Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
christianahannah said:
It will be interesting to see if the experts will submit a report today/tomorrow which states any reasons for the inability to retest the knife and bra clasp. I would think it should be included in asking the court for a further extension.

I do not know about normal use of bra clasps, however this clasp was not treated as normal and did not appear normal from the photos. The covering (enamel?) was scraped partly away, it was subject to testing and was stored, which may or may not have affected it's deterioration.
Click to expand...

Blah, blah.

There are great many things one "would think" the authorities in Italy would ask Stefanoni and the techs now, er, painstakingly re-appraising her work.

The clasp should have been stored with a dessicant, period - the idea that its deterioration was inevitable is absurd, a lie.

Stefanoni has demonstrated her stupidity or criminality, again, by destroying evidence.
 
RoseMontague said:
More detail on some of it:

http://translate.google.com/transla...cQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNGfeZDzte2P9w6g8mDJ7OIqyCLcwQ
Click to expand...

LOL, I just translated this myself and then realized someone on PMF had done it before me. Oh well.

The expert report on the traces of DNA identified on the knife considered the weapon used to kill Meredith Kercher, and on the clasp of the bra [worn?] at the moment of the murder, will be filed by 30 June. So established the appeal court of Assizes in the proceedings against Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox in Perugia. The new time-limit was fixed by the judges on request of the experts who asked for a 40 day extension.

The experts appeared in Court, explaining that they had obtained all the scientific data requested. They however highlighted the necessity of being able to consult the report relative to the confiscation of the knife and the testimonies in the first degree trial of the agents who attended the search in Sollecito’s house. Documents which the Court ordered now to be provided to the experts.

In front of the judges one of the experts underlined the “maximum cooperation” provided by the scientific police who carried out the technical assessments in the course of the investigations.
Click to expand...

ETA: sorry, that was a different report to yours: the TG.com one here.
 
Last edited:
RoseMontague said:
Try the one 3 posts up
Click to expand...
Er, very quick translation (did I win?). :D
In the appeal proceedings of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, the new time-limit for the filing of the scientific report on the knife and Meredith Kercher's bra clasp was fixed for next 30 June. The experts requested a 40 day extension for the report, which was granted by the Court. Professors Carla Vecchiotti and Stefano Conti explained to the Court this morning of the need to analyse some scientific data received only a few days earlier.

The experts further requested the report on the confiscation of the knife held to be the murder weapon in the first degree trial, and the testimonies of the police who carried out the inspection of Raffaele Sollecito’s house. The hearing in which the results of the scientific report requested by the defence and granted by the judges will be discussed, was fixed for next 25 July, and if necessary, the 29 and 30.

The judges of the appeal court of Assizes are currently in the consultation room to decide whether to admit the testimonies of Mario Alessi and Luciano Aviello. The two detainees, the first in prison for having killed little Tommaso Onofri, the second for Mafia associations, claim to know the true murderers of Meredith Kercher. The request to hear them was presented by the defences of the two accused, today present in Court as in all the other hearings. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have always stated their innocence.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It will be interesting to read posts covering the likes of Alessi (a convicted baby killer) and Aviello the Comorra (Mafia) enforcer testimony and I guess credibility verses Curtola (homeless drug dealer), I do not envy the jury with this particular phase of the appeal. Alessi having kidnapped a 17 month old Tommaso Onofri bashed in Tommaso's head with a shovel and buried him in a shallow grave as the police closed in on him; the link below covers the case in more detail below.

I am trying to reconcile the posts here from Raffaele and Amanda’s supporters of how well the appeal is going with their defence team’s decision to place Alessi, Aviello and others on the stand, is this the action of confident defence team or a gamble?

http://pysih.com/2009/08/15/mario-alessi-salvatore-raimondi-and-antonella-conserva/
 
Last edited:
CoulsdonUK said:
It will be interesting to read posts covering the likes of Alessi (a convicted baby killer) and Aviello the Comorra (Mafia) enforcer testimony and I guess credibility verses Curtola (homeless drug dealer), I do not envy the jury with this particular phase of the appeal. Alessi having kidnapped a 17 month old Tommaso Onofri bashed in Tommaso's head with a shovel and buried him in a shallow grave as the police closed in on him; the link below covers the case in more detail below.

I am trying to reconcile the posts here from Raffaele and Amanda’s supporters of how well the appeal is going with their defence team’s decision to place Alessi, Aviello and others on the stand, is this the action of confident defence team or a gamble?

http://pysih.com/2009/08/15/mario-alessi-salvatore-raimondi-and-antonella-conserva/
Click to expand...
Yeah Coulsdon it will be the evidence of convicted killers and Mafioso with nothing to gain,and there is evidence they might have a considerable amount to loose, against the evidence of drug abusers and drug dealers who are prepared to and have lied for the police in the past in return for favourable treatment from the police and the courts.We have plenty of evidence of how lying for the police can get favourable treatment for a defendant in Italy,when we look at the how Rudy's lawyer told Barbara Nadeau he was able to get favourable treatment for Rudy to help point the finger at the two innocent defendants
 
Supernaut said:
Blah, blah.

There are great many things one "would think" the authorities in Italy would ask Stefanoni and the techs now, er, painstakingly re-appraising her work.

The clasp should have been stored with a dessicant, period - the idea that its deterioration was inevitable is absurd, a lie.

Stefanoni has demonstrated her stupidity or criminality, again, by destroying evidence.
Click to expand...

It has been rumored how the clasp was stored and that it was improper storage which led to its demise. Both claims have not been verified. Perhaps these details have been presented to the court today. I thought there was more DNA extracted from the clasp which could be tested but on that I may have misunderstood.

From the many media articles today it appears that the experts have received all documentation they have asked for and have stated that there was cooperation from the scientific police.

What evidence has Stefanoni destroyed?
 
CoulsdonUK said:
It will be interesting to read posts covering the likes of Alessi (a convicted baby killer) and Aviello the Comorra (Mafia) enforcer testimony and I guess credibility verses Curtola (homeless drug dealer), I do not envy the jury with this particular phase of the appeal. Alessi having kidnapped a 17 month old Tommaso Onofri bashed in Tommaso's head with a shovel and buried him in a shallow grave as the police closed in on him; the link below covers the case in more detail below.

I am trying to reconcile the posts here from Raffaele and Amanda’s supporters of how well the appeal is going with their defence team’s decision to place Alessi, Aviello and others on the stand, is this the action of confident defence team or a gamble?
Click to expand...

I think this could be a move to temper the addition of Guede's Supreme Court decision which was submitted into evidence in this current appeal.
 
christianahannah said:
I think this could be a move to temper the addition of Guede's Supreme Court decision which was submitted into evidence in this current appeal.
Click to expand...

I don't think it can be a direct response to that, because the defence asked for Aviello and Alessi to be heard back when they first submitted their appeals, which was obviously before Guede's last appeal. I don't see anything to suggest the defence has made a further request for Alessi and Aviello to be heard - presumably the judge is just deciding on some of the defence requests he postponed making a decision on earlier (since the forensic report is going to be delayed anyway).
 
katy_did said:
I don't think it can be a direct response to that, because the defence asked for Aviello and Alessi to be heard back when they first submitted their appeals, which was obviously before Guede's last appeal. I don't see anything to suggest the defence has made a further request for Alessi and Aviello to be heard - presumably the judge is just deciding on some of the defence requests he postponed making a decision on earlier (since the forensic report is going to be delayed anyway).
Click to expand...


Interesting day in court, eh?

I would say that the introduction of Aviello might turn out to be a waste of time at best for the defence, unless there is actually strong evidence to support his claims of his brother's involvement. And it's well worth remembering that it's not Knox's/Sollecito's lawyers' job to present evidence that someone else was involved in Meredith's murder: all they need to do is show that it's not provable beyond a reasonable doubt that Knox/Sollecito were involved.

In that respect, Alessi is a very different kettle of fish. If he testifies that Guede told him that neither Knox nor Sollecito was present during the murder - and especially if this testimony is backed up by other inmates (who look like they may consitute the other three inmates called by Hellmann) - then this is a potentially important development. The judicial panel will then have to decide whether a) Alessi (and the corroborating inmates) are telling the truth, and b) if they are telling the truth, whether Guede was telling the truth to them.

And in judging this, the judicial panel will obviously take into account the fact that these people are all inmates in an Italian prison. But other than that blanket credibility issue, the more important question is this: what is their motivation in lying vs telling the truth? It would appear that they would have no individual or collective motivation to lie - I would severely doubt that they have been promised any extra privileges or early paroles. One might argue that they might have an interest in disrupting the state's position in a high-profile trial, as a form of "getting their own back" on the system that locked them up. But the seeming fact that there are several corroborating witnesses would tend to minimise this possibility.

Lastly, it's amazing how so many of the groupthink pro-guilt mob are still managing to rationalise that Stefanoni gave all the DNA source data to the defence teams (and, by extension, to the independent re-testers) a long while ago. Most of their rationalisation seems to be based on their belief that nothing Curt Knox says can be trusted, even when they are shown a report in which Carlo della Vedova makes the very same accusations of withholding of source data! They really are living in their own hermetically-sealed bubble of indoctrinated garbage......
 
katy_did said:
I don't think it can be a direct response to that, because the defence asked for Aviello and Alessi to be heard back when they first submitted their appeals, which was obviously before Guede's last appeal. I don't see anything to suggest the defence has made a further request for Alessi and Aviello to be heard - presumably the judge is just deciding on some of the defence requests he postponed making a decision on earlier (since the forensic report is going to be delayed anyway).
Click to expand...

Not a direct response, however the various judgments from October 2008 of Micheli's finding of guilt for Rudy, to hold Amanda and Raffaele for trial, Rudy's second appeal, etc. have all cumulative evidence from Rudy (however vague) against Amanda and Raffaele and are, in part, included in the last judgment against Rudy. These witnesses will be called to show anything Rudy has said against Amanda and Raffaele is not true.
 
Interesting that Barbie Latza Nadeau has tweeted, in response to a question "are you convinced?":

"about what?? I am only convinced that this is more confusing now than ever"

Hmmm. I think I can say without fear of a slander suit that Ms Latza Nadeau might not be the strongest critical thinker I've ever come across. And she's supposed to have been across this case from almost the very beginning.

I'll give her a little help: it's not confusing at all. Knox and Sollecito were wrongly found guilty in the first trial, based on false evidence, bogus and flawed testimony, and poor judicial reasoning. They will likely be acquitted in the first appeal, and set free. Latza Nadeau's reporting of the first trial and verdict will be shown to be biased and error-strewn.

There! Did that help with the confusion? :rolleyes:
 
christianahannah said:
Not a direct response, however the various judgments from October 2008 of Micheli's finding of guilt for Rudy, to hold Amanda and Raffaele for trial, Rudy's second appeal, etc. have all cumulative evidence from Rudy (however vague) against Amanda and Raffaele and are, in part, included in the last judgment against Rudy. These witnesses will be called to show anything Rudy has said against Amanda and Raffaele is not true.
Click to expand...


I partially agree with your assessment here. But I would go further, and say that Alessi (and the corroborators) potentially show that Guede was lying when he said that Knox and Sollecito were involved (and that, by extension, he was telling the truth when he said they weren't involved).

After all, if the court believes Alessi & co, one has to ask why Guede would say such a thing to them. He would (in my view) have nothing whatsoever to gain by telling fellow inmates that Knox and Sollecito weren't involved. Conversely, it's not hard to make an argument that he might have had a fair amount to gain by claiming they were involved. Who, for example, were the sorts of people who might have the power and influence to make Guede's life a bit easier in return for evidence against Knox and Sollecito?

When you add into the mix the fact that Guede didn't initially claim that Knox or Sollecito were involved in the murder, I think the defence teams would have a very strong point here - if Alessi & co's testimony is accepted as reliable, that is......

ETA: Oooh, how exciting! I see that Michael over on his "no acrimony over the split" version of PMF is having a good crack at getting sued for libel himself! It must be contagious.......
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Interesting day in court, eh?

I would say that the introduction of Aviello might turn out to be a waste of time at best for the defence, unless there is actually strong evidence to support his claims of his brother's involvement. And it's well worth remembering that it's not Knox's/Sollecito's lawyers' job to present evidence that someone else was involved in Meredith's murder: all they need to do is show that it's not provable beyond a reasonable doubt that Knox/Sollecito were involved.

In that respect, Alessi is a very different kettle of fish. If he testifies that Guede told him that neither Knox nor Sollecito was present during the murder - and especially if this testimony is backed up by other inmates (who look like they may consitute the other three inmates called by Hellmann) - then this is a potentially important development. The judicial panel will then have to decide whether a) Alessi (and the corroborating inmates) are telling the truth, and b) if they are telling the truth, whether Guede was telling the truth to them.

And in judging this, the judicial panel will obviously take into account the fact that these people are all inmates in an Italian prison. But other than that blanket credibility issue, the more important question is this: what is their motivation in lying vs telling the truth? It would appear that they would have no individual or collective motivation to lie - I would severely doubt that they have been promised any extra privileges or early paroles. One might argue that they might have an interest in disrupting the state's position in a high-profile trial, as a form of "getting their own back" on the system that locked them up. But the seeming fact that there are several corroborating witnesses would tend to minimise this possibility.

Lastly, it's amazing how so many of the groupthink pro-guilt mob are still managing to rationalise that Stefanoni gave all the DNA source data to the defence teams (and, by extension, to the independent re-testers) a long while ago. Most of their rationalisation seems to be based on their belief that nothing Curt Knox says can be trusted, even when they are shown a report in which Carlo della Vedova makes the very same accusations of withholding of source data! They really are living in their own hermetically-sealed bubble of indoctrinated garbage......
Click to expand...
A balanced point of view, that is the collective credibility of all those who for varying crimes are currently incarcerated reasons for wanting to testify, clearly Curtola has not benefited from his testimony well unless you reason being in prison is better than being homeless. Alessi appeared in a paid TV interview stating is innocence with Tommaso murder only then to confess does not in my opinion strengthen his credibility.

Sky News is reporting that the court appointed experts has requested information relating to the chain of custody of the Sollecito knife I have not heard or read about any other concerns.
 
LondonJohn said:
Interesting day in court, eh?.............
Lastly, it's amazing how so many of the groupthink pro-guilt mob are still managing to rationalise that Stefanoni gave all the DNA source data to the defence teams (and, by extension, to the independent re-testers) a long while ago. Most of their rationalisation seems to be based on their belief that nothing Curt Knox says can be trusted, even when they are shown a report in which Carlo della Vedova makes the very same accusations of withholding of source data! They really are living in their own hermetically-sealed bubble of indoctrinated garbage......
Click to expand...


FACT: Read it and weep

"In front of the judges one of the experts stressed that the "maximum cooperation" was provided by the scientific police who performed the technical tests in the course of the investigations.
Tgcom

http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/cronac...dna-andra-depositata-entro-il-30-giugno.shtml

Indeed 'an interesting day in Court

PS:
1) Speaking of experiences, my readings of nearly all of Mr Knox's PR provided, polished, and/or approved past statements make him second only to Mr Mellas as indeed a *very* untrustworthy, but understandably similarly biased close family member

2) Spare me any non argument related, OT, 'communications engineering' stimulated criticisms of sentence structure, perfect punctuation etccccccccccccccccccccc

3) I yield with alacrity to your implied personal experiences with:"living in their own hermetically-sealed bubble of indoctrinated garbage......
 
LondonJohn said:
(partial quote)...

Lastly, it's amazing how so many of the groupthink pro-guilt mob are still managing to rationalise that Stefanoni gave all the DNA source data to the defence teams (and, by extension, to the independent re-testers) a long while ago. Most of their rationalisation seems to be based on their belief that nothing Curt Knox says can be trusted, even when they are shown a report in which Carlo della Vedova makes the very same accusations of withholding of source data! They really are living in their own hermetically-sealed bubble of indoctrinated garbage......
Click to expand...

I am not exactly sure what della Vedova is stating from this article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110521/wl_afp/italyusbritaincrimemurdertrialforensic

He doesn't say the defense does not have these documents now but it would be difficult to know if this is his intent without the original Italian.

The court adjourned in summer 2009 for the prosecution to gather together all material requested by the defense (this was supposedly in addition to what was required by law). According to Massei this was done and the defense has it in their possession.
 
LondonJohn said:
Interesting that Barbie Latza Nadeau has tweeted, in response to a question "are you convinced?":

"about what?? I am only convinced that this is more confusing now than ever"

Hmmm. I think I can say without fear of a slander suit that Ms Latza Nadeau might not be the strongest critical thinker I've ever come across. And she's supposed to have been across this case from almost the very beginning.

I'll give her a little help: it's not confusing at all. Knox and Sollecito were wrongly found guilty in the first trial, based on false evidence, bogus and flawed testimony, and poor judicial reasoning. They will likely be acquitted in the first appeal, and set free. Latza Nadeau's reporting of the first trial and verdict will be shown to be biased and error-strewn.

There! Did that help with the confusion? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Not really because the appeal is still ongoing and no verdict has been annouced, but you are of course entitled to your opinion,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom