo a cross questioning, my response is: absolutely no. I am absolutely against. The law is made of procedure and respect of procedure. Guede has a right to lie and a right to refuse questioning in the Knox-Solelcito trial, he is the owner of the inalienable right (this one is the inalianable right, not to "question the accuser"), so, if he refuses to be questioned, I categorically oppose to any violation of his rights.

 

[Samson]

No, the problem is that Guede is a co-defendant. You cannot put such question within Italian law becaue such kind of bizarre request (question "as an accuser" - that sounds like question as a witness in a American-Style procedure) would be a like a request to strip him from his rights as an accused in a related trial. This would be a denial of principles of Roman Law and Italian law in particular.
I am based on Italian law, so If I understand your question as a question wether I wish Guede to be forced to undergo a cross questioning, my response is: absolutely no. I am absolutely against. The law is made of procedure and respect of procedure. Guede has a right to lie and a right to refuse questioning in the Knox-Solelcito trial, he is the owner of the inalienable right (this one is the inalianable right, not to "question the accuser"), so, if he refuses to be questioned, I categorically oppose to any violation of his rights.

Yes it is a conundrum without which it would be impossible to convict A and R because Amanda would have been entitled to question Guede in person at her separate trial, and his answers would demonstrate an incoherence with respect to a plausible narrative. The same is true of Raffaele but this discussion shows again that he is totally confused by the sadistic pillaging of his reputation by his country people.