Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Solange305]

Amanda sees a friend in court and smiles. It's a good indication she is happy to see her friend, but nothing more.

The tabloids are experts at telling us what to believe. If Amanda had not cracked a smile during her courtroom appearance, it would be presented as proof she was guilty.

I have to disagree. Even when she was testifying there seemed to be a little too much laughing and smiling. I don't let the tabloids tell me what to think, I sense it, its my own opinion and you are perfectly entitled to disagree with it.

I had the same feeling with Casey Anthony, she would smirk and smile all the time in court, as if she was having a blast. All the while, the lawyers and judges were talking about her daughter's dead body, yet she still considered it a time to laugh, smile, and joke.

It's something that doesn't sit well with the public, and probably with the jury. We are talking about murder trials here, this is not a laughing matter.

 

[platonov]

Rollin', rollin', rollin'

capealadin,

A previous comment of mine already addressed your point about lying versus false statements, but I will expand on it a little. My overview of the pro-innocence position is that Amanda and Raffaele were pressured into making false statements by (at least) overzealous members of ILE. I am puzzled by your desire to rehash this debate—I am merely stating my position and what I take to the consensus of many pro-innocence commenters. I know your position is different.

About a month ago the PBS documentary series Frontline did a special on the Norfolk Four, four Navy men who gave false confessions/accusations. Each member had falsely confessed to being part of a rape-murder while also accusing a person who became the next person that Norfolk LE would arrest. They fell like dominoes (it was almost the Norfolk Seven!). Frontline filmed the first meeting among the four men after they were finally freed, despite LE’s unwillingness to admit that they had prosecuted the wrong guys. I felt trepidation as the scene began to unfold. Yet the men were quite forgiving and respectful of each other. One said words to the effect, “They [LE] played us all for fools.” I was very impressed with the sensible way they handled the situation. Take from this story what you will.

I believe this is the 6th time, on the 'Cartwheel of Doubt', we have had the Norfolk Four and its probably not even the most popoular in the 'evidence by anecdote' league.

I hoped the earlier discussion [here for starters] of the Dec 17 'judicial appearance' & court testimony had finally put an end to the 'internalized false confession' trope.

.

 

[Mary_H]

Justinian: * A male figure in the dark* is akin to * The bushy haired stranger*. PROBABLY is not going to cut it, I'm afraid. And, no, it is not about them being at the scene of the crime. I am talking about Raff's statement AFTER Rudi was convicted, in Court. He said* I Hope the REAL murderer will confess*. After all, that was a done deal. Why not say : You have the killer, you have the evidence?

Oh, wait. A little problem, I guess. That doesn't make THEIR DNA disappear right? Rudi has no compunctions about calling Amanda and Raff the killers, Even though he hasn't exhausted his appeals. What to make of this? I'm ready, I'm expecting a lot of *Plausible* reasons*. C'mon//////

If Rudy had no compunction about naming Amanda and Raffaele, he would have named them on the spot, instead of waiting four months and offering a number of other possible suspects first.

 

[TomCH]

To believe that Rudy didn't stab and kill MK is like believing that flying saucers and advanced technology were necessary for the Incas to build the stone walls that they built.

No, it's pretty much akin to believing Amanda and Rafaele didn't kill Meredith, there is no more evidence to show that Rudy actually committed the murder that there is to show that they did it.

 

[capealadin]

capealadin,

Rudy was sentenced to thirty years. He received a six-year reduction for mitigation, making it twenty-four years. Then his sentenced was reduced by one-third (eight years) for the fast track trial, giving him sixteen years in the end. I am not talking about the one-third sentence reduction; I am talking about the six-year reduction.

Halides: How old are you? I answered you. The prosecution CANNOT appeal. Why are you waffling off the time of the sentence. THAT was NOT the question. PFFT.......

 

[Mary_H]

shuttl

This was settled (again ?) recently.

We don't need to rely on our memories - we have direct testimony [temporally challenged* and rambling admittedly] from AK herself regarding the fact that she told her mother on Nov 10th in a bugged conversation that PL was innocent.
* A common theme as I pointed out recently.

See post here and here - exchange begins top of page 440 if you want to follow it.

By the same token - they/she cant.... what now ?

Dream on, platonov. The last word on this issue was that you quoted partial testimony, out of context, and that it did not support your claim. You have proven that by linking to the posts in which you did it.

The RG situation is however a different one - the obvious danger of retaliatory testimony kept any of them from saying too much. IIRC RG's position moved/hardened after the defence for AK or RS started to seek to portray him as the sole killer.

Much of the to&fro seemed to take place outside the courtroom in the Italian media so its all ........ ?

"Retaliatory testimony" doesn't count for much unless the witness who is testifying has evidence to support it. Rudy's potential testimony against Amanda and Raffaele would only have weakened the prosecution's already weak case against them, because he would have been cross-examined into who knows how many more false accounts on the stand.

 

[TomCH]

I said: I have seen enough documentaries and read enough to know that the body, motive and proximity to the murder scene is enough for conviction.

Your reply:


That is why anybody that lives in the same house where a body (not dead by natural causes) is found is always a suspect; (s)he is always assumed guilty until being proven innocent.

But then Guede was convicted...

As were Amanda and Rafaele.

So your point is?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

looking for answers

Halides: How old are you? I answered you. The prosecution CANNOT appeal. Why are you waffling off the time of the sentence. THAT was NOT the question. PFFT.......

You were wrong about Patrick's demoting Amanda. You misunderstood what Raffaele meant when he hoped that the real killer would confess. And now you want us to believe that the mitigation cannot be appealed? I think we have gone as far as we can go on this subject.

How about answering some of my questions, the ones you have been avoiding?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I do not enjoy talking about it, but...

No, it's pretty much akin to believing Amanda and Rafaele didn't kill Meredith, there is no more evidence to show that Rudy actually committed the murder that there is to show that they did it.

There is evidence that Guede had sexual knowledge of Ms. Kercher. How do you respond to that?

 

[Mary_H]

That is basically the same thing, is it not?? All you did is reword it Mary.

treehorn is the one who reworded it. I reminded him of what halides1 actually said by providing the quote verbatim. And no, it's not the same thing at all. halides1 was addressing a specific post, not treehorn's qualifications as a whole. treehorn accused halides1 of saying something against treehorn that he didn't say.

 

[TomCH]

capealadin,

Rudy was sentenced to thirty years. He received a six-year reduction for mitigation, making it twenty-four years. Then his sentenced was reduced by one-third (eight years) for the fast track trial, giving him sixteen years in the end. I am not talking about the one-third sentence reduction; I am talking about the six-year reduction.

No, he was sentenced to life, which comes to 30 years after the 1/3 reduction.

So, his real sentence was reduced from life, to 24 years, same as Raffaele got (instead of the requested life).

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>
Kind of sticks in the craw, though, when real tears appear, only when mentioning the MORTGAGE........<snip>

False.

 

[TomCH]

There is evidence that Guede had sexual knowledge of Ms. Kercher. How do you respond to that?

Perhaps it was consensual.

Or after she was dead.

Or tried to see if she was alive by groping her.

Or...

 

[capealadin]

If Rudy had no compunction about naming Amanda and Raffaele, he would have named them on the spot, instead of waiting four months and offering a number of other possible suspects first.[/QUO

He waited 4 MONTHS. Correct. However, he did finally tell it who it was. 3 YEARS, Amanda and Raff are still hoping to have the appeals overturned on TECHNICALITIES. Not on the truth, but faulty handling. Are we taliking innocence here, or incompetance? There is a difference. Even after Rudi accused them, what???? Nothing????? No vehemence? No, *THAT liar*...nothing???Puhleeeze.........

 

[Mary_H]

Perhaps it was consensual.

Or after she was dead.

Or tried to see if she was alive by groping her.

Or...

Yeah. Lol.

 

[capealadin]

False.

Oh, right. He may have cried, when he said that Amanda still had a chance. What are the chances Meredith will come back from the dead, though?

 

[platonov]

Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This ?)

Dream on, platonov. The last word on this issue was that you quoted partial testimony, out of context, and that it did not support your claim. You have proven that by linking to the posts in which you did it.

Mary H

Renewing the argument with you would not be a dream - similar but not a dream

You have already established that you know better than AK what she really meant and why she was mistaken [see here & here ] - I'm quite clear on what your opinion is.

But as I already pointed out, in the real world, courts, cops etc want to hear directly from the witness. Your translations or interpretations are neither required nor admitted.

I posted the link for shuttlt should he wish to check on the actual testimony.

"Retaliatory testimony" doesn't count for much unless the witness who is testifying has evidence to support it. Rudy's potential testimony against Amanda and Raffaele would only have weakened the prosecution's already weak case against them, because he would have been cross-examined into who knows how many more false accounts on the stand.

The key phrase was 'any of them'.

 

[RoseMontague]

Did the defense provided, 'staged' photo you proclaim as evidentiary and irrefutable per chance include a visible time and date and recent meteorological conditions ??

Was the ground moisture/mud below from recent rain or even from morning dew still present ?

Was the grass below 'undisturbed' as cited previously being significant?

Rose, cognizant of your elaborate accumulation of some very accurate facts of the case, forgive the possible parsing/nitpicking of this query.
It is something that I try to avoid, but just seems customary, appropriate and endlessly utilized here to argue this type of detail.

Of course not. My opinion is that the break in was poorly investigated. The white powder was not tested and could have come from the old white paint on the bricks of the exterior wall. Of course that would mean the break in may have have not been staged after all. The court goes to great lengths to point out the nail in the wall and I went to great 'links' to find a photo of that nail. Yet the court ignores what appears to be a nail broken out of that wall a couple of feet away. The court also makes a big deal about Filomena's statement that glass was on top of the clothes and fails to mention she also stated there was glass in the middle and underneath the clothes. The court also cherry picks her comments on the shutters, stating that both were pulled together based on one statement she made and ignoring two other versions:

The sentence, in fact, started from a false certainty that that the
Romanelli, 1 November, when leaving his home, while not
closed the shutters, but had put together.
In this connection, the same Romanelli hearing on February 7, 2009, has
confirmed the statements made to investigators on December 3, 2007 (p. 115
transcripts) that would leave open one of the two shutters.

Above Raffaele appeal

Filomena Romanelli stated (cf. declarations at the hearing of February 7, 2009) that when she left the house in via della Pergola 7 on the afternoon of November 1, 2007 she had closed the shutters of her window (p. 68); she had pulled them in (p. 95); "the wood was slightly swelled, so they rubbed against the windowsill" (p. 26), adding that "it was an old window...the wood rubbed". And on the day she went away, she recalled "having closed them because I knew that I would be away for a couple of days" (p. 96). She later added, when noting what she had declared on December 3, 2007, that "I had pulled the shutters together, but I don't think I closed them tight" (p. 115).

Above PMF trans Massei report

R. argued that there were certainly valuable items, including a laptop, a pair of sunglasses and some gold jewelry, stored in a drawer: a look surface, it seemed that nothing was missing, except perhaps some article makeup.As for the window, remember to have certainly closed the windows, but probably leaving the shutters open: the shutters, but can not be hundred percent sure, without thought of them still closed both since left the tax met resistance on the sill due to a swelling of the wood. His memory was no longer accurate, since it considered to have certainly opened the shutters in the morning needing light to change (while not having stayed home, but with your boyfriend, had moved from there and reached the A. who was celebrating his birthday), but was then removed in a hurry because he was already late.

Above from Micheli report.

My opinion is that the court picks and choses what evidence supports guilt and tends to ignore evidence that does not.

If you see this another way let me know.

 

[capealadin]

capealadin,

A previous comment of mine already addressed your point about lying versus false statements, but I will expand on it a little. My overview of the pro-innocence position is that Amanda and Raffaele were pressured into making false statements by (at least) overzealous members of ILE. I am puzzled by your desire to rehash this debate—I am merely stating my position and what I take to the consensus of many pro-innocence commenters. I know your position is different.

About a month ago the PBS documentary series Frontline did a special on the Norfolk Four, four Navy men who gave false confessions/accusations. Each member had falsely confessed to being part of a rape-murder while also accusing a person who became the next person that Norfolk LE would arrest. They fell like dominoes (it was almost the Norfolk Seven!). Frontline filmed the first meeting among the four men after they were finally freed, despite LE’s unwillingness to admit that they had prosecuted the wrong guys. I felt trepidation as the scene began to unfold. Yet the men were quite forgiving and respectful of each other. One said words to the effect, “They [LE] played us all for fools.” I was very impressed with the sensible way they handled the situation. Take from this story what you will.

Perhaps you will enlighten me as to the difference as to lying and false????

 

[Mary_H]

If Rudy had no compunction about naming Amanda and Raffaele, he would have named them on the spot, instead of waiting four months and offering a number of other possible suspects first.

He waited 4 MONTHS. Correct. However, he did finally tell it who it was. 3 YEARS, Amanda and Raff are still hoping to have the appeals overturned on TECHNICALITIES. Not on the truth, but faulty handling. Are we taliking innocence here, or incompetance? There is a difference. Even after Rudi accused them, what???? Nothing????? No vehemence? No, *THAT liar*...nothing???Puhleeeze.........

The appeal addresses the evidence against Rudy. Why get vehement or vengeful? It would just reflect poorly on Amanda and Raffaele. As Justinian wrote, the lawyers call the shots. Both Amanda and Raffale spoke out for their innocence in court; they don't need to accuse Rudy in the process.

After three years, Amanda and Raffaele's stories haven't changed; that in itself should tell you something. The appeal is about the truth, not the technicalities.