Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[CoulsdonUK]

As a casual observer and contributor to this thread, I must say how impressed I am with CoulsdonUK's patience.

CousldonUK provides a quote from a respectable journalist writing in a serious newspaper and asks if anyone can "provide an independent source that supports the view that evidence from Guede trial, first and final appeal cannot be used as evidence"

Sounds reasonable to me.

A reasonable response would be to provide that source or remain silent. A simple "yes" or "no" Why is it that people instead choose to insult the journalist or to mock the poster?

Whether you agree with CoulsdonUK or not, surely you should respect the fact that this is a lone voice that puts forward an opposing view in a sound respectful way, long after others have grown tired of the direction that this thread has ta`ken.

Thank you for your support.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I seem to remember that either it was at the December 18, 2010 hearing or the January 22, 2011 hearing (maybe both) that it was requested by the prosecution to include all evidence from the Guede case file to the current appeal trial. I believe the request was granted by Hellmann.

Frank from Perugia-Shock mentions this request of the prosecution in his post of December 18, 2010.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2010/12/dna-study-admitted-for-knox-and.html

I will see if there is mention of this request by the prosecution in the Italian media. I believe there was but cannot remember where.

What impact this will or will not have on the current appeal I cannot say, other than I believe the defense in their appeal are not wedded to the lone wolf theory of the murder. And I do not think the appeal court is bound by the decision of the high court.

To another subject - PMF has acquired the Guede Motivations. I am perusing the report. It is interesting but I have not found the part yet where the November 17 "I was there" intercepted call is written.

Thanks for the confirmation of Judge Hellmann's ruling.

 

[Katody Matrass]

My point and yes I could be wrong. However, my point is that all the evidence from Guede’s trial, first and final appeal can be used as evidence in Amanda and Raffaele’s appeal.

If by evidence you mean judges rulings, then I guess we can agree. Probably it can be used. Not that there is any actual evidence that appeared in Guede's case but not in AK and RS. However you stated something much stronger - that SC confirmation of Guede's conviction removes AK and RS right to present their case. With this I don't agree.

Judge Micheli dismissed the lone wolf theory in Guede’s trial and gave reasons in his motivations

Was such theory really proposed in Guede's trial? I don't think so. If it wasn't presented how could it have been dismissed?

which are now evidence in Amanda and Raffaele’s appeal simply the first and final appeals have not dismissed this theory in their rulings. Amanda and Raffaele defence could not address either Guede’s first or final appeal.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're trying to convey above.

 

[Katody Matrass]

The infamous "I was there" shows up in the SC motivation very briefly in a section that appears to be a restatement of findings of the lower court. It sits among other "proofs" of Amanda's presence in the cottage like her DNA on her bidet and Nara's revelations.

While SC briefly lists those lower courts' findings it is very unequivocal that its' decision concerns Guede's and only Guede's guilt.

At least that's what google translate hints.

Guede's Final Appeal Sentence (taken from PMD, rapidshare in case they block it)

 

[Katody Matrass]

To another subject - PMF has acquired the Guede Motivations. I am perusing the report. It is interesting but I have not found the part yet where the November 17 "I was there" intercepted call is written.

it's on page 10 - "io ero la"

 

[christianahannah]

it's on page 10 - "io ero la"

Thank you. That is very brief.

I also believe that the high court decision is dealing only with Guede's guilt. Nothing can be inferred concerning their opinion that Guede was not alone in committing the murder and nothing can be inferred with their not mentioning Amanda and Raffaele.

I think they are making no judgment (as should be the case) concerning Amanda and Raffaele as their appeal is pending. Should their appeal fail it will be brought to the Supreme Court and it would be unfair if the high court had rendered a decision concerning their guilt prior to their case being heard.

I want to correct an earlier post - the November 17 "I was there" was a recorded prison conversation, not an intercepted call. I get confused as their appear to be many audio recordings (with the exception of November 5-6 it seems).

 

[CoulsdonUK]

The infamous "I was there" shows up in the SC motivation very briefly in a section that appears to be a restatement of findings of the lower court. It sits among other "proofs" of Amanda's presence in the cottage like her DNA on her bidet and Nara's revelations.

While SC briefly lists those lower courts' findings it is very unequivocal that its' decision concerns Guede's and only Guede's guilt.

At least that's what google translate hints.

Guede's Final Appeal Sentence (taken from PMD, rapidshare in case they block it)

Thanks for the link sadly I cannot speak or read Italian.

 

[Alt+F4]

ALT + F4
Please wright the reasons why you find that AK and RS are guilty of this crime.

Hi new person,

I've explained my reasons several times in this thread and in the old one. As not to be redundent just use the search function, look for posts I've made and key words: evidence of a cleanup.

Or, if you want, send me a PM and I'll reply.

 

[Alt+F4]

A glance through the last couple of pages of posts gives the impression that once again there are some people espousing (or at least suggesting) the utterly ludicrous idea that the rulings in the Guede case could somehow be considered binding precedent for the courts considering the case against Knox and Sollecito.

I was thinking just the opposite thing, if Knox and Sollecito are found not guilty in the appeal would that have any bearing on Guede's conviction?

 

[Justinian2]

I was thinking just the opposite thing, if Knox and Sollecito are found not guilty in the appeal would that have any bearing on Guede's conviction?

Having Guede exhaust his appeals is a good thing. Now Guede has no logical reason to lie if asked to testify. His testimony could cause RS and AK to be released.

However, his mind may be so deluded and/or in denial that he doesn't remember what happened.

With the appeals exhausted, he's had his 'due process' and if the system's like several in the USA, then he has to serve his time whether innocent or not. (Of course he's not innocent.)

 

[HumanityBlues]

I was thinking just the opposite thing, if Knox and Sollecito are found not guilty in the appeal would that have any bearing on Guede's conviction?

If you were thinking that you don't know anything about law.

 

[Alt+F4]

If you were thinking that you don't know anything about law.

From what university did you obtain your Italian law degree? What year did you graduate? I'm sure you speak fluent Italian, too? Right?

You will realize you know nothing about Italian law when AK and RS lose this appeal and the next one.

 

[HumanityBlues]

From what university did you obtain your Italian law degree? What year did you graduate? I'm sure you speak fluent Italian, too? Right?

You will realize you know nothing about Italian law when AK and RS lose this appeal and the next one.

Any non-Italian lawyer, or even layperson, can research Italian law. You have cited nothing, nor have the resources to cite anything, nor the faculties to understand any treatise on Italian law anyways. If you honestly think an acquittal will have an effect on Guede's conviction which is already final, then you've already shown you've done nothing to understand anything basic about Italian law. Again, the fact that you had to ponder it evidences the amateurish musings of a layperson who doesn't understand much but refuses to admit it.

I don't have a degree in UK law either, but anyone can certainly study various areas of it and still speak on it.

 

[RoseMontague]

Can anyone provide an independent source that supports the view that evidence from Guede trial, first and final appeal cannot be used as evidence in Raffaele and Amanda’s appeal by the defence or prosecution.

I am not sure what you are saying here. Maybe that is the cause of the confusion. The evidence is the same evidence in both trials and was collected from the same murder scene. The appeal court does not have to accept the SC court's conclusions, but the evidence is the same. Rudy did not testify in his trial and all statements made by him were available to Massei all along.

 

[RoseMontague]

RoseMontague,

What is your take on the glass? How much was it disturbed in the aftermath of the crime?

I don't see how it is possible that that much glass is present at that location with the window being broken from the inside. The glass would have to have been picked up and placed there by hand.

 

[Danceme]

As a casual observer and contributor to this thread, I must say how impressed I am with CoulsdonUK's patience.

CousldonUK provides a quote from a respectable journalist writing in a serious newspaper and asks if anyone can "provide an independent source that supports the view that evidence from Guede trial, first and final appeal cannot be used as evidence"

Sounds reasonable to me.

A reasonable response would be to provide that source or remain silent. A simple "yes" or "no" Why is it that people instead choose to insult the journalist or to mock the poster?

Whether you agree with CoulsdonUK or not, surely you should respect the fact that this is a lone voice that puts forward an opposing view in a sound respectful way, long after others have grown tired of the direction that this thread has ta`ken.

Exactly what he said!

Any non-Italian lawyer, or even layperson, can research Italian law. You have cited nothing, nor have the resources to cite anything, nor the faculties to understand any treatise on Italian law anyways. If you honestly think an acquittal will have an effect on Guede's conviction which is already final, then you've already shown you've done nothing to understand anything basic about Italian law. Again, the fact that you had to ponder it evidences the amateurish musings of a layperson who doesn't understand much but refuses to admit it.

I don't have a degree in UK law either, but anyone can certainly study various areas of it and still speak on it.

Another one! Why do you guys have to be so rude to anyone on the other side. No wonder this thread is dying.

 

[Chris C]

This photo shows more glass on the mat next to Filomena's bed than I remember being easily visible in other pictures.[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/383964d6e2e5592314.jpg[/qimg]

look at the Spheron photos of Filomena's room. You will see that much glass. Problem with glass it can disappear at the right angles and light levels.

 

[Chris C]

I was thinking just the opposite thing, if Knox and Sollecito are found not guilty in the appeal would that have any bearing on Guede's conviction?

I have often thought it could have a huge bearing on his conviction. If for no other reason that it gives him good grounds for another appeal. As we have seen as of late, the prosecution is trying to use Guede's trial against Knox/Sollecito. So if they are found innocent, Guede has the same right to use Knox/Sollecito innocent conviction against the Prosecution.

 

[Mary_H]

But the critically important judicial point is that the rulings concerning Guede should have absolutely ZERO effect upon the rulings for Knox and Sollecito. This is in effect what the Supreme Court was explicitly saying in its ruling.

It's immaterial to any judgement of Knox and Sollecito that the rulings in Guede's trials found that he participated as one of a group. Just as it's immaterial that the rulings in Guede's trials found that the time of death was before 10.30pm - in total contradiction to the findings of the first court in Knox's/Sollecito's trial.

So you, and Vogt, are wrong in your reasoning that the Supreme Court's rulings have any potential negative ramifications for Knox's and Sollecito's appeals. Frankly, I hoped for better quality of journalism from someone like Vogt, but I guess a hack is a hack is a hack (especially when one is self-employed and paid per article)...

Vogt must be desperate for controversy (and comments), now that the appeals seem to be headed in the inevitable direction of acquittal. Sadly, at the top of the P-I's online front page, this sub-heading has appeared all day:

DON'T MISS: U.S. airmen killed in Germany | Serena Williams has pulmonary embolism | Amanda Knox 'was there' | Keith Richards' daughter arrested | Steve Jobs and IPad 2

Many of the comments following the article correct Vogt's approach, but most people don't read the comments. I dread what she'll write next time she needs to stir the pot.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Thank you for your support.

You certainly have mine as well -