Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Ampulla of Vater]

Frank has a new article up on his site. Just an FYI.

 

[Kaosium]

I doubt that Amanda and Raffaele see the humour in their convictions just before lights out and their cell door locking these past years. Maybe this is where the defence teams have been going wrong rather than thinking their task is to refute the conclusions in the Massei report their approach should be one of ridiculing its findings after all that is bound to result in their release.

I am fully confident Raffaele and Amanda will be released regardless of anything I type. The Massei Report is an unintentional parody, I could almost feel sorry for the lead author if it wasn't his malfeasance that led to him having to skirt the definition of rationality throughout in order to justify the 'findings' of the court.

I posted the link, why don't you page through it and see if you can find a convincing passage you'd like to share with us, one that strongly suggests their guilt to you. I'm pretty confident you'll find that in addition to ridicule the numerous posters on this board are quite capable of refuting (just about) anything he has to say, with reason, science, common sense, and yes humor. Some of us laugh so we don't cry--or rise up in righteous indignation and smite all who dare contest our views. There's been a lot of that going around the past year or so, on both sides of the issue, if you've read the threads.

 

[Fine]

There was a shirt on Meredith, rolled up. How would this affect the flow of blood?

____________________

Christianahannah,

And I wonder if this blotting of blood by the T-shirt planted the idea in Rudy that he had used towels to "stanch the bleeding". I've never believed that Rudy did any such thing.

El buscador raises an excellent point, something I hadn't noticed. If nothing else I think it shows that Meredith couldn't have been on her feet, or knees, for very long after being stabbed, otherwise the front of her bra would have become saturated with blood. One minute? Maybe less.


///

 

[Katody Matrass]

Frank has a new article up on his site. Just an FYI.

Thanks!

Supreme Court Confirms the Collective Crime

What now?

 

[Kaosium]

Thanks!

Supreme Court Confirms the Collective Crime

What now?

You tell me what this means!

If I recall correctly, you speak some Italian. Naturally I don't hope for a full translation, just help comprehending what the highlighted portion is trying to say. My head hurts!

Here it is, in all it's google-translated glory:

MEREDITH: APPEAL, MORE CRIME OF 'PEOPLE


February 24 -

A "multiple, collective behavior" based on "reason to have sex." And 'that identify the murder of Meredith Kercher judges of the First Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, as is clear from the 23-page ruling with which to justify the final sentence to 16 years imprisonment imposed on Rudy Guede December 16 last year.

The British student, found dead in the apartment on Via della Pergola in Perugia on the morning of November 2, 2007, was the victim of "an escalation of violence" aimed at canceling the resistance and eventually "get slaughtered with a knife throat, deadly. "

THE COURT DOES NOT BELIEVE TO RUDY

For the judges, therefore, legitimate and 'the alleged aggravating circumstance of trivial reasons Rudy Guede (which the Court does not believe), and e '"evident" the' claim of insanity defense seeks to undermine the judicial recognition "of that aggravating, "as if-reads the sentence - the violent suppression of freedom 'of self-determination and the tortured body of a young life, that of Meredith Kercher , it would require to qualify for only occasional and the pretextual reason to have sex to unleash, in against the resistance of women, the brute force and a multiple of prevaricating, the collective analysis that reveals the will in his sad protagonists 'orgiastic impulse to give vent to criminals' perverse such as to create a deep sense of dismay, disgust and contempt at all person of moral character 'media. "

The contribution of Rudy Guede criminal action "is rooted in a context of growing violence and some duration that can not 'certainly considered to be abnormal, sudden, only occasional which does not provide, as a result of violence so' strongly polarized at 'sexual act upon a plurality' of bruises and injuries caused by the use of the knife, the outlet can be deadly action. "
The 'ermine', in ruling filed today, remember that "the decision to which 'call this court is concerned, and only, the responsibility' of Guede as to the facts alleged and possible involvement of others in the crime you must 'take account only insofar as such a circumstance worth an impact on that commitment is the sole point in the reform or confirmation of a declaration of responsibility 'of the accused, the latter entirely shared by the courts of first and second degree. "
For the murder Kercher accused are currently before the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia , the young American Amanda Knox and student Pugliese Raffaele Sollecito , judged by the ordinary procedure. The next hearing of their trial and 'fixed to 12 March next: at first instance the two young men were sentenced respectively to 26 and 25 years in prison. The reconstruction provided to investigators by Rudy Guede on what 'happened on the night between 1 and 2 November 2007 in the house on Via della Pergola in Perugia where she was found dead the British student Meredith Kercher and '"utterly implausible".

 

[Dan O.]

Excellent point.

Here is a link to another interesting analysis of the cut vs. tear issue upthread.

Thanks, that's the one I was looking for.

I presume there is some wear between the strap where it bumps up over the ring and the outer clothing perhaps pressed down by a purse strap. Unfortunately, if the wear is asymmetrical, there may be no way to figure the force that was applied to break it.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I am fully confident Raffaele and Amanda will be released regardless of anything I type. The Massei Report is an unintentional parody, I could almost feel sorry for the lead author if it wasn't his malfeasance that led to him having to skirt the definition of rationality throughout in order to justify the 'findings' of the court.

I posted the link, why don't you page through it and see if you can find a convincing passage you'd like to share with us, one that strongly suggests their guilt to you. I'm pretty confident you'll find that in addition to ridicule the numerous posters on this board are quite capable of refuting (just about) anything he has to say, with reason, science, common sense, and yes humor. Some of us laugh so we don't cry--or rise up in righteous indignation and smite all who dare contest our views. There's been a lot of that going around the past year or so, on both sides of the issue, if you've read the threads.

Thank you I have read the report many times and posts for the past year or so, I prefer not to get to drawn into the type of exchanges I have read.

Interesting the initial reporting on Guede Supreme court motivation report, it appears that judge Micheli “theory” that Guede and others were responsible for Meredith murder has been confirmed. The original verdict of judge Micheli was confirmed in Guede’s first and now final appeal.

 

[RoseMontague]

Thank you I have read the report many times and posts for the past year or so, I prefer not to get to drawn into the type of exchanges I have read.

Interesting the initial reporting on Guede Supreme court motivation report, it appears that judge Micheli “theory” that Guede and others were responsible for Meredith murder has been confirmed. The original verdict of judge Micheli was confirmed in Guede’s first and now final appeal.

Not exactly. My reading of what Frank is saying is that the Supreme Court has taken care to confirm involvement of others but also not to state that those others were Raffaele and the Knox girl. That appears to be a huge difference in all of the Motivation reports thus far. Perhaps they see the writing on the wall.

If anyone gets a link to the full report, please let us know.

 

[RoseMontague]

You tell me what this means!

If I recall correctly, you speak some Italian. Naturally I don't hope for a full translation, just help comprehending what the highlighted portion is trying to say. My head hurts!

Here it is, in all it's google-translated glory:

This one makes it more clear what they are talking about:

The Supreme Court pressed not to want to give an opinion even on the responsibility to Sollecito and Knox, because "it is called upon to decide only the responsibility of Guede. However, the supreme courts point out that "in the eventual participation of the other crime, should be taken into account only to the extent that such a circumstance worth an impact on which is the exclusive commitment in point of reform, or confirmation of a declaration of responsibility of the accused, the latter entirely shared by the judges and the first and second degree. "

http://translate.googleusercontent....le.com&usg=ALkJrhiCtOvrATyFVolECN0Ce6-Rteh4ug

It is clear the Supreme Court is giving the appeal court freedom to find for innocence in the case against Raffaele.

To those that thought the court's confirmation of Guede's guilt also assumed that Sollecito and Knox were involved, this represents a major setback.

 

[Kaosium]

This one makes it more clear what they are talking about:



http://translate.googleusercontent....le.com&usg=ALkJrhiCtOvrATyFVolECN0Ce6-Rteh4ug

It is clear the Supreme Court is giving the appeal court freedom to find for innocence in the case against Raffaele.

To those that thought the court's confirmation of Guede's guilt also assumed that Sollecito and Knox were involved, this represents a major setback.

Thank you! That's what I thought it said, but believing what one wants to believe is the surest course to delusion so I try to set mental blocks to prevent it. However if that was the case, why didn't Frank come out and say that? He kinda hinted that direction, but I like "major setback" much better than "started considering the hypothesis of the crime that doesn’t necessary include Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito."

Incidentally, something I've been pondering for a few weeks now. I am totally unfamiliar with the genre of 'crime boards.' I recall years back there used to be lurid 'true crime' magazines but I never got into them, and I'm coming to the realization there are people who populate boards where current cases are being discussed as the investigations unveil suspects and as they wind their way through the courts.

What I'm wondering, and think you might be able to answer as I read something that suggested you might have been interested in previous cases, is whether there's ever been a high profile case where the defendant was actually innocent? In the (widespread) internet age I mean, thus dating back to the end of the OJ trial where he was found not guilty but few actually thought he was innocent.

I'm not talking about miscarriages of justice people figure out eventually like the Norfolk Four or the Memphis Three, but cases which people start following it from scratch and someone is arrested soon into it like Amanda and Raffaele are and it goes through the system only to find like in this case the accused are completely uninvolved in the crime and a terrible mistake has been made. Kinda like if the Duke Lacrosse debacle had actually gone to trial.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the trial stage versus the appeal stage

What I'm wondering, and think you might be able to answer as I read something that suggested you might have been interested in previous cases, is whether there's ever been a high profile case where the defendant was actually innocent? In the (widespread) internet age I mean, thus dating back to the end of the OJ trial where he was found not guilty but few actually thought he was innocent.

I'm not talking about miscarriages of justice people figure out eventually like the Norfolk Four or the Memphis Three, but cases which people start following it from scratch and someone is arrested soon into it like Amanda and Raffaele are and it goes through the system only to find like in this case the accused are completely uninvolved in the crime and a terrible mistake has been made. Kinda like if the Duke Lacrosse debacle had actually gone to trial.

Kaosium,

Do you mean found not guilty at the trial, as opposed to exonerated many years later?

 

[RoseMontague]

Thank you! That's what I thought it said, but believing what one wants to believe is the surest course to delusion so I try to set mental blocks to prevent it. However if that was the case, why didn't Frank come out and say that? He kinda hinted that direction, but I like "major setback" much better than "started considering the hypothesis of the crime that doesn’t necessary include Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito."

Incidentally, something I've been pondering for a few weeks now. I am totally unfamiliar with the genre of 'crime boards.' I recall years back there used to be lurid 'true crime' magazines but I never got into them, and I'm coming to the realization there are people who populate boards where current cases are being discussed as the investigations unveil suspects and as they wind their way through the courts.

What I'm wondering, and think you might be able to answer as I read something that suggested you might have been interested in previous cases, is whether there's ever been a high profile case where the defendant was actually innocent? In the (widespread) internet age I mean, thus dating back to the end of the OJ trial where he was found not guilty but few actually thought he was innocent.

I'm not talking about miscarriages of justice people figure out eventually like the Norfolk Four or the Memphis Three, but cases which people start following it from scratch and someone is arrested soon into it like Amanda and Raffaele are and it goes through the system only to find like in this case the accused are completely uninvolved in the crime and a terrible mistake has been made. Kinda like if the Duke Lacrosse debacle had actually gone to trial.

The case of Eric Volz is very similar.

 

[christianahannah]

This one makes it more clear what they are talking about:



http://translate.googleusercontent....le.com&usg=ALkJrhiCtOvrATyFVolECN0Ce6-Rteh4ug

It is clear the Supreme Court is giving the appeal court freedom to find for innocence in the case against Raffaele.

To those that thought the court's confirmation of Guede's guilt also assumed that Sollecito and Knox were involved, this represents a major setback.

I think the Supreme Court's opinion is focused on Rudy, as it should be, since it is his appeal which is before the court, not Amanda's or Raffaele's. I do not come up with the same reason as you.

The confirmation of Rudy's guilt and the opinion that he did not act alone, only impacts Amanda's and Raffaele's defense in that the strategy of sticking with Rudy as the lone murderer is no longer in play. This could perhaps bring in the addition of the new witnesses (Allevio and Alessio) for their testimony against Rudy and perhaps even Rudy himself.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Not exactly. My reading of what Frank is saying is that the Supreme Court has taken care to confirm involvement of others but also not to state that those others were Raffaele and the Knox girl. That appears to be a huge difference in all of the Motivation reports thus far. Perhaps they see the writing on the wall.

If anyone gets a link to the full report, please let us know.

Agreed, the Supreme Court could hardly circumvent the appeal process with a direct ruling that could affect the appeal process in another case, that would be unjust. However, they have upheld the verdict of judge Micheli that Meredith was murdered by Guede and others, this ruling does effectively reject what was called the “lone wolf theory” that Guede acted alone, whatever differences are in the motivational reports you refer to it has not changed the overall verdict, in the case of Guede. I am certainly not going to jump to any conclusions as I have stated before the appeal has hardly started. However, this makes the defence team’s case more difficult as I believe it cannot be argued in a lower court that Guede is solely responsible when the Supreme Court has made its final ruling.

 

[RoseMontague]

I think the Supreme Court's opinion is focused on Rudy, as it should be, since it is his appeal which is before the court, not Amanda's or Raffaele's. I do not come up with the same reason as you.

The confirmation of Rudy's guilt and the opinion that he did not act alone, only impacts Amanda's and Raffaele's defense in that the strategy of sticking with Rudy as the lone murderer is no longer in play. This could perhaps bring in the addition of the new witnesses (Allevio and Alessio) for their testimony against Rudy and perhaps even Rudy himself.

I appreciate your point of view on this. I see it as a departure from Rudy's first trial as well as his first appeal. Those reports made it clear that Raffaele and Amanda were those "others" involved. It is a positive step in the right direction, in my opinion.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I think the Supreme Court's opinion is focused on Rudy, as it should be, since it is his appeal which is before the court, not Amanda's or Raffaele's. I do not come up with the same reason as you.

The confirmation of Rudy's guilt and the opinion that he did not act alone, only impacts Amanda's and Raffaele's defense in that the strategy of sticking with Rudy as the lone murderer is no longer in play. This could perhaps bring in the addition of the new witnesses (Allevio and Alessio) for their testimony against Rudy and perhaps even Rudy himself.

I believe the appeal judge is less likely to rule in favour Alessi and Allevio as witness as their testimonies contradict the findings of the Supreme Court. Alessi has stated that Guede told him Amanda and Raffaele weren’t at the cottage; whilst Allevio is stating that his brother is responsible. One can imagine the prosecution and Meredith lawyer objecting to anything from now on that remotely contradicts the Supreme Court ruling on Guede’s final appeal, they can even request that its findings be added to their case.

 

[christianahannah]

I appreciate your point of view on this. I see it as a departure from Rudy's first trial as well as his first appeal. Those reports made it clear that Raffaele and Amanda were those "others" involved. It is a positive step in the right direction, in my opinion.

Well, the first trial of Rudy was also during the same time as the hearing of Amanda and Raffaele deciding whether they would be tried, I believe (October 2008). Michelli was the judge for both trial/hearing. I am not so sure of the appeal of Rudy as I don't think I have read the appeal motivations (or if I have it did not make an impression either way).

I don't take it as positive or negative, it is the court being fair, as it should be, and probably has been, in the many cases brought before them (and looking not to prejudice the case against those which are being tried in the present).

 

[christianahannah]

I believe the appeal judge is less likely to rule in favour Alessi and Allevio as witness as their testimonies contradict the findings of the Supreme Court. Alessi has stated that Guede told him Amanda and Raffaele weren’t at the cottage; whilst Allevio is stating that his brother is responsible. One can imagine the prosecution and Meredith lawyer objecting to anything from now on that remotely contradicts the Supreme Court ruling on Guede’s final appeal, they can even request that its findings be added to their case.

Anything is possible. I do not know how the Hellmann will rule on the other requests by the defense. It all may depend on the outcome of the report of the independent experts and Curatolo's testimony.

Was there not a component that Rudy was involved in some way in both Alessi's and Allevio's testimonies?

I also thought the prosecution/Meredith's lawyer had already requested that the case file/motivations of Rudy's Supreme Court appeal be added to their (prosecution) case. Or am I thinking of something else?

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium,

Do you mean found not guilty at the trial, as opposed to exonerated many years later?

More along the lines of what has happened here, where a case garnered major attention amongst those interested in 'true crime' but in the end it turned out at some stage either during the trial or afterward that the accused (or convicted) were actually innocent. Not just 'not guilty,' but more like what I believe in this case: that of all the people in Perugia that night without an alibi, Raffaele and Amanda are the least likely to have committed the crime. What I'm wondering about is whether there's situations like Case Anthony or Scott Peterson, which are or were current cases that have been brought up in this thread that people are posting on elsewhere, where the accused actually turned out to be innocent. Or at least a lot of people thought so.

Hrm. Let me try this differently. There was a line in an episode of Star Trek Deep Space Nine where Gul Dukat explained that the Cardassian system of justice was predetermined, the accused were always guilty, yet the whole thing would still play out as it pleased the Cardassian people to see justice 'triumph' every single time. I'm just wondering if there would be a natural inclination of (at least some of) those who regularly peruse these 'crime boards' to assume that anyone under current discussion is guilty, as that's how it always seems to play out--at least in the internet era.

Obviously people are found 'not guilty' but does it happen in these cases that people are following very often? I mean to differentiate from situations like the Memphis Three and Norfolk Four--unless of course the latter was a big draw on 'crime' or 'court' boards at the time.

The case of Eric Volz is very similar.

Was that the guy in Nicaragua? Did that case get a lot of play on 'crime boards?' Was there enough information available people could try to make informed judgments above the 'Si, Sandinista!'/'They just hate Yanquis!' level?

 

[Justinian2]

The SC probably thinks that we are hanging on their every word for a brilliant statement. The truth is that a statement that counters the innumerable baseless prosecutorial theories & libels would be more than adequate.

That the masters of deceit have the unmitigated gall to actually consider suing the Knox family for slander – considering the massive libel against the Knox family - is a hanging offense in my estimation.

Knowing that there was no conspiracy with Guede means that everything else that the government did was either a massive fabrication or mistakes of massive proportion.

Question: If Guede killed MK and there was no conspiracy or collusion with AK or RS, then wasn't the rest of the 'evidence' a fabrication and the rest of the theory a libel?