Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[PhantomWolf]

Yeah, really. He was in jail when 9/11 happened. Get it?

You better get in touch with his defence team and point out that he had a really good alibi and so should be released then.

ETA: KSM has a pretty good alibi too, he was in Afghanistan. Perhaps you better let his defence team know that too.

 

[PhantomWolf]

No, you as an anynomous person shouldn't have the right to read the autopsy report of my murdered loved one and no, you as an anynomous person shouldn't have the right to see the gory photographs of my loved one's dead (possibly naked) body. You have no right to anything but the trial transcript and whatever other information the victim's family wishes to release.

Wrong, when a person is tried by a system that is working for the public, then is is beholden on that system to be transparent to the public so that it can be seen to be doing it's job. It is not up to the prosecution and the victim's family to hide what thay have been doing from the public. Doing so would invite a far greater possiblity of corruption in the system than the release of images would float some wacko's boat.

The only time that anything needs to be suppressed from the public is when there would be harm to one of the parties involved by releasing that information, and that is up to a Judge to determine, not the victim's family.

No justice denied to AK and RS then as we are constantly being told that all the evidence is out there.

If all the evidence is in the public arena, then your previous points about whether of not they have been made so would be pointless, you are now actually contradicting yourself.

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

Actually yes, evidence that has been presented in court should be publically available. Justice done where the evidence is kept from public scrutiny is justice denied.

A judge has the possibility to held trials or parts of trials behind closed doors.

Indeed a part of the Meredith-Kercher-trial (concerning the autopsy, AFIK) was held behind closed doors with no access to public.

 

[PhantomWolf]

A judge has the possibility to held trials or parts of trials behind closed doors.

Which I noted in the post directly above yours.

Indeed a part of the Meredith-Kercher-trial (concerning the autopsy, AFIK) was held behind closed doors with no access to public.

Except the original discussion wasn't about the autopsy, but the testing for blood in the bathroom.

 

[Kaosium]

So after all this brilliant reasoning and crime scene staging, he somehow forgets to flush the toilet and wipe up his bloody prints from the murder scene, and leaves his DNA on Meredith's body?

NOBODY staged a break in. Full stop.

I agree, and I suspect LJ might too, but I think his argument is more nuanced than that. There are some who believe that simply 'proving' the break-in was staged should condemn Raffaele and Amanda to be at the very least accomplices to murder, if not full blown participants as well. However, it is not impossible, nor even beyond reasonable doubt, that Rudy could have staged the break-in for the reasons speculated. He was an associate of the boys downstairs thus it is possible Meredith might open her door to him, if perhaps he claimed he wanted to take a dump or something, without requiring anyone to think Meredith wanted a date with him.

The 'staged' break-in might be easier to 'prove' as at least there they have something to work with. The murder room provides absolutely nothing in the way of evidence to tie Raffaele and Amanda to it outside the bra-clasp which should be rusting away in the Tiber come May anyway. Thus it is reasonable to note that in no way does 'proving' the break-in was staged automatically indict Raffaele and/or Amanda.

 

[RoseMontague]

I don't know. I haven't read what she actually testified to. Have you?

There are many quotes from her including in the Massei report. Do you think something important was left out?

So you only have hearsay and second hand knowledge as to what she actually testified to. What exact word did she use to describe the scream?

See above. Her description of the scream is listed there as well as in the appeals.

As far as I know they questioned her ability to hear the footsteps/running based on the fact that her windows were closed and her windows were double-pained. Was there any evidence presented at trial that she is "nearly deaf" and "nuts"? If not, why is this "information" just being released now?

Maybe because 2 years ago they didn't know?

What was she asked in regard to this? No one other than Frank said she testified to this.

It is mentioned in the Massei report and the appeals. Have you read what is available? You complain that we don't have all the testimony and evidence and yet it seems you don't really know what we do have.

What evidence is there that she is a "little crazy"? Is a "little crazy" a medical or legal term, because this is all about the evidence, right?

I thought the discussion on this subject was regarding the Oggi article as well as the one you linked to? Both articles indicate she had some mental issues. These articles were not out two years ago and these issues were not brought up in court. Are you saying the defense should have anticipated this "information"?

From the Massei report:

Returning to November 1, she stated that, having gotten up to go to the bathroom, when she was near the window of the dining room she heard ‚a scream, but a scream that was not a normal scream‛ (page 16, hearing on March 27, 2009).

She further specified that ‚that night there was that scream and in the morning they found that girl dead‛ (page 51, hearing on March 27, 2009).
She specified that she had never heard such a scream before, if not perhaps in films‚ but it wasn’t even like that because films don’t do anything to me whereas this gave me goose bumps‛ (page 85). In spite of some inaccuracies in the presentation, especially in reference to the time when the newspaper kiosk posters published news of the homicide, it is held that the deposition of the witness is reliable with regard to the scream and to the noises then heard on the iron staircase and in the square in front of the house in Via della Pergola.
Several times in the course of her own deposition Mrs. Capezzali spoke of a special scream, heart-rending to the point that after she heard it she could not get back to sleep; a scream the likes of which she had never heard before. If there had not been
such a scream, and if Mrs. Capezzali had not actually heard it, then the Court can see no reason why she would have spoken about it.

Bolding mine.

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

Which I noted in the post directly above yours.

Except the original discussion wasn't about the autopsy, but the testing for blood in the bathroom.

Sorry, I did not read attentively enough,my fault.

 

[Antony]

With regard to Curatolo, I think the new clarity is that he doesn't really know what he's talking about at all. I think that the appeal court will completely discount his testimony as entirely unreliable. I don't think he simply got the date wrong (i.e. I don't think he saw Knox and Sollecito over a large portion of the evening, but on 31st Oct rather than 1st Nov). I think he made the entire thing up, and I think I know why he made it up.

Quite. But since it's not important whether or not he saw the pair on 31st October, then presumably there need be no ruling on it as far as AK and RS are concerned. If there is an enquiry into the conduct of the case (as there needs to be), then it might become an issue.

BTW, as I've said before, even if the alleged "staging" is never addressed in the appeal, it's still absolutely no bar to Knox's/Sollecito's acquittals.

Arguable - but my point is that Amanda has a conviction for the alleged "staging", if my understanding is correct. So her defence team will need to appeal that, and I think it will be quite easy for them to show that the break-in was genuine - or at least, that there is no trace of any "staging".

...

However, all that having been said, I still think that the break-in was real, not staged, and that Guede (or possibly an accomplice of Guede) was the culprit. I am merely pointing out that there's not a strict causal link between a staged break-in and Knox's/Sollecito's involvement in the crime.

Yes, in theory. But I for one am not convinced by the idea that it would make sense for Guede to stage a break-in, so I think it's something of a dead end as a point of discussion. Also your theme of "AK and RS could have been wrongly convicted, even if actually involved" is one that can only give a handle to the guilters when they are finally exonerated.

It's manifestly evident that Amanda and Raffaele are entirely innocent, and that they were fitted-up by a police force who didn't have the slightest idea of how to go about investigating a murder. After the truth comes out in these kind of cases, there is still the unpleasant spectacle of vindictive people clinging to the idea that the aquittal was only on technical grounds; and there are plenty such commentators attracted to the current case. Why hand them an excuse?

 

[Antony]

Perhaps you believe that suspects never lie. They always tell the truth. No?

No, suspects don't always tell the truth, but here the issue is whether the police were telling the truth or not. The guilter beliefs depend entirely on accepting the police accounts at face value, when we know that it was they who repeatedly lied in this case.

In particular, there is nothing other than police allegations to suggest the alleged "lies" of Amanda and Raffaele. There is every reason to think that they acted honestly throughout.

 

[Antony]

No justice denied to AK and RS then as we are constantly being told that all the evidence is out there.

Justice has been denied in this case because the trial verdict is not supported by the known evidence. If there is evidence being withheld from the public, then that is unjust. If there is no such evidence, then they were wrongly convicted. Either way there is no justice in this case.

You are making a lot of noise in this forum with no real basis of fact. On the one hand, you keep claiming that those supporting innocence can't say anything for certain because there might be evidence that we don't know about. On the other hand, you have made some very specific allegations of your own about what really happened, without any supporting evidence whatsoever.

It seems that you will go on believing that Raffaele killed Meredith with Amanda's complicity (for some reason departing from the court's verdict) as long as you can maintain the hope that there is unknown evidence supporting your version. You have clearly forgotten where the burden of proof lies.

 

[Justinian2]

Mark Waterbury gives an interesting theory about Mignini's involvement with Guede.


My idea: It's kind of like the informant role between Connolly and Flemmi. Guede may have been a Mignini informant.

From The Monster of Perugia:

In an article in the British newspaper 'The Daily Express' Bob Graham wrote that Rudy Guede committed an entire series of crimes in the month before the murder of Meredith Kercher.

"It reveals the third person convicted of killing British student Meredith Kercher had committed six serious crimes over 33 days before the killing. But robberies carried out by small-time drug dealer Rudy Guede were ignored by Italian authorities, raising suspicions that he was a police informer."

I have been told by more than one knowledgeable source that the only person within the Perugian justice system with the authority to order such a release at that time was Mignini himself.

It would seem that Mignini had more association with Guede than Amanda. As Amanda had only one introduction, that's not a hard figure.

More than once, informants have been guilty of murder.

Mignini hasn't been proven guilty of murder any more than Amanda, but Mignini's actions are VERY suspicious. Mignini IS trying to cover something up.

 

[Alt+F4]

You are making a lot of noise in this forum with no real basis of fact. On the one hand, you keep claiming that those supporting innocence can't say anything for certain because there might be evidence that we don't know about. On the other hand, you have made some very specific allegations of your own about what really happened, without any supporting evidence whatsoever.

The difference is that I would change my opinion if the evidence was there to support a change. What I find most interesting is that many posters here have stated that they will never change their belief in innocence no matter what. The end.

 

[Alt+F4]

It would seem that Mignini had more association with Guede than Amanda. As Amanda had only one introduction, that's not a hard figure.

More than once, informants have been guilty of murder.

Mignini hasn't been proven guilty of murder any more than Amanda, but Mignini's actions are VERY suspicious. Mignini IS trying to cover something up.

I don't suppose that Waterbury named his "knowledgeable sources", did he?

 

[Alt+F4]

I thought the discussion on this subject was regarding the Oggi article as well as the one you linked to? Both articles indicate she had some mental issues. These articles were not out two years ago and these issues were not brought up in court. Are you saying the defense should have anticipated this "information"?

Maybe she could hide being "nuts" from the defense but just how does she hide being "nearly deaf"? No mention of a hearing aid, no special accomidation for her. Her hearing seemed find in the video baby condor linked. There is zero evidence that she is "nearly deaf" or "nuts". My question is, why, if this is a case with zero evidence of guilt do defenders of the love birds resort to lies and making stuff up?

From the Massei report:
In spite of some inaccuracies in the presentation, especially in reference to the time when the newspaper kiosk posters published news of the homicide...

Who asked her about the newspaper? The defense, the prosecution or did she just blurt it out?

 

[babycondor]

Thus it is reasonable to note that in no way does 'proving' the break-in was staged automatically indict Raffaele and/or Amanda.

Yes, I understand and agree, thanks for the clarification.

 

[RoseMontague]

Maybe she could hide being "nuts" from the defense but just how does she hide being "nearly deaf"? No mention of a hearing aid, no special accomidation for her. Her hearing seemed find in the video baby condor linked. There is zero evidence that she is "nearly deaf" or "nuts". My question is, why, if this is a case with zero evidence of guilt do defenders of the love birds resort to lies and making stuff up?



Who asked her about the newspaper? The defense, the prosecution or did she just blurt it out?

I have not seen any confirmation of the hearing problems (as I stated previously) so I don't consider that to be substantiated by other reports at this point.

It does not matter who asked the question, what matters is her answer. This is covered in the appeals as well if you want to read all about it.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Not all justice systems work in the same way and in my opinion Italy as a sovereign democratic nation has every right to prosecute a case according to its own laws, without external influence, like every other democracy it is up to the people of that nation to effect change in how they are govern or how their laws are applied.

Those of you who support Raffaele and Amanda may conclude that justice has been denied that they are victims of some kind of quasi-judicial conspiracy including apparently corrupt and or incompetent police and forensic analysis. However, none of this has been proven in a court of law.

 

[Kestrel]

Not all justice systems work in the same way and in my opinion Italy as a sovereign democratic nation has every right to prosecute a case according to its own laws, without external influence, like every other democracy it is up to the people of that nation to effect change in how they are govern or how their laws are applied.

Those of you who support Raffaele and Amanda may conclude that justice has been denied that they are victims of some kind of quasi-judicial conspiracy including apparently corrupt and or incompetent police and forensic analysis. However, none of this has been proven in a court of law.

Kings and emperors had a long standing tradition of not objecting to what happened in the other guy's dungeons. The belief that human rights concerns stop at national borders is a relic of those times.

 

[Kaosium]

Maybe she could hide being "nuts" from the defense but just how does she hide being "nearly deaf"? No mention of a hearing aid, no special accomidation for her. Her hearing seemed find in the video baby condor linked. There is zero evidence that she is "nearly deaf" or "nuts". My question is, why, if this is a case with zero evidence of guilt do defenders of the love birds resort to lies and making stuff up?

Why did Massei refuse the hearing test the defense requested? I'm pretty sure it's in the appeal as well.

Who asked her about the newspaper? The defense, the prosecution or did she just blurt it out?

At the risk of losing my cherished 'groupie' status, I don't think that minor lapse in memory is actually all that germane, any more than I do any of the other minor errors Amanda or Raffaele made in the course of this case. The idea that human memory is infallible is rather a dubious proposition...

 

[Justinian2]

I don't suppose that Waterbury named his "knowledgeable sources", did he?

He sourced himself very well in first part of the book where he discussed why Amanda and Raffaele were innocent.

In the final act of his book, his theories began about who the real monster of Perugia was. There he introduces his theroies as "compatible with" - you know the catchy phrase used by Mignini to explain all his theories. Like all scientific theory, the model he proposed agrees with twenty or more observations he noted in the case. He calls these observations "dots" and he attempts to fill in the dots with reasons. A good theory passes the test of time and explains much. His theory explains WHY Amanda and Raffele were framed. Much of that theory also speculates that Guede was an informant working with the Perugian authorities under the watchful eye of Mignini.