Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Withnail1969]

I support full disclosure of evidence wherever possible and I would always apply for everything within my power. Unfortunately I don't know the rules of access or disclosure under the Italian system which would guide the content of an appeal but of course I support maximum disclosure.

How do you feel about faking evidence, photographic or otherwise?

 

[SomeAlibi]

Neither by deliberately choosing such a picture to make his point, despite having perfectly good pictures at hand. Yet you did it. I agree that it wasn't a masterpiece. It got exposed quickly and without sending Chris Mellas anywhere. Maybe it was a cheap bluff, maybe a honest mistake, but a pattern of 3 such mistakes in a row certainly raises eyebrows.

I already explained the difference between the pictures on the master directory created in Perugia holding 4000x3000 rez pictures which is on my laptop on which I am posting today versus the 800x600 selective directory from which I uploaded on my home PC. The black photo is so black on this laptop which has a very high quality screen on it that I can see literally very little at all. My home PC monitor is clearly way too bright or this would be have been clear pre-posting. I did view the pictures at the end of a day's action in my hotel, late at night to dump them to disc and free up the camera (since I was taking a lot of long video) - if I altered anything there and then that is it or doing something odd the camera - that's the only two possibilities. The images are unchanged since then. Believe what you will.

There's no other two mistakes - you correctly pointed out they were flash and I said they were. I point in full auto or in full 'P' - that is the extent of my talent and that's the end of it.

It's like walking on eggshells with you lot. So snipey. Can we just have a good decent fight?

 

[moodstream]

It's funny in a way, in your picture, the shutters still stick open.

 

[Justinian2]

In a thread replete with rhetorical abortions, this is a noteworthy example of such.

The reason why "staged burglaries usually get someone in the house where they were done convicted" is because they are overwhelmingly fabricated by someone who has a legitimate reason to be in the structure in question (i.e., by residents if it is a domicile, by employees if it is a place of business). They do so to simulate the appearance of a "random crime" and to deter the investigation from focusing on them, as they would surely do in the absence of any staging.

Thus, the only person who would have benefited from a successful staged burglary in the Kercher case was Knox (and Sollecito, by extension, but only because he claimed her as his alibi). That the staging was unsuccessful does not in any logical fashion implicate Guede as a likely candidate for the staging. To claim otherwise is, frankly, bizarre.

I have never thought that the crime was staged. I always thought that Guede was the lone wolf.

The prosecution, however, has seen too many 'Mission Impossible' movies and had to make this seem more complex. The prosecution acted as if Amanda was a CIA agent. Otherwise, why would they have concocted this amazing conspiracy with Guede and other equally amazing motivations for the murder?

I'll stick with the lone wolf theory in which the point of entry was the room with the broken window.

 

[Withnail1969]

I already explained the difference between the pictures on the master directory created in Perugia holding 4000x3000 rez pictures which is on my laptop on which I am posting today versus the 800x600 selective directory from which I uploaded on my home PC. The black photo is so black on this laptop which has a very high quality screen on it that I can see literally very little at all. My home PC monitor is clearly way too bright or this would be have been clear pre-posting. I did view the pictures at the end of a day's action in my hotel, late at night to dump them to disc and free up the camera (since I was taking a lot of long video) - if I altered anything there and then that is it or doing something odd the camera - that's the only two possibilities. The images are unchanged since then. Believe what you will.

Surely this explanation doesn't make sense. Katody was saying that the image was very specifically (and crudely) altered by toning down the luminosity to the point that the streetlamps appeared grey.

What does that have to do with viewing the image at one resolution or another?

 

[moodstream]

And Italians drive on the right, so as you drive on the road going into Perugia going from the rear of the cottage to the front gate, you are on the side of the road closest to the cottage and you would look out of the car right down over the railings to the "throwing area" and the climbing area

I do not think the quality of the patio as an entrance point is strongly relevant to whether Guede climbed the wall below Romanelli's window and broke in. Even if in retrospect it proved to be a better choice, that does not mean Guede had to make that choice. You have used the word plausible to defend your argument, but I don't think it applies. It is perfectly plausible for Guede to have made a choice of entry points that is not the best. Choices like that occur every day.

So, only evidence that supports the difficulty of the actual break in would bear on plausibility.

 

[RoseMontague]

The Supreme Court has ruled against Guede and confirmed the verdict of the appeals court:

http://translate.google.com/transla...-di-reclusione-a-Rudy-Guede_311413175658.html

ETA: What appears to be an interesting strategy on the part of Guede's defence (that failed)

The defense also pointed out that dell'ivoriano between Rudy and Amanda there was a "mere knowledge" and that Guede and Sollecito had "perfect strangers". Da parte sua per l'avvocato Francesco Maresca che rappresenta i genitori della studentessa inglese uccisa nella notte tra l'1 e il 2 novembre del 2007, se la Cassazione confermerà per Guede la sentenza d'appello "creera' un giudicato sulla correità e sulla condotta delittuosa dei tre". For its part for the lawyer Francesco Maresca, which represents the parents of British student murdered in the night between 1 and 2 November 2007, when the Supreme Court will confirm Guede to appeal the ruling "will create 'a ruling on the complicity and criminal conduct of the three. " Gia' in primo grado il gup di Perugia il 28 ottobre 2008 aveva disposto per i genitori di Meredith un risarcimento di 8 milioni di euro. Already 'in the first instance, the GUP of Perugia October 28, 2008 had provided for the parents of Meredith compensation of € 8 million.

 

[RoseMontague]

More here:

http://translate.google.com/transla...aset.it/cronaca/articoli/articolo498438.shtml

"The family of Meredith Kercher was pleased by the decision of the Supreme Court and, therefore, the course of Italian justice." Così l'avvocato Francesco Maresca ha commentato la sentenza della Cassazione dandone notizia ai familiari di Meredith, a Londra. So the lawyer Francesco Maresca said the ruling of the Supreme Court will give notice to the family of Meredith, London. "Adesso che si è definita una volta per tutte la posizione processuale di Rudy Guede e che il fatto storico è stato acclarato, ci aspettiamo una identica soluzione anche nell'altro processo in corso a carico di Amanda Knox e Raffaele Sollecito", ha concluso il legale. "Now that it is defined once and for all the trials and Rudy Guede, and that historical fact has been ascertained, we expect the same answer even in the current process against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito," concluded the Legal.

 

[katy_did]

I enjoy the fact that you think that someone who has worked on burglary cases for 20 years, describing the MO of burglaries is "ridiculous" compared to... precisely what extensive experience on your part? Ask any law enforcement officer what burglars do before committing a day time or earlier evening break-in and you'll get precisely the same answer from the vast vast majority of them. They make damn sure no-one is in precisely through the methods described. You look ridiculous making unfounded counter-assertions without experience simply because they support the raft you're clinging to. Do you see me asserting DNA judgement against Chris H or calling his position ridiculous? No, because even though I have quite a lot of experience in it, in my opinion, only expert witnesses are qualified to opine on it. I don't know what you do for a living, but you would probably view counter-views to everything you know from great experience as the way-things-work to be very silly.

We can also leave aside silly distinctions between ringing bells versus knocking on doors - come on people...

What you argue is possible - it's always possible. But you lost the jury a long time ago on plausibility. The balcony is not a little or a lot but a factor better protected from being overlooked. It is the area of the cottage Rudy was familiar with since you say he did the break-in. It is a factor easier climb which anyone can see from the pictures whether you like to pretend otherwise or not. It is a factor easier to break in (shutters like that you yank apart with your hands if they were locked, which is pure conjecture - crowbars please.). As you open the shutters you get to see inside the cottage to see if there are any lights on at all. *If* there are none *then* you break the glass with your jacketed-elbow or a small rock and reach in directly to undo the handle. Once a burglar has thoroughly assessed that there is (beyond bad chance and coincidence) no-one in a property, they are overwhelmingly concerned with ease of entry and not being seen entering. There isn't any jury in the world that is going to believe Filomena's is the better choice on these considerations. Sorry, I know you need it to be true but seriously no-one in the real world is buying not even close.

Sorry SA, this is simply more of the same: sweeping, groundless assertions that burglars never behave in any way other than the way you personally believe them to behave (btw, I'm assuming those burglars you're familiar with are the ones who got caught, yes?). That you use Halides' scientific knowledge as a comparison to your own knowledge of burglar behaviour illustrates the problem with your approach here. You can't make the same kind of clear, objective rules for human behaviour that you can for DNA forensics.

Even if we were to generously accept all your arguments against Filomena's window as a means of entry, all it takes is for Rudy to be a bit of a stupid burglar and your entire argument falls apart. You talk with a level of certainty on this which is completely inappropriate when it comes to the infinitely variable factors which influence behaviour in any given situation.

Your second paragraph presents an argument that a burglar could have broken in via the balcony. Fine; I've never denied there are other feasible ways in which Guede could have broken in. I presented an argument that Filomena's window was another perfectly possible means of entry (and that there are additional reasons why, in this particular case, Rudy may have chosen that window), and beyond saying that you know burglars best, you've yet to refute it.

 

[katy_did]

No I am not (it did happen shortly before though), I am basing my conclusion on the logical value of altra and the words prima and dopo referred to the pre-"tea and cake" declaration.
It is illogical to locate this episode after the second declaration, because if you do this, that "prima" would include another accusation against Patrick that took place 3 hours before, and this would be illogical and contradictory (also unexplained by Amanda).

And I would just have to repeat what I said before - that you're quoting two separate parts of Amanda's testimony out of context, to make it appear as if there is some chronological and logical sequence to the two statements when in fact there is none. The second quote has no bearing on the first, and tells us nothing about when Amanda's tea and cakes were served.

Given the triviality of the issue, perhaps we should just agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Justinian2]

http://www.cbs8.com/Global/story.asp?S=13685827

Moments ago the Italian court upheld the 16 year conviction of Guede.

 

[Justinian2]

The Supreme Court has ruled against Guede and confirmed the verdict of the appeals court:

The Supreme Court has ruled against Guede and confirmed the verdict of the appeals court:

http://translate.google.com/translat...413175658.html

ETA: What appears to be an interesting strategy on the part of Guede's defence (that failed)

The defense also pointed out that dell'ivoriano between Rudy and Amanda there was a "mere knowledge" and that Guede and Sollecito had "perfect strangers". Da parte sua per l'avvocato Francesco Maresca che rappresenta i genitori della studentessa inglese uccisa nella notte tra l'1 e il 2 novembre del 2007, se la Cassazione confermerà per Guede la sentenza d'appello "creera' un giudicato sulla correità e sulla condotta delittuosa dei tre". For its part for the lawyer Francesco Maresca, which represents the parents of British student murdered in the night between 1 and 2 November 2007, when the Supreme Court will confirm Guede to appeal the ruling "will create 'a ruling on the complicity and criminal conduct of the three. " Gia' in primo grado il gup di Perugia il 28 ottobre 2008 aveva disposto per i genitori di Meredith un risarcimento di 8 milioni di euro. Already 'in the first instance, the GUP of Perugia October 28, 2008 had provided for the parents of Meredith compensation of € 8 million.

ETA: What appears to be an interesting strategy on the part of Guede's defence (that failed)

What do they mean that the Guede and Amanda were "Mere Knowledge"?

 

[Machiavelli]

And I would just have to repeat what I said before - that you're quoting two separate parts of Amanda's testimony out of context, to make it appear as if there is some chronological and logical sequence to the two statements when in fact there is none. The second quote has no bearing on the first, and tells us nothing about when Amanda's tea and cakes were served.

Given the triviality of the issue, perhaps we should just agree to disagree on this one.

But there is no strict need for a chronological order. It is enough if there is a logical connection (and there must be, since they talk of the same topic).
How can't you see this logical implication:

Since you can deduce these points:

1. there are two declarations against Patrick, not one
2. Amanda is "well" treated (tea, cakes) after he releases an accusation against Patrick, and that she is always treated badly until she doesn't make an accusation on Patrick.

you can logically conclude:

3. this implies she was given tea and cakes before the second declaration.

The subsequent elements (chronology and order of arguments, lawyer's summary of events, change in description of situation and tone of conversation, timeline with three hours gap before second declaration, absence of any mention by Amanda of a second event of psychological assault, cry, pressure nor further events) only work as a confirmation of the logical deduction.
The elements just tell us she was given tea and cakes just after her 01:45 statement and hours before her 05:54 statement.

 

[Machiavelli]

Is there anyone who has the full original text of Rudy Guede's appeal sentence report?

thanks in advance

 

[Justinian2]

The Supreme Court has ruled against Guede and confirmed the verdict of the appeals court:

ETA: What appears to be an interesting strategy on the part of Guede's defence (that failed)

What was the Guede strategy? (Beyond theft, murder, rape, libel and foiling the Italian justice system?)

 

[Chris_Halkides]

staged break-in and point of entry

To all,

LondonJohn has given a reason why Rudi might have wanted to stage a break-in. ChrisC has offered the opinion that Rudi might have entered through the front door after breaking the window. Lunchtime over.

 

[katy_did]

2. Amanda is "well" treated (tea, cakes) after he releases an accusation against Patrick, and that she is always treated badly until she doesn't make an accusation on Patrick.

OK, I'm quite prepared to accept that I may be being a bit thick here, but I honestly don't understand your argument, and especially the latter part of the above sentence. Amanda says they only brought her things after she made declarations - fair enough, but that doesn't really pinpoint which statements she's talking about, or if she's simply speaking in general terms. She then goes on to talk about wanting to call her mother, people yelling at her and so on. I'm not totally clear which part of the whole process she's talking about there, whether it was during the first interrogation, or between interrogations; the only thing that's clear (in my understanding at any rate) is that she made another statement after that, and it was after that statement that they gave her food.

Ghirga implies that it was after the second statement, because he then says "Then you stayed in the Questura?", indicating that no further statements were made, but that Amanda just stayed in the police station until they issued an arrest warrant. So Ghirga thinks she was given food after the second statement (or wants the jury to think that).

In the second quote, Ghirga mentions the first statement and Mignini arriving, and asks precisely when it was that a lawyer was mentioned. She says it was before they asked her to make her second statement but obviously after making the first, which makes sense as a logical time it would be mentioned. There is no mention of cakes.

As I said, I'm fully prepared to accept that you're right and that I'm just not getting it!

 

[platonov]

Cake now & cake later

OK, I'm quite prepared to accept that I may be being a bit thick here, but I honestly don't understand your argument, and especially the latter part of the above sentence. Amanda says they only brought her things after she made declarations - fair enough, but that doesn't really pinpoint which statements she's talking about, or if she's simply speaking in general terms. She then goes on to talk about wanting to call her mother, people yelling at her and so on. I'm not totally clear which part of the whole process she's talking about there, whether it was during the first interrogation, or between interrogations; the only thing that's clear (in my understanding at any rate) is that she made another statement after that, and it was after that statement that they gave her food.

Ghirga implies that it was after the second statement, because he then says "Then you stayed in the Questura?", indicating that no further statements were made, but that Amanda just stayed in the police station until they issued an arrest warrant. So Ghirga thinks she was given food after the second statement (or wants the jury to think that).

In the second quote, Ghirga mentions the first statement and Mignini arriving, and asks precisely when it was that a lawyer was mentioned. She says it was before they asked her to make her second statement but obviously after making the first, which makes sense as a logical time it would be mentioned. There is no mention of cakes.

As I said, I'm fully prepared to accept that you're right and that I'm just not getting it!

Ghirga needs to do much more than imply as was also the case here.

If the defence claim is that AK was under continuous interrogation/pressure/ "deprived of tea & cakes" till after the 2nd 5.45 statement and consequently but more importantly that the 2nd statement was at the instigation of the cops/Mignini then he or Dalla Vedova needs to put that directly to the witness and make it clear to the court what the actual defence position is.

This confusion/conflation might allow AK to babble on the stand & weak arguments to be made on the web afterwards but they wont convince the court.

On the contrary - its perfectly obvious that the defence or AK is trying to have its cake and eat it.

For the court to accept an argument they must first actually hear it !

The RG appeal report, especially the sections that relate to the 'joint actions'* or the mysterious mafia killer etc are probably of more relevance to AK - which is your main interest here. No ?

* That would be most of it probably.

 

[katy_did]

Ghirga needs to do much more than imply as was also the case here.

If the defence claim is that AK was under continuous interrogation/pressure/ "deprived of tea & cakes" till after the 2nd 5.45 statement and consequently but more importantly that the 2nd statement was at the instigation of the cops/Mignini then he or Dalla Vedova needs to put that directly to the witness and make it clear to the court what the actual defence position is.

This confusion/conflation might allow AK to babble on the stand & weak arguments to be made on the web afterwards but they wont convince the court.

On the contrary - its perfectly obvious that the defence or AK is trying to have its cake and eat it.

For the court to accept an argument they must first actually hear it !

I take it you missed Machiavelli's post on the legal definition of a voluntary statement, Platonov (or 'spontaneous statement', if you prefer). I can only assume this is why you are still missing the P.

Frankly I don't care if she was plied with cakes till she could eat no more, nor when she was served them; it still makes no difference to the coercion or otherwise of the statements.

I appreciate your 'have its cake and eat it' reference in this context.

 

[platonov]

I take it you missed Machiavelli's post on the legal definition of a voluntary statement, Platonov (or 'spontaneous statement', if you prefer). I can only assume this is why you are still missing the P.

Frankly I don't care if she was plied with cakes till she could eat no more, nor when she was served them; it still makes no difference to the coercion or otherwise of the statements.

I appreciate your 'have its cake and eat it' reference in this context.

No, I actually pay some heed to Machiavelli's posts.

Often one learns from them - The difference seems to be that I manage to do so when he makes the point the first time