Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[christianahannah]

Ah you're not grasping this issue properly, it appears. The significance of the Skype call is that it exposes Guede as an opportunistic liar. It shows that he made no direct reference to Knox or Sollecito in that Skype call. So it was important that the court could see the transcript of that call, in order to set it alongside Guede's later assertions that Knox and Sollecito were the killers. Only in that way could the court even hope to make a reasonable judgement on Guede's reliability on this issue (and on his general reliability). So any attempt to exclude this Skype call from the Knox/Sollecito trial would by definition only serve to bolster Guede's reliability, and by extension it would harm Knox and Sollecito.

The question thus remains: why would the Kerchers' lawyer Maresca want to make Guede appear more reliable than he demonstrably was, by seeking to exclude credible evidence that served to throw Guede's reliability and honesty into question? And why would the Kerchers' lawyer Maresca want to deny Knox and Sollecito the right to question key evidence against them (Guede's later accusations of them as the killers) by demonstrating that Guede had said something totally different in this Skype call much sooner after the murder (and before he'd had some *interesting* interactions with Mignini et al.....)?






A teensy bit of a straw man going on here, methinks. Firstly, I said that in the context of this issue, the phrase (which I described as "deliberately flippant") perhaps made "a little more sense".

Perhaps, for clarity and avoidance of misinterpretation, I should explain more exhaustively what I meant. I meant that I took the phrase (the "almost family" one) to be a) flippant, and b) deliberately hyperbolic/exaggeration. I took it to indicate the feeling that the Kercher family (both directly and through their esteemed lawyer, Maresca) appeared to be going to strange lengths to minimise Guede's role, to excuse his actions, and to believe his excuses. At the same time, they most certainly didn't appear to be extending the same sort of sentiments to Knox or Sollecito. Indeed, through things exactly such as this Maresca attempt to exclude the Guede Skype conversation, they appeared to be actively keen to "unlevel" the playing field against Knox and Sollecito.

Hope that makes things somewhat clearer. I dunno, maybe DanO personally really does think that the Kerchers consider Guede to be "almost family" - you'd have to take that up with him if you wanted to find out. It's not what I believe though - however (as I've just explained) it has some value as a flippant exaggeration in order to illustrate a feeling that the Kerchers showed curiously different levels of vindication towards Guede (the real killer....) on the one hand and Knox/Sollecito on the other.

But your arguments are certainly..... *enigmatic*

Did Rudy testify before October 2009 that Raffaele and Amanda were the killers? And if the Skype call shows him to be an opportunistic liar how can one believe anything he says about Amanda or Raffaele, innocent or guilty? Are you saying that the defense wanted the Skype call admitted because they thought Rudy may come out against Amanda and Raffaele later? Maybe that was the reason Maresca objected? That evidence isn't admitted on what might later happen? I don't know if this is even a legitimate reason. It will be interesting to read that motion debate and see if there is a reason contained within.

I don't think the Kerchers showed curiously different levels of vindication towards Rudy. His fast track trial was over in October 2008, he was convicted and ordered to pay a sum of money to the Kerchers. And his conviction was upheld through two appeals (though his sentence was reduced on appeal but not the monetary damages - and this was not the Kercher's, Maresca's nor Mignini's doing).

 

[Dan O.]

Because if Knox and Sollecito are convicted, then Maresca triples the money he can collect. Whereas if they are innocent. then Maresca is left only being able to collect a civil judgement from Rudy Guede.

I believe you are mistaken in thinking that the civil judgement is assessed individually against each of the convicted. The judgement was a fixed sum against all. However, Maresca knows that he will never receive more than a pittance from Rudy.

 

[Dougm]

I had interpreted DanO's statement about Guede being "almost family" for the Kerchers as satirical.

Certainly Maresca was working against the legitimate interests of Amanda and Raffaele by his attempting to exclude Guede's Skype call from evidence. And since at that point he would not have been protecting Guede, he definitely was attempting to reduce the possibility that Amanda and Raffaele would have a telling piece of evidence for their legitimate defense.

I tend to try to boil these things down to something more simple, FWIW. To me, everything in this case has boiled down to the violation of a basic principle of justice: The presumption of innocence of people, until it is proven that they are guilty.

Since Mignini, Steph, Giobbi, and friends decided who was guilty before properly investigating the crime, everything they have done since has been based on that assumption. And they told the Kerchers, they know who did it. With the assurance of Mignini, et al, combined with Meredith's friends telling them how "strange" they thought Amanda was, it was pretty easy for the Kerchers to become convinced that Amanda and Raff are, at the very least, involved. The problem is, that pesky evidence keeps getting in the way.

When people have taken such a firm stance on who is guilty, and convinced themselves of it, the trial becomes a contest to confirm that assumption, rather than a search for the truth. Maresca likely has his own motivations (as has been pointed out by others). The problem is, they think they already know the truth, and they think that Amanda, Raffaele, their families, supporters, etc., are all part of a conspiracy to let them wriggle out of having to face responsibility. So their goal ends up not having the judge and jury hear all the information, to learn the truth, but to convict Amanda and Raffaele. Guede has already been convicted. So Maresca tries to block the Skype call, objects to the opening of the knife handle, etc.

Who ever heard of a trial where the defense wants more information and analysis of evidence like the proposed murder weapon, and the pro-guilt/prosecution side is objecting? Isn't it supposed to be the other way around? Why fight opening the knife? Why fight learning more about Guede? Why show pictures of Meredith's naked, bloody body to the court and assembled media without warning?

Because the goal is not a search for the truth. The goal is to win. Because they think they already know the truth. And if the facts don't point to the truth they think they know, well, there is something wrong with those facts. So let's keep them out -- they are only obstacles to the goal of convicting "the real killers".

 

[christianahannah]

I would like to be able to attribute the motivation of greed to the Kerchers, because I believe that their conduct has been repulsive. But, I don't think that maresca, or by extension the Kerchers, actually believe that they will ever see a cent from Knox or Sollecito.

Nor from Rudy. And should Rudy decide he would like to write a book about his experiences and Meredith's death after he is released at least he won't be able to profit off of it (unless it would make millions and that is probably unlikely).

 

[Dougm]

Did Rudy testify before October 2009 that Raffaele and Amanda were the killers? And if the Skype call shows him to be an opportunistic liar how can one believe anything he says about Amanda or Raffaele, innocent or guilty? Are you saying that the defense wanted the Skype call admitted because they thought Rudy may come out against Amanda and Raffaele later? Maybe that was the reason Maresca objected? That evidence isn't admitted on what might later happen? I don't know if this is even a legitimate reason. It will be interesting to read that motion debate and see if there is a reason contained within.

I don't think the Kerchers showed curiously different levels of vindication towards Rudy. His fast track trial was over in October 2008, he was convicted and ordered to pay a sum of money to the Kerchers. And his conviction was upheld through two appeals (though his sentence was reduced on appeal but not the monetary damages - and this was not the Kercher's, Maresca's nor Mignini's doing).

I tend to agree with your last paragraph. Rudy has never been the target, because he followed the rules and was convicted. His sentencing reductions are also because he followed the rules. He had no choice -- the evidence against him was overwhelming.

It seems kind of obvious why the defense wanted the Skype call in -- isn't it because Rudy told his friend that Amanda was not present?

 

[christianahannah]

Would Kercher's lawyer not do the same for any family member accused of involvement in the murder?


We all^* know that the real answer is that Maresca doesn't give a damn about the Kerchers except to realize that unlimately that is where his paycheck is comming from. He can't squeeze blood from the turnip Guede so the best he can do is minimize Guede's involvement in order to maximize the penalty assessed against Amanda and Raffaele.

[* figuratively speaking for those that are actually following the case and not counting the trolls that are only here to snipe]


ETA: I did find it refreshing that After Rudy's fast track conviction, John Kercher was asking for Rudy to speak up and admit what really happened and actually accepted that Rudy had murdered his daughter. Rudy could not however speak at that time since he still had the appeals pending.

I do question though why John is no longer seeking the truth. Why would he have his attorney release the latest trial documents through a site known for spin rather than reach out to groups that actively seek the truth wherever it may lay?

Maybe because of what you wrote in the preceding paragraphs (if you include yourself and others posting here as actively seeking the truth wherever it may lay).

 

[christianahannah]

I tend to agree with your last paragraph. Rudy has never been the target, because he followed the rules and was convicted. His sentencing reductions are also because he followed the rules. He had no choice -- the evidence against him was overwhelming.

It seems kind of obvious why the defense wanted the Skype call in -- isn't it because Rudy told his friend that Amanda was not present?

This is good and seems possible. But didn't he also allude vaguely in that call that he heard or saw someone that might have looked or sounded like Amanda? Or am I remembering this from some other document (or is it a figment of my imagination)?

 

[Diocletus]

Nor from Rudy. And should Rudy decide he would like to write a book about his experiences and Meredith's death after he is released at least he won't be able to profit off of it (unless it would make millions and that is probably unlikely).

Amanda Knox didn't profit, either: she used the book money to pay to defend herself.

 

[Dougm]

This is good and seems possible. But didn't he also allude vaguely in that call that he heard or saw someone that might have looked or sounded like Amanda? Or am I remembering this from some other document (or is it a figment of my imagination)?

I don't have it all in front of me, so maybe I shouldn't be answering this, but my recollection is that he said Amanda wasn't there. Nothing else in that call about her. Rudy's story at that time was about some Italian man pushing past him, and since he had never met Raffaele, he was not sure if that person could have been RS or not.

It was later, as Rudy's story evolved (after spending some time in jail/under police custody), that he changed his account and said that he saw the silhouette of someone who might have been Amanda outside. Which later evolved into a story of hearing Amanda and Meredith arguing (from Rudy's perch on the toilet).

It seems like the obvious reason the defense would want to have the Skype call heard is to show how Rudy changed his story, following the premise that his first story would be more likely to be the truth. Of course, if one wants to presume AK and RS are guilty anyway, they can assume that Rudy is lying from the start. One thing I think both sides of this debate are guilty of is cherry picking which part of Rudy's story to believe. I tend to believe the part that fits the other evidence, and throw out the part that is either contradictory to the known facts, or is clearly a "spin" Rudy made to absolve himself.

 

[Samson]

Did Rudy testify before October 2009 that Raffaele and Amanda were the killers? And if the Skype call shows him to be an opportunistic liar how can one believe anything he says about Amanda or Raffaele, innocent or guilty? Are you saying that the defense wanted the Skype call admitted because they thought Rudy may come out against Amanda and Raffaele later? Maybe that was the reason Maresca objected? That evidence isn't admitted on what might later happen? I don't know if this is even a legitimate reason. It will be interesting to read that motion debate and see if there is a reason contained within.

I don't think the Kerchers showed curiously different levels of vindication towards Rudy. His fast track trial was over in October 2008, he was convicted and ordered to pay a sum of money to the Kerchers. And his conviction was upheld through two appeals (though his sentence was reduced on appeal but not the monetary damages - and this was not the Kercher's, Maresca's nor Mignini's doing).

That elusive truth you seek lies within Rudy's skype call, and the truths he was bound to. He could expect an alibi to turn up and prove he was a liar if he named them..!..?

 

[carbonjam72]

I believe you are mistaken in thinking that the civil judgement is assessed individually against each of the convicted. The judgement was a fixed sum against all. However, Maresca knows that he will never receive more than a pittance from Rudy.

Maybe so Dano, I was under the impression that they each had to pay the full amount, and that their families were also responsible for some reason (which I didn't understand. Were the Caporelli's responsible for Rudy's share?).

But even if it is a single award, with joint and several liability, having more guilty parties increases the likelihood of payment overall, since there are more parties who can contribute to the total.

Hence Maresca is still an amoral P.O.S. for seeking to exclude exculpatory evidence, and why he thinks he's doing it, doesn't change the fact he should be jailed for his efforts, imo.

 

[Desert Fox]

I don't have it all in front of me, so maybe I shouldn't be answering this, but my recollection is that he said Amanda wasn't there. Nothing else in that call about her. Rudy's story at that time was about some Italian man pushing past him, and since he had never met Raffaele, he was not sure if that person could have been RS or not.

This is the same thing I have read essentially. . . .That he initially did not place Amanda there at all.

There is more that can be gleamed. He tries to come up with excuses but the time of death seems to more or less agree with the digestion. At that time, Amanda and Raff have alibis.

In a perfect world, Guede's Skype call should not be needed but as a defense attorney you want to use every argument you can.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is the video of November 3. Meredith's corps has just been removed and the begin to collect the evidence. There are no suspects at this time. Stefanony does not know who Raffaele or Amanda are. Mignini has not declared what happened, what needs to be proven. This is just an impromptu observation by a lab tech. As she picks up the bra with one hand, she motions to/touches the area of the missing clasp with the fingers of the other hand and states ”this has been torn".

But in court, recorded in the official court transcript, Stefanoni abandons her unbiased observation and turns this into a claim against the boy who always carries a knife saying the fabric had been "cut cleanly".

The fake doctor Patricia Stefanoni is nothing but a tool of the prosecution.

Patrizia Stefanoni is a real doctor and anyone who states the contrary should be aware of the rebound of his unproven statements on his own credibility.

The paragraph that you refer in your comment might be at page 70 of Stefanoni's testimony of May 22. 2009.

This is what Stefanoni actually says:

RISPOSTA – Ovviamente in questo caso, anche perché, appunto, essendo il reggiseno in una condizione particolare, lo vedrete, o non so se l’avete già visto, era chiaramente stato strappato, perché aveva delle bretelline proprio strappate ed una porzione posteriore anche tagliata, almeno c’aveva un taglio netto quindi faceva pensare che fosse stato tagliato, diciamo era un reperto particolarmente interessante (…)

Translation:

ANSWER - Obviously in this case, because, in fact, being the bra in a particular condition, you are going to see it - or I do not know if you've already seen it - it had clearly been torn, since it had thin straps that were just torn apart, and one rear portion of it was also cut , at least it had a clean cut that made you think it had been cut, so let’s say it was a very interesting item (…)

What Stefanoni states is not that different from what she says on Nov. 2. 2007 after all. But let's note that the words torn and cut are both subjective. In fact the fabric was apparently neither torn nor cut, it was unsewed. And I don't think a scientific analysis of the thread was perfored. Some people presented different ideas about the way how it was unsued: with one naked hand, or with two hands, or with a hand and the help of a blade. I think Maresca believed the murderer used a blade to help himself on unseing the clasp bit, others had various theories.

 

[Machiavelli]

I would ask Machiavellian exactly how he/she thinks that the DNA evidence could be double used or misused?

My name is not 'Machiavellian'

 

[Dougm]

This is the same thing I have read essentially. . . .That he initially did not place Amanda there at all.

There is more that can be gleamed. He tries to come up with excuses but the time of death seems to more or less agree with the digestion. At that time, Amanda and Raff have alibis.

In a perfect world, Guede's Skype call should not be needed but as a defense attorney you want to use every argument you can.

If I were a defense attorney, and the guy already convicted of the crime had told his friend my client was not part of the murder, I would want that evidence seen by the court. The question raised was why would Maresca NOT want it seen? Because it might go toward exonerating Amanda, that's why.

 

[Machiavelli]

And it's a critically important difference that the letter was to the judge, Micheli, rather than to Pascali.

Many pro-guilt commentators seem to have misinterpreted this letter as Stefanoni giving Pascali permission to see the EDFs, albeit under certain conditions. But that's NOT what the letter says. Instead, the letter is Stefanoni telling Micheli that it will take a judge's order to grant Pascali access to the EDFs, and why he (Micheli) should not issue that order. It's only if Micheli does issue that order (in which case, Stefanoni seeks to imply, Micheli must consider that she might be a fraud and a liar) that the conditions of access to the EDFs even come into play.
(...)

The highlighted part doesn't exist in Stefanoni's letter, neither explicitly nor implicitly.
What may be suggested implicitly in Stefanoni's letter, is that Pascali may think that Stefanoni is a fraud (not that Micheli thinks so).

What Stefanoni then states - textually, and nothing more than this - is that the log files are not indispensable to an expert, but if the judge decides to release them then she is ready to present them; in that event they shall be viewed under controlled conditions (through some adversarial procedure).

 

[Bill Williams]

Translation:

ANSWER - Obviously in this case, because, in fact, being the bra in a particular condition, you are going to see it - or I do not know if you've already seen it - it had clearly been torn, since it had thin straps that were just torn apart, and one rear portion of it was also cut , at least it had a clean cut that made you think it had been cut, so it was let’s say a very interesting item (…)

What Stefanoni states is not that different from what she says on Nov. 2. 2007 after all. But let's note that the words torn and cut are both subjective. In fact the fabric was apparently neither torn nor cut, it was unsewed. And I don't think a scientific analysis of the thread was perfored. Some people presented different ideas about the way how it was unsued: with one naked hand, or with two hands, or with a hand and the help of a blade. I think Maresca believed the murderer used a blade to help himself on unseing the clasp bit, others had various theories.

The Scientific Police person in charge makes subjective remarks, which some believe cashes out to the bizarre theory of them being "unsewn". You should be given the benefit of the doubt here on choice of English words.... there is no way the clasp was "unsewn" from the main part of the bra. You need to use a different English word.

But the admission is stunning - no test was made by the Police-group tasked with finding out the forensics. What they did was theorized.

Yet one issue -multiple attackers vs. single attacker - was one of the issues hanging in the balance. Judge Massei said that nearly all (but one) of the experts he heard said that a single attacker was entirely possible with what they saw of the evidence.

Yet Massei said it was OTHER issues which caused him to reject a near-unanimous observation of the experts. One of the other issues was the manner in which the clasp became separated from the main part of the garment.

And even a chief guilter admits it was never looked into! Only theorized about.

 

[Bill Williams]

The highlighted part doesn't exist in Stefanoni's letter, neither explicitly nor implicitly.
What may be suggested implicitly in Stefanoni's letter, is that Pascali may think that Stefanoni is a fraud (not that Micheli thinks so).

What Stefanoni then states - textually, and nothing more than this - is that the log files are not indispensable to an expert, but if the judge decides to release them then she is ready to present them; in that event they shall be viewed under controlled conditions (through some adversarial procedure).

How do Stefanoni's views on this square with Article 111 of the Italian Constitution?

 

[Strozzi]

As to why Maresca would object I'm sure there was a reason, whether a valid one I don't know because I haven't read that part of testimony yet. It could have to do with why the defense wanted the Skype call entered into evidence but I really can't say.

Not sure how it could be more detrimental to Rudy. By this time Rudy had already been convicted in the fast track trial so his involvement in Meredith's murder was known. In the call he lies about the depth of his involvement of Meredith's murder and places the blame for her death on another or vaguely on others. (I am assuming October 2009 is when this motion was made by Maresca. If it was October 2008, again, I'd have to know the reasons for the motion.)

And no, my comment about Dan O's comment is the same. But you are definitely free to think it makes sense and that the Kerchers thought of Rudy as almost family.

christianahannah, I may be able to help clarify Dan O's comment that the Kerchers thought of Rudy as almost family. Dan O is making a reference to some discussions on this board a year ago.

In Italy 'good' girls do not have sexual contact with their boyfriends. If they do, Italians in polite society refer to the young woman and man as "fiancee", whether or not they are engaged.

During a discussion of Kercher family lawyer Maresca's efforts to oppose Knox's and Sollecito's attempts to get the court to compel Guede to testify and be cross-examined, someone asked why the Kerchers (through their lawyer) were protecting Guede. Someone quipped that perhaps the Kerchers thought of Rudy as "almost family".

It was dark humor.

 

[Machiavelli]

I believe that Machiavelli is representing Stefanoni's position accurately. What he apparently doesn't realize is that since September of 2008 Stefanoni has admitted to it being low template DNA, the independent experts have panned her work in part for finding alleles she didn't 'call' (...)

Stefanoni presented the charts of X and Y profiles with all alleles and peaks heights indicated as requested by the defence.
So all the 'alleles' were there, in the hand of the defence prior to Oct. 4. 2008.

On Oct. 4. 2008 Bongiorno admitted that the peaks area was a new request they were making that day and they didn't do before (but they had obtained the charts and data of peaks heights as they requested).

(A side note: obviously lawyers and judges are not experts and can only discuss between each other about material that it immediately 'readable' or 'recognizable' to them; Bongiorno admitted she didn't know the difference between peask height and peaks areas).

Currently I'm more interested in the conflict between Stefanoni and Dr. Pascali that Machiavelli has been hinting about. I wish I knew what that was about. It could be that Stefanoni is right, but it could also be something else...

I am rather interested in why Pascali didn't come and visit the laboratory to examine the log files under some adversarial procedure, if he really wanted to see them (do blow ups of some image detail maybe, or extract other data information).
On Oct. 4. he somehow backtracked from his Sept. 27. request of log files, and he accepted that all what he needed further was just the data about the peaks area.