Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

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.

Alt has posted her list of suspicions many times, at least three times in recent months. You can find her latest posting on this subject here.

 

[RoseMontague]

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

Quote:
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.

Raffaele's defense team has known about this undercover person getting information from Rudy's friends for some time. The reason it was not allowed as stated by Vogt is interesting, however. I believe Frank had a post on this over a year ago.

ETA: If any of our Italian speaking posters could comment on what is stated in the SC motivation as to the reason it was not allowed, I would be interested in that.

 

[Danceme]

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.

Rose, doesn't the Supreme Court only involve itself on issues of the application of law? This is clear from anything to be read on the subject, such as this from Wiki;

The Court of Cassation cannot overrule the trial court's interpretation of the evidence; rather, it corrects a lower court's interpretation or application of the law. ....... The essential roles of the Court of Cassation are to ensure that lower courts have correctly followed legal procedure and to harmonise the interpretation of laws by lower courts through its interpretation.

It is my understanding that they do not get involved with judgements or interpretation of evidence. Therefore if they upheld Rudy's conviction all they were doing was affirming that the law was interpreted and applied correctly during his case. Naming or not naming someone is irrelevant because their rulings do not involve anyone other than Rudy. As Frank wrote,

The document stressed that the Supreme Court had only been called to assess the guilt of Guede.

 

[Kaosium]

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.

Aw geez, I never looked at the date of the article! Has anyone seen a quote from him on this subject since the release of the SC motivations report?

So, in other words since this got shot down the best news for the guilt community has been Vogt re-hashing three year-old 'news' as contemporary 'suspicion?' Does anyone know how to pronounce 'schadenfreude?'

 

[RoseMontague]

Rose, doesn't the Supreme Court only involve itself on issues of the application of law? This is clear from anything to be read on the subject, such as this from Wiki;



It is my understanding that they do not get involved with judgements or interpretation of evidence. Therefore if they upheld Rudy's conviction all they were doing was affirming that the law was interpreted and applied correctly during his case. Naming or not naming someone is irrelevant because their rulings do not involve anyone other than Rudy. As Frank wrote,

That is a good point. It could be the SC did not agree with the lower court's naming of Raffaele as being involved simply because his defense did not have an opportunity to argue against that in Guede's trial and appeal. Which could be considered a point of law and seems to be what several here have pointed out about the fairness of that situation.

 

[RoseMontague]

This is the post Frank had on the "spy"

The Spy Who Came in from the Law Office

Biscotti & Gentile had a young female collaborator to go undercover among the youths who knew Rudi. Rudi's friends told her she had seen him after the crime, which contradicts what they had stated to the police, that they had not seen him at all that night.
Testimony and records discovered by the beautiful spy weren't admitted by the court. With the appeal Biscotti & Gentile asked the Supreme Court to admit it.
The idea is that if Rudi's friends lied about the after-crime, they may have lied, too, about the pre-crime when they said to have not seen Rudi talking with Meredith the night before.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2010/05/rudi-guedes-last-appeal.html

The interesting thing about this from Raffaele's viewpoint is that Rudy had claimed leaving Meredith's place and around 10PM going home, cleaning up and meeting his friends around 11PM (I'll try to find the quote in Raffaele's first appeal). This was denied by the court as his friends denied seeing him at all that night. The reason it could be significant for Raffaele's case has to do with that TOD thingy.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Rose, doesn't the Supreme Court only involve itself on issues of the application of law? This is clear from anything to be read on the subject, such as this from Wiki;



It is my understanding that they do not get involved with judgements or interpretation of evidence. Therefore if they upheld Rudy's conviction all they were doing was affirming that the law was interpreted and applied correctly during his case. Naming or not naming someone is irrelevant because their rulings do not involve anyone other than Rudy. As Frank wrote,

For the sake of discussion; it has been reported that the SC mentioned Amanda’s “I was there” statement, what would this have to do with the application of law in Guede’s final appeal? In the same context why would the SC include any mention of Raffaele and Amanda in Guede final appeal?

 

[RoseMontague]

Here is the relevant quote from the Borsini Motivation (Google translation):

Without, however, to see anyone from the window which looked out, repeated attempts to render assistance to. girl, stating that he saw her with. worn jeans and a white shirt and covered her breasts and not half-naked, reiterated that he felt the word 'f', delivered by the girl and mancala justified the call for help with the fact that longer had the phone with her confusion and fear. not to be believed, "having left traces everywhere, added that wearing shoes" Adidas ", he said remained clean, returning home when he has to the 22.30 and had washed his clothes and then he went, about 23.30, Alex's house, where he also met Philip, with whom he then had. went to the center, then to "Domus" and after.

 

[RoseMontague]

For the sake of discussion; it has been reported that the SC mentioned Amanda’s “I was there” statement, what would this have to do with the application of law in Guede’s final appeal? In the same context why would the SC include any mention of Raffaele and Amanda in Guede final appeal?

Another excellent point. Trying to have it both ways, perhaps? From what the two here that have translated that part have indicated, it seems that statement is given only a brief mention, certainly not with the headline of importance given by Ms. Vogt.

 

[Danceme]

That is a good point. It could be the SC did not agree with the lower court's naming of Raffaele as being involved simply because his defense did not have an opportunity to argue against that in Guede's trial and appeal. Which could be considered a point of law and seems to be what several here have pointed out about the fairness of that situation.

I think that's correct but what do you make of the following post below \/

For the sake of discussion; it has been reported that the SC mentioned Amanda’s “I was there” statement, what would this have to do with the application of law in Guede’s final appeal? In the same context why would the SC include any mention of Raffaele and Amanda in Guede final appeal?

Yes. it has been reported. I don't know what to make of it really. I would like to read an english translation to determine for myself what that might mean. It seems clear from articles that the Supreme Court had no doubt she was referring to the murder house, not Raffaele's place. It seems the quote is,

“It would be stupid to lie about this because I know I was there.”

which always seemed a weird way of saying something, as if she was responding to her mother accusing her of lying about being at Raffaele's, or actually admitting she was at the murder house before getting shut up by her lawyers and family. I always thought if she meant Raffaele's place it should have been "I'm not lying about this because I know I was there" in reference to the police accusing her of the lie. Anyway, the Supreme Court may have had the tape, I don't.

Does anyone know if Charlie has it?

 

[Danceme]

Here is the relevant quote from the Borsini Motivation (Google translation):

Did you notice a real contradiction in how Rudy described Meredith's clothes and how she was actually dressed that night? Strange he wouldn't remember this correctly.

"....the girl was dressed in a dark jacket, a white pullover and blue jeans" from the Micheli report, what Rudy said.

 

[RoseMontague]

Did you notice a real contradiction in how Rudy described Meredith's clothes and how she was actually dressed that night? Strange he wouldn't remember this correctly.

"....the girl was dressed in a dark jacket, a white pullover and blue jeans" from the Micheli report, what Rudy said.

The way his shoes remained clean stretches the boundaries of common sense as well.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I think that's correct but what do you make of the following post below \/



Yes. it has been reported. I don't know what to make of it really. I would like to read an english translation to determine for myself what that might mean. It seems clear from articles that the Supreme Court had no doubt she was referring to the murder house, not Raffaele's place. It seems the quote is,

“It would be stupid to lie about this because I know I was there.”

which always seemed a weird way of saying something, as if she was responding to her mother accusing her of lying about being at Raffaele's, or actually admitting she was at the murder house before getting shut up by her lawyers and family. I always thought if she meant Raffaele's place it should have been "I'm not lying about this because I know I was there" in reference to the police accusing her of the lie. Anyway, the Supreme Court may have had the tape, I don't.

Does anyone know if Charlie has it?

It’s not so much the accuracy of the statement but the fact that they names appear throughout the SC report yet people are stating that the SC’s only interest should be ruling on Guede, this clearly is not the case. Could this be the reason behind media statements that their ruling is viewed wrongly or rightly as setback for Raffaele and Amanda?

 

[RoseMontague]

It’s not much the accuracy of the statement but the fact that they names appear throughout the SC report yet people are stating that the SC’s only interest should be ruling on Guede, this clearly is not the case. Could this be the reason behind media statements that their ruling is viewed wrongly or rightly as setback for Raffaele and Amanda?

My opinion would be that some of those making that claim are looking for a sensational headline, others are making the claim because they want a guilty spin put on the ruling, and others just don't know what they are talking about. We have seen many journalists make many mistakes in this case. Some, unfortunately, were intentional, in my opinion.

 

[katy_did]

For the sake of discussion; it has been reported that the SC mentioned Amanda’s “I was there” statement, what would this have to do with the application of law in Guede’s final appeal? In the same context why would the SC include any mention of Raffaele and Amanda in Guede final appeal?

Mostly it's summaries of the previous court's decisions. The first part of it up until page 16 is pretty much just summarizing the forensic findings, the arguments of the lower court and the grounds on which the defence are appealing (as well as Guede's statements, interrogations and so on).

Another excellent point. Trying to have it both ways, perhaps? From what the two here that have translated that part have indicated, it seems that statement is given only a brief mention, certainly not with the headline of importance given by Ms. Vogt.

Yeah, as others have said it's only mentioned in the context of a summary of the factors the previous judges used to reach a verdict. Definitely not headline of importance worthy. She's obviously using it as a hook for the article, implying it's a shock bit of new evidence hidden away in the SC judges' report, when she knows it's nothing of the sort. Typical distorted tabloid journalism, but no worse (or better) than any other article of that sort I guess.

I think you're right, btw; the most notable thing about the report for me is that the judge is much less willing to point the finger at Amanda and Raffaele than in previous sentencing reports for Guede. Probably they wanted to appear neutral given that the appeal for the other two is ongoing, which is fair enough.

 

[RoseMontague]

Mostly it's summaries of the previous court's decisions. The first part of it up until page 16 is pretty much just summarizing the forensic findings, the arguments of the lower court and the grounds on which the defence are appealing (as well as Guede's statements, interrogations and so on).



Yeah, as others have said it's only mentioned in the context of a summary of the factors the previous judges used to reach a verdict. Definitely not headline of importance worthy. She's obviously using it as a hook for the article, implying it's a shock bit of new evidence hidden away in the SC judges' report, when she knows it's nothing of the sort. Typical distorted tabloid journalism, but no worse (or better) than any other article of that sort I guess.

I think you're right, btw; the most notable thing about the report for me is that the judge is much less willing to point the finger at Amanda and Raffaele than in previous sentencing reports for Guede. Probably they wanted to appear neutral given that the appeal for the other two is ongoing, which is fair enough.

Thanks katy_did. Do you recall what it said was the reason the spy's testimony and evidence were not allowed?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Mostly it's summaries of the previous court's decisions. The first part of it up until page 16 is pretty much just summarizing the forensic findings, the arguments of the lower court and the grounds on which the defence are appealing (as well as Guede's statements, interrogations and so on).



Yeah, as others have said it's only mentioned in the context of a summary of the factors the previous judges used to reach a verdict. Definitely not headline of importance worthy. She's obviously using it as a hook for the article, implying it's a shock bit of new evidence hidden away in the SC judges' report, when she knows it's nothing of the sort. Typical distorted tabloid journalism, but no worse (or better) than any other article of that sort I guess.

I think you're right, btw; the most notable thing about the report for me is that the judge is much less willing to point the finger at Amanda and Raffaele than in previous sentencing reports for Guede. Probably they wanted to appear neutral given that the appeal for the other two is ongoing, which is fair enough.

Thanks for the clarification. So it reads like Judge X from the trial said this and Judge Y from the appeal concluded that; is this how Raffaele and Amanda’s names are appearing?

 

[katy_did]

Thanks katy_did. Do you recall what it said was the reason the spy's testimony and evidence were not allowed?

It says that the request was incompatible with the rules of the abbreviated trial (the conditions of which I think mean that the defence aren't allowed to introduce new evidence) and also because it was irrelevant, given the other numerous and contrary testimonies. Page 22.

 

[RoseMontague]

It says that the request was incompatible with the rules of the abbreviated trial (the conditions of which I think mean that the defence aren't allowed to introduce new evidence) and also because it was irrelevant, given the other numerous and contrary testimonies. Page 22.

On this piece of evidence, there may be a significance then, for Raffaele's appeal. CoulsdonUK used this as an example and it is a valid one from what I can see.

 

[katy_did]

Thanks for the clarification. So it reads like Judge X from the trial said this and Judge Y from the appeal concluded that; is this how Raffaele and Amanda’s names are appearing?

Yes, that's the impression I have from a first read of it at any rate. The judges seem quite careful to preface or follow the statements that mention them with "According to the Court of first instance" or something similar. Also, they seem to be dealing mainly with the previous Courts' arguments rather than the evidence directly - which would make sense I guess, if they're only considering points of law.