Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RWVBWL]

It is not about what 'you' or anyone else thinks 'would be better', it is about what is and what is not required under Italian law, police standard operating procedure...the norm. Recording witness testimony in Italy is neither a legal requirement or the norm. To have recorded them was not legally required and would have been 'abnormal'.

What 'you' think is 'better', is irrelevant. All that is important is that the police were in full compliance of the law and their SOP.

And that was what the recent debate was about Fulcanelli, the fact that the police do not have to record with audio and/orvideo devices, and therefore they are still lagging in terms of useage of modern equipment to enhance their investigatory techniques, and protect the public, and themselves better from false charges.
Someday, I would think, the widespread useage of audio and/or video recording devices will become SOP, until then, it's the old traditional method of just remembering what the witness or suspect said and writing it down afterwards...

False. The judiciary is not the government, they are completely independent.

Come on Fulcanelli, you're denying that the courts are not a part of the Italian government?
Funded, most likely, by the Italian taxpaying citizens?
Your arguement reminds me of when you were telling me that Rudy Guede's DNA
was not "on" Meredith Kercher, it was only "inside" Miss Kercher...

Secondly, while it may true to say that Amanda, Rudy and Raffaele lost, it would be false to claim anyone 'won'.

I happen to know a few lawyers, and a district attorney, and believe me, they do like a "win"...
If you disagree, well that's your opinion, I guess.

As for 'bringing it on', we've been waiting for the defence and their supporters to bring it on, to offer a convincing case for innocence, for 2 and half years. What's been the hold-up?

Well, the only response I have to this particular statement is that the lawyers
for Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox did not do a fantastic job in the first trial...

On the other hand, it appears that Rudy Guede's lawyers did a better job,
for he has less than 16 years of jail time left,
and then he will be free to roam the streets of Perugia once more.
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[Fulcanelli]

The media is very shameful. Information is currently being withheld about Guede because more profit will come from it at a future date. Some won't admit it but we all know that Amanda was destroyed in the media. We need to look past the media and look at the actual evidence that was presented in court.

'If' this information actually exists and it is so important, why then did the defence not present it at the trial or the pre-trial? They attacked Rudy in every possible way they could, yet this information that supposedly exists was left out, why?

PMF continues to state that a bloody shoe print was attributed to Amanda in Meredith's room. This is completely false. They know it is but they keep stating it. They keep stating that the stains found with luminol were made in blood. There is no proof of this. We now know that they were tested and they were all negative for blood.

PMF states it because it's true. This was all presented in the trial. However, it must be conceded that Judge Massei is not committed to the prints on the pillow in his report. However, the fact the luminol prints were in blood was presented in the trial, the defence were unable to offer anything convincing to dispute them and they have been accepted by the court as not only blood, but Meredith's blood left on the night of the murder.

They have her DNA on a knife handle in a kitchen that she prepared meals in. That's it. Nothing else.

I guess you forgot Meredith's DNA on the blade.

Bob uses the DNA argument for Guede in Filomena's room but disagrees with the argument pertaining to Amanda in Meredith's bedroom.

The difference being that Rudy did not have a violent struggle with anyone in Filomena's room.

Except for the violent struggle he would have had to get up, twice, and in through the window in the first place, yet left not a single trace of himself on that environment

You never saw the actual evidence against her. You trust the higher ups and you want to please them.

'Who' are the 'higher ups'?

The attempt to charge Amanda and her parents with slander is an egregious abuse of power. Hopefully the new judge appointed to Amanda's case will throw it out and end this nonsense. The Judge that hears the case with her parents should do the same.

Then you'll be pleased to hear they are not being charged with slander.

The attempt to pile on Amanda and her family is going to backfire. People are seeing this for what it really is. Mignini is fueling this entire thing.

This has nothing to do with 'piling on'. This is about applying the law, as is the case of any society that lives by the rule of law. In addition, Amanda and her family are not the only people on the planet that have rights under the law, a fact that seems to always fly above your head.

With the way it stands, the slander trial would overlap the appeal. The same BS will happen that happened in the first trial. Mignini will still be involved.

So?

I know you will respond stating that it's the police and not Mignini. If that's your response, you need to get a grip on reality. Open your eyes and see the big picture.

Funny, that's the advice we always try and give you...with little success it must be said.

Should she have been charged for saying she didn't kill Meredith? Is she not allowed to defend herself?

Since she has never been charged for that and never will be, that's a straw man.

The worldview of this will not be good. People know when they see abuse of power.

Reality check. Your small town is not the World Bruce.

You should stop the hatred and look at this with a clear head.

And you should stop the emotive claptrap.

You completely miss the point. If it turns out that Amanda and Raffaele have been wrongly convicted, then the police work would be bad.

'IF' is such a big word and at this moment in time in this context, is completely meaningless.

I have finished reading through Amanda's appeal. This will be corrected eventually. Like I said, it might take the supreme court but the truth will eventually prevail.

It's a pity you couldn't put the same effort into reading the Judges' Motivations Report.

I know that you think the motivation is the greatest document ever written. It must be 100% correct.

If the judges are always correct, why do they have appeals?

It is authoritative and exhaustive.

Appeals exist in order to give the defence every opportunity to respond.

I have told you repeatedly that I have read sections of the report. I have also read Amanda's appeal and Raffaele's appeal.

Reading only isolated 'sections' just doesn't cut it. Worse, you have simply ignored that which you have read, instead of then presenting the arguments contained in those sections you 'have' read and then de-constructing them with valid counter arguments.

I have also discussed the report with an Italian speaking lawyer.

Italian 'speaking', but not an Italian lawyer, versed in Italian law. Big difference.

I have read the sections pertaining to the main pieces of evidence and the report will be completely taken apart on appeal. Amanda and Raffaele should be fully exonerated in the first appeal. If that doesn't happen, I have confidence that this will be seen correctly in Rome.

If you are so confident in Amanda's innocence and the arguments offered by the defence (for which they only have 5 days to do something they couldn't do in 11 months), how then are you able to even conceive that she may fail on appeal and then be successful in the High Court?

You are also aware, that if she fails on the second degree, she's screwed? The third appeal simply addresses that everything was legally (procedurally) correct, it doesn't revisit the evidence. And you do also understand, that even if the High Court finds some particular legal procedure was in error, that does not automatically lead to an acquittal, reduction of sentence or re-trial?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I don't expect too much in the way of new evidence that we are unaware of, but I'd like to know the judges reasoning.


Weren't the main pieces of evidence taken apart in the first trial? Or is there new data available that discredits the results of the tests that were done? Or is it a case of 'same old wine, new bottle'?

There is an appeals process for a reason. The new judge and jury may see things differently. The new judge will most likely grant the defense requests for further testing of evidence.

There was testimony given in the first trial that was completely ignored. This happens when the audience has already made up their minds. Hopefully the new jury won't enter the courtroom on day one already knowing what their ruling will be. We will all have to wait and see.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Fulcanelli wrote: "If you are so confident in Amanda's innocence and the arguments offered by the defence (for which they only have 5 days to do something they couldn't do in 11 months), how then are you able to even conceive that she may fail on appeal and then be successful in the High Court?"

I ignored your entire post because it is the same old garbage. I highlighted your statement above to show that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. This is absolutely false. There is no time limit set on the appeal. The appeal could take two weeks or it could take a year.

If you don't know what your talking about then I would suggest that you stop talking.

 

[Fulcanelli]

And that was what the recent debate was about Fulcanelli, the fact that the police do not have to record with audio and/orvideo devices, and therefore they are still lagging in terms of useage of modern equipment to enhance their investigatory techniques, and protect the public, and themselves better from false charges.
Someday, I would think, the widespread useage of audio and/or video recording devices will become SOP, until then, it's the old traditional method of just remembering what the witness or suspect said and writing it down afterwards...

Again, it is irrelevant. All that's relevant, in regard to 'this' specific case, is the question of whether they acted within the law and their SOP. As has been established, they did. The suggestion that the police have committed some legal foul was put to bed long ago. I'm not sure why some wish to continue to flog that dead horse.

Come on Fulcanelli, you're denying that the courts are not a part of the Italian government?
Funded, most likely, by the Italian taxpaying citizens?
Your arguement reminds me of when you were telling me that Rudy Guede's DNA
was not "on" Meredith Kercher, it was only "inside" Miss Kercher...

They are completely independent of the government, that is the case in Italy and that is a fact. Accept it, or not.

Italian taxpaying citizens are not the government.

The fact Guede's DNA was in and not on Meredith is a fact. You may think it's fine to be sloppy with the facts...I don't. All it tells me, is that you don't think the facts are very important.

I happen to know a few lawyers, and a district attorney, and believe me, they do like a "win"...
If you disagree, well that's your opinion, I guess.

Whether they 'like' to win or not is again, irrelevant. It can however, be described as an erroneous and loaded way to describe it. A more apt description, would be that they feel professional accomplishment in fulfilling their duty to the victims, the public, the law and last but not least, justice.

Well, the only response I have to this particular statement is that the lawyers
for Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox did not do a fantastic job in the first trial...

Agreed. But then, they were up against a very strong case and didn't really have much to work with.

On the other hand, it appears that Rudy Guede's lawyers did a better job,
for he has less than 16 years of jail time left,
and then he will be free to roam the streets of Perugia once more.

They didn't offer a better defence. They just employed a better strategy.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I ignored your entire post because it is the same old garbage. I highlighted your statement above to show that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. This is absolutely false. There is no time limit set on the appeal. The appeal could take two weeks or it could take a year.

Since you effectively ignore anything you deem as bad news, why break the habit of a lifetime?

As for the length of the appeal, we'll see

There is an appeals process for a reason. The new judge and jury may see things differently.

LOL. Naive, but funny.

There was testimony given in the first trial that was completely ignored. This happens when the audience has already made up their minds. Hopefully the new jury won't enter the courtroom on day one already knowing what their ruling will be. We will all have to wait and see.

What testimony was 'completely ignored'? I think you're confusing completely ignored with 'completely rejected'

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Bruce wrote: PMF continues to state that a bloody shoe print was attributed to Amanda in Meredith's room. This is completely false. They know it is but they keep stating it. They keep stating that the stains found with luminol were made in blood. There is no proof of this. We now know that they were tested and they were all negative for blood.

Fulcanelli wrote: PMF states it because it's true. This was all presented in the trial. However, it must be conceded that Judge Massei is not committed to thre prints on the pillow in his report. However, the fact the the luminol prints were in blood was presented in the trial, the defence were unable to to offer anything convincing to dispute them and they have been accepted by the court as not only blood, but Meredith's blood left on the night of the murder.


This completely false. This is a perfect example of the judge and jury ignoring testimony. They were shown photographic evidence that all prints in the murder room belong to Guede.

The prosecution stated that the luminol prints were not tested for blood. We now know they were tested and the tests were negative. This point will come up on appeal. Why was this testing withheld?

"accepted by the court" means nothing to me. How many times do I have to tell you that I think the court got it wrong?

Here is the photographic evidence showing that the prints belong to Guede: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-04.html

A couple of questions;

Why did Amanda go to the store to buy cleaning products that contain bleach when there were already cleaning products that contain bleach in the cottage?

Why did Amanda go to the store to look at cleaning products but didn't buy anything? I don't want to hear Peggy's excuse that she stole the cleaning products either. Try to come up with a better reason.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Since you effectively ignore anything you deem as bad news, why break the habit of a lifetime?

As for the length of the appeal, we'll see "



In other words, you have no idea about the length of the appeal. You state everything as fact when in reality, you have no clue.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Dr. Stefanoni claimed the Luminol bare foot prints were never tested for blood however in July 2009 the notes confirmed the material was tested with tetramethylbenzidine which is extremely sensitive for blood and all tested negative.

 

[Fulcanelli]

This completely false. This is a perfect example of the judge and jury ignoring testimony. They were shown photographic evidence that all prints in the murder room belong to Guede.

Bruce, you are confused. Just because the defence argue a thing, it doesn't mean that they have proved a thing. Their arguments were not ignored, they were rejected. The reasons for exactly 'why' they were rejected are provided in the Massei Report...which you haven't read.

Why did Amanda go to the store to buy cleaning products that contain bleach when there were already cleaning products that contain bleach in the cottage?

Yet another straw man. Who ever argued that Amanda went to the store to 'buy cleaning products that contain bleach'? Nobody.

there were already cleaning products that contain bleach in the cottage?

It was established in the trial that there were no cleaning products in the cottage that contained bleach, neither were any ever used there. Unless or until you provide evidence to the contrary, I will accept what was established in the trial.

Why did Amanda go to the store to look at cleaning products but didn't buy anything? I don't want to hear Peggy's excuse that she stole the cleaning products either. Try to come up with a better reason.

It was never established that she didn't buy anything. All that was established was that the lady on the till didn't remember selling her anything. These are two different things. Neither did she actually 'have' to have sold her anything. It could be the shop simply didn't have what she wanted/needed.

In other words, you have no idea about the length of the appeal. You state everything as fact when in reality, you have no clue.

Bruce, the fact of the appeal being scheduled for 5 days is a matter of public record. I'm sorry that you don't like it, but there it is.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Quintavalle will be attacked very strongly in the Appeal. He was asked right away by police if he had seen either AK or RS in his store after the murder and he said no. He claimed at trial that he was not asked if he had seen AK and at the time he considered it as an insignificant factor. He claims she was showing an urgency to buy something in the cleaning section but left without buying anything. They checked his roll of tickets and found no bleach detergent was purchased. Yet the court concluded she did get bleach there. There were no receipts for bleach, in fact there was a lot of bleach detergents at the cottage already.

The court inexplicably ignored the testimony of Inspector Orestes Volturno who subsequently questioned Quintavalle after the initial questioning that happened within a day or so of the murder. Volturno's service record shows he questioned Quintavalle on Nov. 19, 2007. The record makes it clear he was shown photos of AK & RS and he said they had been to his store 2 or so times but NOT on Nov. 2 and they were always together.

Then in court testimony on March 21, 2009 Volturno testifies to the same. He showed pictures of both and Quintavalle denied she was in his store on Nov. 2, 2007.

Quintavalle only came forward almost a year later following contact with a reporter which ended up getting him on TV.

 

[LondonJohn]

False. The judiciary is not the government, they are completely independent. Secondly, while it may true to say that Amanda, Rudy and Raffaele lost, it would be false to claim anyone 'won'.

As for 'bringing it on', we've been waiting for the defence and their supporters to bring it on, to offer a convincing case for innocence, for 2 and half years. What's been the hold-up?

Wrong on both counts unfortunately. Time to brush up on "Democracy 101". The three branches of government in a modern democracy (including Italy) are the Executive branch, the Legislative branch and the Judiciary branch. Now it's certainly true to say that the Judiciary should be kept entirely separate and at arms length from from the Executive. But the Judiciary is most certainly a branch of government.

Second, it's not incumbent upon the defence in any criminal trial to "bring it on, to offer a convincing case for innocence". If Fulcanelli believes this, then he needs to do "Criminal law 101" as well. The only job of the defence is to plant reasonable doubt in jurors' minds over evidence presented by the prosecution. The burden of proof falls wholly and exclusively with the prosecution.

Sometimes, defence lawyers feel that the best way to demonstrate reasonable doubt in the prosecution case is to create an alternate scenario - one in which the defendants are innocent. But this is in fact relatively rare. And indeed sometimes, the defence may not even want to demonstrate their clients' innocence - all they need to do is to persuade jurors that there is reasonable doubt of their clients' guilt (which - it bears repeating - doesn't require the jury to believe that the defendants are innocent) The defence can even say absolutely nothing during a trial if they want to, if they feel the prosecution's case is sufficient weak on its own (but this is admittedly very rare).

And this situation will be exactly the same in the forthcoming appeal(s) in this case. All the defence will be required to do will be to raise valid questions about the quality and safety of the prosecution's evidence, to a level that implies reasonable doubt. The defence will not have to offer an alternative explanation based on their clients' innocence.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Bruce, the fact of the appeal being scheduled for 5 days is is a matter of public record. I'm sorry that you don't like it, but there it is.

You should do some more research because you are wrong.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Dr. Stefanoni claimed the Luminol bare foot prints were never tested for blood however in July 2009 the notes confirmed the material was tested with tetramethylbenzidine which is extremely sensitive for blood and all tested negative.

Let's read the report to see what Dr Stefanoni actually said and what she said actually means. You know, that report you haven't read yet?

 

[Fulcanelli]

You should do some more research because you are wrong.

What, research like reading the report? Or reading those journalists that actually understand the Italian system and have gone to the trouble of finding out these kinds of details from the ILE? All that research you 'haven't' done...that sort of research?

 

[LondonJohn]

Quintavalle will be attacked very strongly in the Appeal. He was asked right away by police if he had seen either AK or RS in his store after the murder and he said no. He claimed at trial that he was not asked if he had seen AK and at the time he considered it as an insignificant factor. He claims she was showing an urgency to buy something in the cleaning section but left without buying anything. They checked his roll of tickets and found no bleach detergent was purchased. Yet the court concluded she did get bleach there. There were no receipts for bleach, in fact there was a lot of bleach detergents at the cottage already.

The court inexplicably ignored the testimony of Inspector Orestes Volturno who subsequently questioned Quintavalle after the initial quetioning that happened within a day or so of the murder. Volturno's service record shows he questioned Quintavalle on Nov. 19, 2007. The record makes it clear he was shown photos of AK & RS and he said they had been to his store 2 or so times but NOT on Nov. 2 and they were always together.

Then in court testimony on March 21, 2009 Volturno testifies to the same. He viewed pictures of both and he denied she was in his store on Nov. 2, 2007.

Quintavalle only came forward almost a year later following contact with a reporter which ended up getting him on TV.

Doesn't this imply that the Quintavalle/bleach issue was handled very badly by AK/RS's defence teams at trial? I believe this shows further evidence of an inadequate defence...

Did my eyes deceive me, or did I see Dalla Vedova and Ghirga representing AK at the beginning of the criminal slander (oooops, calumny - sorry Fulcanelli) trial the other day? Bruce, do you (or anyone else) know whether AK will be engaging any other Italian legal representation for the appeal?* In the UK and US, there are specialist post-conviction attorneys who specialise in appeals, and it seems to me that one such lawyer would be both appropriate and necessary for both AK and RS.

* I understand that Ted Simon has been added, but I'm specifically thinking here about experts in the Italian appeals system (and good Italian lawyers in general, for that matter).

 

[Bruce Fischer]

It is apparent that Fulcanelli is out of answers.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Doesn't this imply that the Quintavalle/bleach issue was handled very badly by AK/RS's defence teams at trial? I believe this shows further evidence of an inadequate defence...

Did my eyes deceive me, or did I see Dalla Vedova and Ghirga representing AK at the beginning of the criminal slander (oooops, calumny - sorry Fulcanelli) trial the other day? Bruce, do you (or anyone else) know whether AK will be engaging any other Italian legal representation for the appeal?* In the UK and US, there are specialist post-conviction attorneys who specialise in appeals, and it seems to me that one such lawyer would be both appropriate and necessary for both AK and RS.

* I understand that Ted Simon has been added, but I'm specifically thinking here about experts in the Italian appeals system (and good Italian lawyers in general, for that matter).

Amanda and Raffaele both have excellent defense teams. They were put into an impossible position. I know that Fulcanelli and his cult of loyal followers refuse to see it but the jury went into that courtroom on day one with their minds made up.

Imagine trying to defend your client and PMF is the jury.

It is not the fault of the defense attorneys that testimony was completely ignored.

A police officer took the stand and testified that Quintavalle told him that he did not see Amanda in the store on November 2nd.

It was ignored. What can the attorneys do about that?

 

[LondonJohn]

Let's read the report to see what Dr Stefanoni actually said and what she said actually means. You know, that report you haven't read yet?

Nobody needs to specifically read the Massei report to know what Stefanoni said in the trial. Stefanoni's testimony is already part of the trial record. It's been a matter of public record since she gave testimony in the trial in May 2009, and it has been well translated and reported. Here's one small example, out of many, of the contemporaneous reporting of her testimony and her cross-examination:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7656872&page=1

It's not unique to the hallowed Massei report. What is unique to the report is how the jurors chose to interpret and believe that evidence. Nothing more.

Just because PMF zealously believes that it's engaging in some sort of heroic labour of truth-seeking in translating the jury's deliberation/sentencing report doesn't change the fact that nothing new will come from the report in terms of evidence or testimony.

 

[Amazer]

There is an appeals process for a reason. The new judge and jury may see things differently. The new judge will most likely grant the defense requests for further testing of evidence.

The new judge and jury may indeed see things differently. I don't think that rehashing the same old arguments as were tried in the first trial are going to produce a radical new outcome... but that could just be me.

I curious though why you think a new judge is likely to grant the request for further testing. Not that I'm opposed to it, but in addition to the resulting delays in the trial itself, what does the defense think additional testing will show?

There was testimony given in the first trial that was completely ignored. This happens when the audience has already made up their minds. Hopefully the new jury won't enter the courtroom on day one already knowing what their ruling will be. We will all have to wait and see.

Why do you believe that testimony was ignored? Did the Judge completely ignore it in his reports? If so, then you have a point. Can you (and/or Fulcanneli) clear this point up?

As for your second point, i'd argue that it's even less likely that you'll find a jury which hasn't has a preconceived idea about Amanda's and Raffaele's guilt or innocence. They've had a lot more exposure from the Italian Media.