Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

Numbers I have provided evidence of the kids' defenses putting forward expert testimony in what amounted to Rudi's trial.

The kids' defenses were allowed to make their claims in the preliminary hearing which apparently was/became Rudi's trial. Both the PG and the PI wiki have the MR from Micheli.

There is a misunderstanding, as far as I can tell. Guede's preliminary hearing was the basis of evidence for his fast-track trial, which was held in closed session - that is, it was not open to the public and no details are disclosed outside of the motivation report. In a sense, a fast-track trial is a secret (closed) trial as long as the accused does not request that it be open.

This is not what is meant by representation, which includes the ability to challenge witnesses. Knox and Sollecito did not have standing, and thus would not have representation, at the Guede fast-track trial. Documents prepared by the Knox or Sollecito defense for other hearings, such as the preliminary hearing, may have been included in the dossier given to the judge. That is not equivalent to representation as understood in adversarial trials.

 

[Grinder]

So - Guede's fast-track trial was indeed held in closed (non-public) session, according to Mach, which is consistent with CPP Art. 441.3; the closed session is in accordance with Italian law, as long as Guede did not request an open session.

Thus, Mach has no citations or documents supporting the presence of the legal representatives of Knox or Sollecito at Guede's fast-track trial.

What he is falsely and misleading stating as the presence of the AK - RS representatives is in reality the presence of certain documents prepared for the other hearings, such as the preliminary hearing, for the AK and RS defense, that were referred to by the judge in Guede's fast-track trial.

Well as I understand it, Mach is saying that the preliminary hearing IS Rudi's trial. It appears from the quotes I provided the kids' defense presented expert testimony on issues such as the single killer.

Do you have information on what witnesses testified not allowed to be crossed by the defense of the kids?

 

[Annella]

I'm afraid I can't share Vogt's view about the Kerchers, and that I may have a very different opinon about things that offend the Kerchers' dignity and feelings.

I believe instead some those things are: the use of Meredith's pictures on the part of Knox supporters, or the showing of doctored pictures showing her with AK, or the use of Meredith's name in association with pro-Knox propaganda, or the false propaganda in favor of AK & RS in general, or the traducing and offending of MK's friends, or (most vile and worst) the propaganda that uses the name of Meredith such as attempts to associate them together like proclaiming that they were "friends", and so.

But have you an opinion on someone petitioning the Florence Court? I believe the armchair detective Vogt mentioned ( Gabriele Belcastro was the name IIRC) a civilian, was intending to file charges against Conti/Vecchiotti, Hellmann/Zanetti and Marasca/Bruno. Surely you must have an opinion on that matter?

 

[Machiavelli]

This is indeed interesting information, with regard to AK's and RS's lawyers cross-examining witnesses at Rudy Guede's fast-track trial.

Please provide citations where the testimony and cross-examination of witnesses in Guede's fast-track trial may be read by ISF members.

I see most hearing transcripts from preliminary hearing are still not published on themurderofmeredithkercher.com .
The Stefanoni hearing of Oct. 4. 2008 is there (and you cen read Bongiorno's talking, as well as Sollecito's defence expert Pascali).

As for Kokomani hearing, for example, see this news article:

https://wildgreta.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/meredith-prossima-udienza-26-settembre-respinte-eccezioni-difesa-sollecito-tutte-le-dichiarazioni-degli-avvocati/

(...)
“L’albanese rappresenta l’unico soggetto – ha aggiunto l’avvocato Nicodemo Gentile – che dice di avere visto tutti e 3 gli imputati insieme, siamo assolutamente certi che si tratta di circostanze che potremo smontare e smonteremo durante l’audizione del teste ed e’ l’unico elemento che potrebbe condurre al concorso tra i 3 soggetti cosa che abbiamo sempre detto inesistente”.
I legali si sono detti “contenti che il giudice abbia accolto la nostra integrazione probatoria” soprattutto perche’ “il giudice avrebbe, lui stesso, d’impulso, ammesso la testimonianza di Kokomani al fine di valutare l’eventuale possibilita’ della conoscenza di tutti e 3 i soggetti oggi imputati”.
Il teste albanese potra’ essere interrogato anche dalle difese degli altri due imputati, mentre gli altri due soltanto dal collegio difensivo di Rudy e dal pm, oltre che dal giudice.
(AGI) – Perugia, 16 set. -(AGI)

The highlighted part explain how it works: the witness (Kokomani) can be interrogated by the defences of the other two suspects as well (insofar as he may bring incriminating evidence against them).
The other two witnesses in the same hearing, instead, they cannot be interrogated by AK & RS defences, only by Guede's defence, by the prosecutor and by the judge (since they may only incriminate Guede).

Therefore, all defences have a right to cross-examine those witnesses that are potentially incriminating against them.
The other defences may not "incriminate" Guede. They can cross-question to defend themselves from their preliminary hearing charges, but they cannot cross-question just to "incriminate" Guede in his short-track trial.

 

[Grinder]

There is a misunderstanding, as far as I can tell. Guede's preliminary hearing was the basis of evidence for his fast-track trial, which was held in closed session - that is, it was not open to the public and no details are disclosed outside of the motivation report. In a sense, a fast-track trial is a secret (closed) trial as long as the accused does not request that it be open.

This is not what is meant by representation, which includes the ability to challenge witnesses. Knox and Sollecito did not have standing, and thus would not have representation, at the Guede fast-track trial. Documents prepared by the Knox or Sollecito defense for other hearings, such as the preliminary hearing, may have been included in the dossier given to the judge. That is not equivalent to representation as understood in adversarial trials.

The only report before his appeal on Rudi is the preliminary/fast track MR. This is on both wikis. I'm guessing at the end of the preliminary hearing the defendants/suspects can opt for a full trial or leave it to the court to judge. Certainly, I may be incorrect, but it seems to be the method.

Have you checked them out?

 

[Machiavelli]

But have you an opinion on someone petitioning the Florence Court? I believe the armchair detective Vogt mentioned ( Gabriele Belcastro was the name IIRC) a civilian, was intending to file charges against Conti/Vecchiotti, Hellmann/Zanetti and Marasca/Bruno. Surely you must have an opinion on that matter?

There is certainly evidence that may be worth bringing at the attention of investigators, one thing I forgot to say however, is that I will not pick up any discussion thread on this forum. In fact, if I take part to the forum, I intend to limit myself to discuss only limited topics that I will previously agree with the interlocutors, and discuss that topic alone, and discuss only one topic by one.
I am interested in discussing only topics concerning facts, and facts directly related to the case and to the issues of guilt/innocence & evidence, that includes facts about AK & RS as suspects. There are topics I am not interested in and won't talk about, those are mostly satellite issues only indirectly related, so I am not interested in discussing about Hellmann scenarios nor about private citizens nor journalists, and won't talk about those topics at all.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well as I understand it, Mach is saying that the preliminary hearing IS Rudi's trial. It appears from the quotes I provided the kids' defense presented expert testimony on issues such as the single killer.

Do you have information on what witnesses testified not allowed to be crossed by the defense of the kids?

Who are the kids?
Isn't Guede a "kid" just like the other two?

 

[Machiavelli]

The only report before his appeal on Rudi is the preliminary/fast track MR. This is on both wikis. I'm guessing at the end of the preliminary hearing the defendants/suspects can opt for a full trial or leave it to the court to judge. Certainly, I may be incorrect, but it seems to be the method.

Have you checked them out?

They must do this at the beginning of the preliminary hearing.

 

[Machiavelli]

There is a misunderstanding, as far as I can tell. Guede's preliminary hearing was the basis of evidence for his fast-track trial, which was held in closed session - that is, it was not open to the public and no details are disclosed outside of the motivation report. In a sense, a fast-track trial is a secret (closed) trial as long as the accused does not request that it be open.

This is not what is meant by representation, which includes the ability to challenge witnesses. Knox and Sollecito did not have standing, and thus would not have representation, at the Guede fast-track trial. Documents prepared by the Knox or Sollecito defense for other hearings, such as the preliminary hearing, may have been included in the dossier given to the judge. That is not equivalent to representation as understood in adversarial trials.

Guede did not have a preliminary hearing, since he had a fast-track trial. At the beginning of the preliminary hearing, Guede spoke and asked himself - with his own voice - that the current hearing would be his whole fast-track trial. So his lawyer explained that he subjected his request to some conditions, which were: only if the judge accepted to hear a number of defence witnesses that he requested. The judge accepted the witnesses list, and thus the fast-track option was chosen.
From that point on, the court sessions followed the trial rules for Guede, that is he had the privileges of a defendant who is defending himself alone, while kept on following the preliminary hearing rules for AK/RS, that means that AK/RS can defend themselves normally whenever evidence is brought in that is potentially incriminating against them (thus, they could cross-question all the potentially incriminating witness, such as Stefanoni or Kokomani).

 

[Machiavelli]

So - Guede's fast-track trial was indeed held in closed (non-public) session, according to Mach, which is consistent with CPP Art. 441.3; the closed session is in accordance with Italian law, as long as Guede did not request an open session.

Thus, Mach has no citations or documents supporting the presence of the legal representatives of Knox or Sollecito at Guede's fast-track trial.

What he is falsely and misleading stating as the presence of the AK - RS representatives is in reality the presence of certain documents prepared for the other hearings, such as the preliminary hearing, for the AK and RS defense, that were referred to by the judge in Guede's fast-track trial.

While do you say I don't have citations, when I cited you the hearing of Oct. 4. 2008 which is available on the wiki site, and also the Sep. 26. 2008 hearing which is reported by a news article explaining that AK/RS defences were allowed to cross question Kokomani?

Why do you (falsely) state that I am "falsely misleading", while instead AK/RS representatives were indeed present inside the same room while Guede was tried, and the hearings of Guede's trial are the same thing (the same event) of the preliminary hearing of the other two suspects?

And btw, Guede's trial (which is the same thing of AK/RS's preliminary hearing) was not secret. It was closed to the public, which is not the same thing of "secret". Journalists were at some hearings and talked about the hearings. And it is not true that motivations is the only document. Transcripts exist, and they are available. We have at least one of them readable on the wiki page, but there are others as well and all of them can be retrieved at the GIP office in Perugia.

 

[Grinder]

Who are the kids?
Isn't Guede a "kid" just like the other two?

Just like I write Mach for short I write the kids. I think elsewhere they are called the perps and other descriptive terms.

 

[Machiavelli]

Just like I write Mach for short I write the kids. I think elsewhere they are called the perps and other descriptive terms.

But are there three or two kids inside that courtroom?

 

[acbytesla]

The great news about Machiavelli's posts is that in the final analysis his opinions are not shared in the final ruling. Any preliminary rulings that adversely effected the young couple are now moot. I now find a lightness in the discussion as it is now really irrelevant.

 

[Machiavelli]

The great news about Machiavelli's posts is that in the final analysis his opinions are not shared in the final ruling. Any preliminary rulings that adversely effected the young couple are now moot. I now find a lightness in the discussion as it is now really irrelevant.

Facts, not opinions.
And the Chieffi ruling is definitive.

 

[Machiavelli]

Somehow I knew you would think that was fair. Never mind in the full trial, 7 out of 8 experts said they could not rule out that the murder was the work of a single assailant. You argue that an incomplete investigation should trump a thorough one simply for the reason it predates it.

No, I do not.
But I say that 1 expert (or even a non-expert) can trump other 7 experts' opinions, and it is also quite normal that this happens.
And it is not the experts, but the judges those who shall decide.

I don't know why the pro-Knox bring up this "number" argument about trial exrts and fail to realize how nonsense this is.

In the Aldrovandi case, there judge sided with the opinion of 1 expert alone against 8. Because it was the convincing one. This is how it works.
It's not the number. It's whether they are able to convince you.

You make the hurried rush to judgment a fait acompli.

You are not in a position for calling Guede's trial a "hurried rush to judgement". It was a trial.
And it's not a fait accompli. It is a circumstantial element. It can be challenged and assessed like any element.

With all due respect I believe you don't understand what a Grand Jury is. As for the concept of plea bargaining in exchange for testimony there is a reasonable argument against them. That I don't deny. FYI: A Grand Jury is sort of a mini-trial that decides if there will be a full trial. Decisions in a Grand Jury have ZERO effect on the actual trial.

I know what a Grand Jury is. What you seem to fail to understand, is why I point out that such preliminary judgement is essentially unfair. A preliminary judgement itself has always zero effect on the actual trial, when the actual trial takes place. But this doesn't change the issue of its essence of being unfair. The way how the GJ decides whether a triall with take place or no, is an unfair procedure. Because it takes place without representatives and without court discussion. Itself it is a barrage that prevents the victim's (or parties) or suspect's direct access to a "right to a fair trial".

 

[acbytesla]

Facts, not opinions.
And the Chieffi ruling is definitive.

No, if it was definitive Raffaele would certainly be in prison and Amanda would be fighting extradition. Marasca Bruno is definitive.

 

[acbytesla]

No, I do not.
But I say that 1 expert (or even a non-expert) can trump other 7 experts' opinions, and it is also quite normal that this happens.
And it is not the experts, but the judges those who shall decide.

I don't know why the pro-Knox bring up this "number" argument about trial exrts and fail to realize how nonsense this is.

In the Aldrovandi case, there judge sided with the opinion of 1 expert alone against 8. Because it was the convincing one. This is how it works.
It's not the number. It's whether they are able to convince you.



You are not in a position for calling Guede's trial a "hurried rush to judgement". It was a trial.
And it's not a fait accompli. It is a circumstantial element. It can be challenged and assessed like any element.

In comparison to full trial, yes I am.
The I SC ignores the latter evidence simply because it accepts the previous trial's ruling. Why even bother with the full trial if the case has already been decided without one?

I know what a Grand Jury is. What you seem to fail to understand, is why I point out that such preliminary judgement is essentially unfair. A preliminary judgement itself has always zero effect on the actual trial, when the actual trial takes place. But this doesn't change the issue of its essence of being unfair. The way how the GJ decides whether a triall with take place or no, is an unfair procedure. Because it takes place without representatives and without court discussion. Itself it is a barrage that prevents the victim's (or parties) or suspect's direct access to a "right to a fair trial".

I disagree entirely. It's done in secret. The trial jury is unaware of any of the findings of the grand jury. It is nothing more than a finding that that there is enough evidence to conduct an actual trial and that is all. It's like the hearing made before Micheli which determined there would be a trial for Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[dropzone]

DNA was found on the bra clasp besides RAf's.

She was popular. And I have found that getting ones DNA on a bra clasp does not mean one successfully undid the bra.

Reports over the years had fingerprints remaining unidentified, if your interested I'm sure you can find them.

No, thank you. I'm only mildly interested in this case, and I don't wish to put you to any trouble.

Btw most here are very aware of the developments in DNA. The ISC sending back of Hellmann highlighted the better techniques and abilities for smaller sample identification.

As for fingerprints, it is obvious that a clean, unsmeared one out in the open is likely more relevant than a dusty, smeared one underneath something. -

Most, but we must keep in mind we are also playing to the Peanut Gallery.

But are there three or two kids inside that courtroom?

Grinder sometimes confuses me, and I'm new to this thread and this case, but I have no difficulty figuring out he's referring to the two innocent young people whose lives were needlessly damaged by a witch hunt. The third one can hang, for all I care.

 

[Machiavelli]

No, if it was definitive Raffaele would certainly be in prison and Amanda would be fighting extradition. Marasca Bruno is definitive.

Sorry, Chieffi is definitive. There is really no doubt about this.

 

[Machiavelli]

In comparison to full trial, yes I am.
The I SC ignores the latter evidence simply because it accepts the previous trial's ruling. Why even bother with the full trial if the case has already been decided without one?

No. The Chieffi ruling explains that the court is not supposed to accept the other trial ruling - which btw, is not a previous trial ruling, instead it's another trial ruling - but it cannot ignore its existence as circumstantial element on specious or illegal arguments either. The defence or the judge may counter the element by bringing appropriate argumentation.
The SC does not assess evidence directly (so does not "ignore" evidence). But the SC noticed that Hellmann-Zanetti failed to discuss evidence chapters that was presented and points made in the first instance trial.

I disagree entirely. It's done in secret. The trial jury is unaware of any of the findings of the grand jury. It is nothing more than a finding that that there is enough evidence to conduct an actual trial and that is all. It's like the hearing made before Micheli which determined there would be a trial for Amanda and Raffaele.

But the difference is that the GJ does not have legal reprsentatives, no adversary rules, nor parties. And this is not exactly a small difference.