Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[babycondor]

Of course, the fact that Rudy's defense team argued vehemently that Rudy was a lone wolf assailant and not part of the conspiracy that the prosecution was presenting adds significant weight to the courts findings. It's unfortunate that all documentation and witnesses to that part of Rudy's trial were lost in the fire.

Sorry, you lost me there.

So could we have a vote please? Who here can offer proof that the following statement from the Guardian article is accurate, and who can offer proof that it is false:

Knox's prospects were clouded by the court's decision to incorporate into the appeal all documents, evidence and findings from the murder trial of Rudy Guede, who chose a fast-track trial and was definitively sentenced to 16 years on Thursday for his part in the murder following the two appeals he was allowed under Italian law.

By upholding Guede's sentence, the appeal court also gave credence to the arguments made for his guilt at his first appeal, which clearly placed Knox and Sollecito at the scene of the crime with Guede. Mignani [sic], the magistrate who secured the conviction of Knox, warned that the Guede conviction could doom Knox's appeal.

"Guede's sentence states that Knox and Sollecito were involved and it is very rare that one sentence would contradict a definitive sentence."

 

[colonelhall]

This thread has been reduced mainly to a die-hard group of Knox supporters, many of whom have spent a great deal of time and energy researching the case and creating some ingenious theories that support her innocence. To some extent one wonders to what end, as, I suspect many people have given up following their arguments. However, if nothing else one must have begrudging admiration for their tenacity.

Having put in so much time, it amazes me that they weaken their case by resorting to lame attacks on the few journalists who have taken the time to research the case thoroughly and to make a true effort to report the case fairly.

Mary H, you let yourself down badly with comments such as "Vogt must be desperate for controversy (and comments)" especially as you appear to side with C. Dempsy whose poorly written and factually inaccurate blog allows no such comments.

Vogt's articles seem to coincide with actual developments in the case, as opposed to the many news items such as Knox's loss of hair, loss of sight, ambition to become a nun etc.

My advise to Knox supporters is to stick to your theories and to stop being so damn rude to people!

 

[Kaosium]

Sorry, you lost me there.

So could we have a vote please? Who here can offer proof that the following statement from the Guardian article is accurate, and who can offer proof that it is false:

It's the same damn thing they've been quoting from Mignini and Maresca since December, and I've yet to find out what it really means. 'Respect' was how Mignini put it, the Hellmann court would try to 'respect' what the Supreme Court decided. Just how this 'respect' can be reconciled with a fair hearing for Raffaele and Amanda, who had no defense in Rudy's court, has yet to be explained.

I just wish one of these damn reporters would actually ask a probing question as to how this could be. The way it's put it comes close to being an admission this is an inherently unfair process, yet no one ever seems to nail either Mignini or Maresca down on it.

 

[HumanityBlues]

This thread has been reduced mainly to a die-hard group of Knox supporters, many of whom have spent a great deal of time and energy researching the case and creating some ingenious theories that support her innocence. To some extent one wonders to what end, as, I suspect many people have given up following their arguments. However, if nothing else one must have begrudging admiration for their tenacity.

Having put in so much time, it amazes me that they weaken their case by resorting to lame attacks on the few journalists who have taken the time to research the case thoroughly and to make a true effort to report the case fairly.

Mary H, you let yourself down badly with comments such as "Vogt must be desperate for controversy (and comments)" especially as you appear to side with C. Dempsy whose poorly written and factually inaccurate blog allows no such comments.

Vogt's articles seem to coincide with actual developments in the case, as opposed to the many news items such as Knox's loss of hair, loss of sight, ambition to become a nun etc.

Maybe when you start getting principles of your own you'll have a place to start condemning people for being disrespectful.

My advise to Knox supporters is to stick to your theories and to stop being so damn rude to people!

I think you get things all wrong. Many were quite happy to see Andrea Vogt writing for the New York Post last week, my city's favorite dirty tabloid. She's excelling right where she belongs, in New York's trashiest sleaze rag.

You know, it's funny, posters like colonelhall. They pretend to be on a crusade for Meredith Kercher, but are willing to overlook anything as long as that person thinks Amanda Knox and Raffaele Solectio are guilty. Barbie Nadeau is a perfect example. This is one of the "few" journalists you're talking about right? Her description of Meredith in her book is beyond lurid, unnecessary sexualized and pretty disgusting, but it doesn't matter, because she thinks the lovebirds are guilty. But "hey, oh no, please don't say bad things about her...how rude....you are really hurting your arguments!". It's always the same, any writer who favors guilt is beyond criticism, even if at the expense of the victim. It's pretty transparent.

Kind of a bad way of being a pacifist. But you've seen my posts, I'm obviously no peacemaker myself. Neither are you. I don't know if you're just trying to be cute, but the indigence is a little fakey.

 

[snook1]

You know, it's funny, posters like colonelhall. They pretend to be on a crusade for Meredith Kercher, but are willing to overlook anything as long as that person thinks Amanda Knox and Raffaele Solectio are guilty. Barbie Nadeau is a perfect example. This is one of the "few" journalists you're talking about right? Her description of Meredith in her book is beyond lurid, unnecessary sexualized and pretty disgusting, but it doesn't matter, because she thinks the lovebirds are guilty. But "hey, oh no, please don't say bad things about her...how rude....you are really hurting your arguments!". It's always the same, any writer who favors guilt is beyond criticism, even if at the expense of the victim. It's pretty transparent.

Kind of a bad way of being a pacifist. But you've seen my posts, I'm obviously no peacemaker myself. Neither are you. I don't know if you're just trying to be cute, but the indigence is a little fakey.

That's an excellent post, you hit the nail!

 

[RoseMontague]

Sorry, you lost me there.

So could we have a vote please? Who here can offer proof that the following statement from the Guardian article is accurate, and who can offer proof that it is false:

By upholding Guede's sentence, the appeal court also gave credence to the arguments made for his guilt at his first appeal, which clearly placed Knox and Sollecito at the scene of the crime with Guede. Mignani [sic], the magistrate who secured the conviction of Knox, warned that the Guede conviction could doom Knox's appeal.

"Guede's sentence states that Knox and Sollecito were involved and it is very rare that one sentence would contradict a definitive sentence."

Mignini was wrong, as the SC did not say that Knox and Sollecito were involved. Poor prediction on Mignini's part, it would appear.

 

[Kaosium]

Mignini was wrong, as the SC did not say that Knox and Sollecito were involved. Poor prediction on Mignini's part, it would appear.

Very interesting, and very good point, they didn't actually say it how he described, did they? Left it quite open as to who it could be and more or less stated outright the decision was for Rudy only, if I recall correctly?

So...why is he telling the Guardian nonsense?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

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.

It is simply that Judge Hellmann has ruled that court transcripts, motivational reports in fact everything concerning Guede’s trial, first and final appeal have been submitted as evidence in the appeal; as far as I am aware this was not possible in Raffaele and Amanda’s trial as Guede’s judicial process as still ongoing i.e. his appeals had not been exhausted.

The ruling for the first time allows either the defence or the prosecutions to use said evidence. My view is that this provides a new dynamic for example a quote from Andrea Vogt’s article

The report, however, also highlights a number of contradictions that defense attorneys will likely pick up on for Knox's appeal.
For example, the court concludes that two knives were likely used in the homicide, a theory given only cursory consideration by prosecutors. The document also reveals that a potentially important witness was never heard by the court because of the limitations agreed to in a fast-track trial. The witness said he was with Guede later on the night of Nov. 1, some time after Kercher had been killed, and told a lawyer (who was secretly posing as a friend of his when she contacted him via the Internet) that he had been with Guede along with three other friends on the same night.
The three other friends told authorities that they did not see Guede that night. Allowing the fourth man's testimony would have implied they were lying to keep themselves on the case's periphery and not be called as witnesses.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Very interesting, and very good point, they didn't actually say it how he described, did they? Left it quite open as to who it could be and more or less stated outright the decision was for Rudy only, if I recall correctly?

So...why is he telling the Guardian nonsense?

The SC report does not state Raffaele and Amanda are the others that acted with Guede. However, I say this simply as a fact of events no one else apart from Guede, Amanda and Raffaele have been arrested and sent to trial. Their appeal will determine their innocence or guilt it will be interesting to see strategies given the SC.

I believe the SC report only mentions the same three names in relation to Meredith’s murder.

 

[zeb]

ALT+F4
Thank you for your reply, but if you have a new song sheet to sing from.
I would like to turn down your offer of reply.
If you can prove with facts and not fiction you can reply on this web site.
And when I say facts I mean real facts, not the kind of facts the world media has posted around the world.
So what I want you to do is go back and read my posting 4540, and then post some real facts that you think AK and rs are guilty.

 

[christianahannah]

Mignini was wrong, as the SC did not say that Knox and Sollecito were involved. Poor prediction on Mignini's part, it would appear.

You are correct, the Supreme Court stayed neutral on the involvement of Amanda and Raffaele (though they are mentioned in several areas of the high court motivations).

I think Mignini is not stating that it was the Supreme Court which handed down the involvement of Amanda and Rudy but rather the other two courts, and so when the Supreme Court confirms Rudy's sentence, they are by implication, confirming all that was in that sentence. Whether that is true or not will remain to be seen. Mignini did put the qualifier "very rare" in his statement.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

You are correct, the Supreme Court stayed neutral on the involvement of Amanda and Raffaele (though they are mentioned in several areas of the high court motivations).

I think Mignini is not stating that it was the Supreme Court which handed down the involvement of Amanda and Rudy but rather the other two courts, and so when the Supreme Court confirms Rudy's sentence, they are by implication, confirming all that was in that sentence. Whether that is true or not will remain to be seen. Mignini did put the qualifier "very rare" in his statement.

I agree with your conclusion.

 

[christianahannah]

I think you get things all wrong. Many were quite happy to see Andrea Vogt writing for the New York Post last week, my city's favorite dirty tabloid. She's excelling right where she belongs, in New York's trashiest sleaze rag.

You know, it's funny, posters like colonelhall. They pretend to be on a crusade for Meredith Kercher, but are willing to overlook anything as long as that person thinks Amanda Knox and Raffaele Solectio are guilty. Barbie Nadeau is a perfect example. This is one of the "few" journalists you're talking about right? Her description of Meredith in her book is beyond lurid, unnecessary sexualized and pretty disgusting, but it doesn't matter, because she thinks the lovebirds are guilty. But "hey, oh no, please don't say bad things about her...how rude....you are really hurting your arguments!". It's always the same, any writer who favors guilt is beyond criticism, even if at the expense of the victim. It's pretty transparent.

Kind of a bad way of being a pacifist. But you've seen my posts, I'm obviously no peacemaker myself. Neither are you. I don't know if you're just trying to be cute, but the indigence is a little fakey.

The NY Post may be NY's trashiest sleaze rag but it is so easy to read while in transit.

Actually the reporting/book writing/movie making, etc. on most events/subjects is rather abysmal, especially in the early history of any event and also many times later. With internet and the 24 hour news cycle it is a push to see who can get information (any information) out fast and remain relevant throughout a news event. Mistakes are made (and hopefully corrected later). Still, I think information is important, good and bad, and wouldn't want to quiet any of it.

This case is like many others in that it is viewed through the lens of the media and the public can have access to things that they never would have had access to otherwise. There is both good and bad in this but I think ultimately it is good for defendants because it brings attention to their case and perhaps brings advocates who will help them.

I have always felt sad for those who have been unwilling victims and have had to see their situation played out over and over again in the media. I know of no way to correct this other than to silence the media and I don't think that is the path to take. Hopefully the media can also aid them in seeking justice by bringing attention to their plight.

 

[Dan O.]

Of course, the fact that Rudy's defense team argued vehemently that Rudy was a lone wolf assailant and not part of the conspiracy that the prosecution was presenting adds significant weight to the courts findings. It's unfortunate that all documentation and witnesses to that part of Rudy's trial were lost in the fire.

Sorry, you lost me there.

It's called argumenta absurdum to point out how absurd it is to expect a defendants own counsel to argue against the prosecutions theory of involvement in a crime with there own theory of total responsibility for that crime.

The prosecutors Mignini and Comodi did play the split trials specifically to place evidence and arguments before the court when there was no party in opposition. We've seen how it's been effective in swaying the weaker minds from the guilter camp. It remains to be seen if it has any effect on the higher Italian courts.

So could we have a vote please? Who here can offer proof that the following statement from the Guardian article is accurate, and who can offer proof that it is false:

Knox's prospects were clouded by the court's decision to incorporate into the appeal all documents, evidence and findings from the murder trial of Rudy Guede, who chose a fast-track trial and was definitively sentenced to 16 years on Thursday for his part in the murder following the two appeals he was allowed under Italian law.

By upholding Guede's sentence, the appeal court also gave credence to the arguments made for his guilt at his first appeal, which clearly placed Knox and Sollecito at the scene of the crime with Guede. Mignani [sic], the magistrate who secured the conviction of Knox, warned that the Guede conviction could doom Knox's appeal.

"Guede's sentence states that Knox and Sollecito were involved and it is very rare that one sentence would contradict a definitive sentence."

1. Did the prosecution ask to make the inclusion: Probably yes. Some arguments presented in Rudy's trial make little sense except in the bigger picture to use Rudy's trial as a back door to bring the arguments forward into Amanda and Raffaele's trial.

2. Did the appeals court accept the inclusion: I haven't seen any official reports either way. My expectation is that they will accept the finding of guilt against Rudy and they will accept the evidence used in the trial but not the findings related to that evidence. To do otherwise will be tantamount to trying Amanda and Raffaele without representation and that would be a violation of Italy's laws.

3. That final statement is Mignini's words and as such I believe it to be a lie. Again, if this is upheld in this case it would be as if Amanda and Raffaele were tried in Rudy's court without any legal representation to argue their case.


We will see by the end of the appeal if Italy has a real justice system or just a toy for the amusement of the prosecutors.

 

[christianahannah]

Sorry, you lost me there.

So could we have a vote please? Who here can offer proof that the following statement from the Guardian article is accurate, and who can offer proof that it is false:

Two articles concerning the prosecution's (Giancarlo Costaiola ) request that the case file of Rudy be added to the appeal of Amanda and Raffaele and the appeal judges acceptance of the request.

http://www.iammepress.it/italia-c3/...te-acquisisce-le-sentenze-di-guede-41630.html

http://www.repubblica.it/ultimora/24ore/nazionale/news-dettaglio/3889524

How this affects Amanda's and Raffaele's appeal I cannot say. I would imagine the prosecution would have to present arguments in court (concerning the case files) and the defense would argue against them.

 

[Antony]

It is simply that Judge Hellmann has ruled that court transcripts, motivational reports in fact everything concerning Guede’s trial, first and final appeal have been submitted as evidence in the appeal;

This seems (to me) to be root of the confusion and frustration over the discussion of these points: reports of court proceedings are not evidence. Maybe you didn't intend to describe them as evidence, but if you did, this is a reason why you aren't being taken seriously by some members of this forum.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

This seems (to me) to be root of the confusion and frustration over the discussion of these points: reports of court proceedings are not evidence. Maybe you didn't intend to describe them as evidence, but if you did, this is a reason why you aren't being taken seriously by some members of this forum.

I am not concerned with not being taken seriously on the points I have raised. What would you call motivational reports from Guede's trial, first and final appeal?

 

[Antony]

I am not concerned with not being taken seriously on the points I have raised. What would you call motivational reports from Guede's trial, first and final appeal?

Court documents. They describe what happened during the trial, not what happened on the night of the murder.

 

[Danceme]

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.

I'd like Dan O.'s opinion on this

ALT+F4
Thank you for your reply, but if you have a new song sheet to sing from.
I would like to turn down your offer of reply.
If you can prove with facts and not fiction you can reply on this web site.
And when I say facts I mean real facts, not the kind of facts the world media has posted around the world.
So what I want you to do is go back and read my posting 4540, and then post some real facts that you think AK and rs are guilty.

zeb, I think you're getting, as they say, too big for your britches. It would probably be a good idea for you to read the thread from start to finish before issuing orders to longtime posters. That's just advice, not an order
Alt-F4 has many, many posts dealing with the reasons she finds for guilt and I'm sure you'll be well informed after reading them. Try the search function, it's great!

 

[RoseMontague]

Very interesting, and very good point, they didn't actually say it how he described, did they? Left it quite open as to who it could be and more or less stated outright the decision was for Rudy only, if I recall correctly?

So...why is he telling the Guardian nonsense?

He made the comment before the SC Motivation was published and makes him look a little silly at this point. He simply expected the SC to name Raffaele and the Knox girl as the others involved.