Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

There was not direct testimony during the early part of the trial from Amanda, however, she did make spontaneous statements concerning the testimony of Meredith's friends, the police, etc. during the trial as did Raffaele.

Have you heard of any audio of this or audio of the testimony of her friends or the cops?

 

[RandyN]

That's strange. It makes it harder for me to read.

If you press <Ctrl>"+" it will enlarge what you see on your screen. Press it again and it will enlarge it more. <Ctrl>"-" will reduce it again. It won't affect how it appears to anyone else on the forum.

Maybe you could try that as an alternative.

Thank You...yes that works much better.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Have you heard of any audio of this or audio of the testimony of her friends or the cops?

Very interesting. What Kevinfay suggests is that there is or were audio of all the court sittings?

 

[quadraginta]

Quadraginta,

Thanks. My browser also has a "zoom text only" option under view that I find helpful.

<snip>

Yes, Firefox has that option. Don't know about other browsers. It only pump things up one time, though. It's a toggle. Use it again and you just turn it off.

<Ctrl> "+" and "-" let you wind it out a bit more.

Thank You...yes that works much better.

Glad I could help.

 

[Kevinfay]

I am confused. Amanda did not testify in the first few days of the trial. I am aware of the audio of her testimony but not of tape at the end of each day. Do you have a link to this audio?

Rose

Sorry, I meant the first 2 days of Knox's evidence. Just as with the appeal, there was lots of procedural stuff etc. at the beginning ... also, everyone was convinced that Knox would not take the stand, and if she did, she would be a complete disaster.

The audio was posted at about 21:00 each evening after the day's hearing. Thoughtful, over on PMF produced transcripts in English which were posted. I am sure that Michael also placed them somewhere on the site ... bit like with photos.

It was noticable that the Italian speakers, who heard the testimony, were convinced that, despite all the wild speculation about Knox, prior to the night of the crime, she was a very average girl (Her first 2 days evidence).

People like the poster thoughtful and myself, were equally convinced that she was lying about the night of the crime (Day 3 onwards).

As you know, on PMF, posters are only welcome if they hate Knox with all the passion of a Westboro Baptist church member ... just as here, they get the same if they don't love Knox.

Anyway, providing the audios are posted for Knox's appeal testimony, then if Thoughtful doesn't produce English transcripts this time, I will. The appeal will be very much shorter than the main trial ... it is not a full re-trial as some posters appear to think ... or perhaps hope?.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

spectrum of viewpoints

kevinfay,

I don't think that Chris C or RoseMontague have particularly high opinions of Ms. Knox; there is a spectrum of opinions even among the pro-innocence commenters. Glad you are back. Many have asked you questions or made comments in response to things you said. Speaking only for myself, I hope the appeal lasts long enough to reexamine the major elements of the first trial. That includes DNA, TOD, and the break-in.

 

[LondonJohn]

Rose

The audio was posted at about 21:00 each evening after the day's hearing. Thoughtful, over on PMF produced transcripts in English which were posted. I am sure that Michael also placed them somewhere on the site ... bit like with photos.

It was noticable that the Italian speakers, who heard the testimony, were convinced that, despite all the wild speculation about Knox, prior to the night of the crime, she was a very average girl (Her first 2 days evidence).

People like the poster thoughtful and myself, were equally convinced that she was lying about the night of the crime.

As you know, on PMF, you are only welcome if you hate Knox with all the passion of a Westboro Baptist church member ... just as here, you get the same if you don't love Knox.

Anyway, providing the audios are posted for Knox's appeal testimony, if Thoughtful doesn't produce English transcripts this time, I will. The appeal will be very much shorter than the main trial ... it is not a re-trial as some posters appear to think.

I think you're making two mistakes: polarising the debate, and believing that this JREF thread is somehow a "pro-innocence" version of PMF.

Regarding the first issue, the situation is this: If you believe that Knox and Sollecito were correctly found guilty in the first trial, and that they should ultimately stand convicted and serve their prison sentences, then you have to believe - by definition - that they are guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. There's no wiggle room on that side of the debate. If, however, you believe that Knox and Sollecito were unfairly and unsafely found guilty in the first trial, and that they should be acquitted in the first appeal trial, then there is a wide spectrum of possibilities: these range from a belief that they most likely participated but that there is insufficient evidence to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, through to being utterly convinced of their complete innocence - and everything in-between.

For example, I personally believe that there was clearly insufficient evidence to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (and that what evidence of guilt there was in the first trial has already got considerably weaker during the early stages of the first appeal trial), but I am not totally convinced of their complete innocence (although on a balance of probabilities, I would lean significantly towards innocence and non-involvement). So there are plenty of nuances available for those of us who believe that Knox and Sollecito should be acquitted.

And this leads into the second issue. It's nonsense (in my opinion) for you to have written that you have to "love Knox" to be in any way accepted here. The point about this thread - and the whole forum - is that issues are debated and discussed in reasoned and logical ways. I don't care what kind of a person Knox (or Sollecito) is - I don't know her or her friends or family, and have no connection with her whatsoever. If anyone comes here and presents good, well-reasoned, coherent arguments as to why Knox and Sollecito were correctly found guilty in the first trial (and/or why they should be found guilty in the first appeal), which can be supported by evidence, witness testimony and/or decent research, then so much the better. The problem is, nobody appears to be able to do so - other than by using an appeal to the authority of Massei's court or Mignini's ludicrous arguments.

As an example (and since it's a bete noire of mine in particular), apparently nobody can explain how the time of death proposed by Mignini and accepted by the first court can be in any way compatible with the available medical evidence from Meredith's autopsy. Even the expert testimony offered in the trial (which was slightly nebulous as ToD was not thought to be an important issue at that time) clearly implies that Meredith died long before 10pm - and this one issue alone makes a huge whole in the entire prosecution (and court) reasoning. And that's just one issue of many.

So anyone is welcome to come and debate here. The forum is run fairly and in an even-handed manner, and all points of view are accepted. It is, however, fair to say that people's arguments will get attacked if those arguments are without apparent merit or supporting evidence, and since most people posting on this board argue for acquittal, there are more attacks aimed at pro-guilty arguments than vice-versa. But if anyone has a robust enough argument as to why Knox and Sollecito should be correctly convicted of the murder of Meredith Kercher, most of us would very much like to hear it. We're still waiting though...

 

[LondonJohn]

The appeal will be very much shorter than the main trial ... it is not a full re-trial as some posters appear to think ... or perhaps hope?.

You're wrong here. The first appeal trial is indeed a full retrial. The reason why it is typically far shorter in duration than the first trial is that the majority of the evidence and witness testimony is carried straight across from the first trial, without having to be introduced or heard again. But even here, both the prosecution and defence can request that the judge allows the introduction of additional new evidence or testimony - if the appeal judge agrees that there is a good reason for allowing the additional evidence/testimony, then he will agree to the requests.

This is currently the position we are at in the Knox/Sollecito appeal: Hellmann has approved the defence's request for additional evidence in the form of an independent DNA analysis, and for additional testimony from Curatolo and the inmates. He has also reserved the right to allow further new evidence/testimony once the DNA report has been received and discussed in open court.

But once all the evidence & testimony (that carried over from the first trial, coupled with all the additional evidence/testimony allowed by Hellmann) has been gathered, both sides will start the argument phase of the trial from scratch. They (and the court, if it so desires) will argue the case purely based upon the evidence and testimony before it - and without any reference to the first trial's arguments or verdict. The appeal court's judicial panel will then deliberate the case based purely upon the evidence/testimony and arguments placed before them in the appeal trial, and will reach a verdict completely independent of that in the first trial.

 

[Kevinfay]

kevinfay,

I don't think that Chris C or RoseMontague have particularly high opinions of Ms. Knox; there is a spectrum of opinions even among the pro-innocence commenters. Glad you are back. Many have asked you questions or made comments in response to things you said. Speaking only for myself, I hope the appeal lasts long enough to reexamine the major elements of the first trial. That includes DNA, TOD, and the break-in.

Halides,

I hope I can answer the questions that have been posted .. if I don't this evening, I will over the weekend. ... it seems to be rather unhealthy to become too engrossed in the case?, I know it can turn from a healthy interest in seeing that justice is done and simply learning how thing operate in another, not so different, culture, into a very unhealthy obsession?.

As I understand it, the appeal rightly re-examines all the major elements you mention, and to be doubly fair to the defendants, also a few things I would rule irrelevant ... jailhouse chit chat, might come into that category?.

I think I'll start by answering the remarks about the failure to record Knox's questioning before 01:45 .... when she blurted out her confession, that she was present at the cottage. Then I'll run through the rest.

 

[Katody Matrass]

As you know, on PMF, posters are only welcome if they hate Knox with all the passion of a Westboro Baptist church member ... just as here, they get the same if they don't love Knox.

Kevinfay, no one's going to ban you from here I for one welcome you wholeheartedly. I'm longing for some clear and well argued representation of the pro-guilt side.

Anyway, providing the audios are posted for Knox's appeal testimony, then if Thoughtful doesn't produce English transcripts this time, I will. The appeal will be very much shorter than the main trial ... it is not a full re-trial as some posters appear to think ... or perhaps hope?.

Great to hear your declaration.
As for the length of the appeal trial I remember predictions of "few days" or "a week or two". So far it's half a year already and still no light at the end of the tunnel.

 

[Kevinfay]

kevinfay,

At the FOA website I found a letter coauthored by two forensic scientists and cosigned by seven more criticizing the DNA evidence. I also found a review article on the uses of luminol. Is putting out forensic information absurd? a joke?

Halides,

The trial and appeal are conducted in a courtroom in Perugia. If there are forenics experts who could help Knox's case, wouldn't it be more effective to contact her defense team and make the evidence available to them?.

 

[Kevinfay]

You're wrong here. The first appeal trial is indeed a full retrial. The reason why it is typically far shorter in duration than the first trial is that the majority of the evidence and witness testimony is carried straight across from the first trial, without having to be introduced or heard again. But even here, both the prosecution and defence can request that the judge allows the introduction of additional new evidence or testimony - if the appeal judge agrees that there is a good reason for allowing the additional evidence/testimony, then he will agree to the requests.

This is currently the position we are at in the Knox/Sollecito appeal: Hellmann has approved the defence's request for additional evidence in the form of an independent DNA analysis, and for additional testimony from Curatolo and the inmates. He has also reserved the right to allow further new evidence/testimony once the DNA report has been received and discussed in open court.


But once all the evidence & testimony (that carried over from the first trial, coupled with all the additional evidence/testimony allowed by Hellmann) has been gathered, both sides will start the argument phase of the trial from scratch. They (and the court, if it so desires) will argue the case purely based upon the evidence and testimony before it - and without any reference to the first trial's arguments or verdict. The appeal court's judicial panel will then deliberate the case based purely upon the evidence/testimony and arguments placed before them in the appeal trial, and will reach a verdict completely independent of that in the first trial.

Londonjohn,

Exactly, the original witnesses etc. will not be recalled and new evidence won't be introduced, unless Hellmann allows it. I am sure this will be done in a fair and transparent way .... however, we'll end up with a shorter number of total court days, even if the overall duration seems excessive to anglosaxon observers.

For me, the important thing is that it is fair and transparent, as the first trial was.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the fairness of the appeal

As I understand it, the appeal rightly re-examines all the major elements you mention, and to be doubly fair to the defendants, also a few things I would rule irrelevant ... jailhouse chit chat, might come into that category?

kevinfay,

I don't yet see the appeal as being entirely fair on the issue of DNA. It is fine that independent experts are looking at the data, but it would be better to allow more defense witnesses to testify after they have examined the electronic data files and other files that were not released. Speaking not from a legal standpoint but a logical one, the inconsistency with respect to the TOD in Guede's trial versus this one is problematic for me.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

witness for the defense

Halides,

The trial and appeal are conducted in a courtroom in Perugia. If there are forenics experts who could help Knox's case, wouldn't it be more effective to contact her defense team and make the evidence available to them?.

kevinfay,

I wrote my original comment in response to your assertion that the FOA was a joke. With respect to the trial and appeal, I have documented here and elsewhere that the defense team and the forensic scientists with which it consulted were denied the electronic data files that they needed to examine and to rebut the prosecution's case. Judge Hellmann did accept a letter from one forensic scientist at the beginning of the trial, but he has not allowed the defense to call any new DNA forensic witnesses (yet), and I am not entirely comfortable with that decision. That caveat noted, Conti and Vecchiotti have impressed me so far, and I eagerly await the results of their report.
EDT
The first trial was neither fair nor transparent. Dr. Stefanoni was not forthcoming with the information on the negative TMB tests or the amount of DNA on the clasp. That alone would be grounds for a mistrial in some jurisdictions. The failure of the prosecution to turn over machine logs and standard operating procedures (as well as the EDFs) is an even more egregious problem, IMO.

 

[Kevinfay]

Prove it

Seeing that he was the only person who DNA, oh I forgot, his finger prints,
and blood shoe prints, and what an ******* he was in Perugia.
IT all there in black or white, take it or leave it

Plassssssssssssssse give some real facts and not a load of ********

Edited by LashL: 

Edited to properly mask profanity. Please see Rule 10 and the explanatory note here.

Zeb,

Would you mind reposting this message?. It would be difficult to understand the point you are trying to make, even without the ***** s

 

[Kevinfay]

kevinfay,

I wrote my original comment in response to your assertion that the FOA was a joke. With respect to the trial and appeal, I have documented here and elsewhere that the defense team and the forensic scientists with which it consulted were denied the electronic data files that they needed to examine and to rebut the prosecution's case. Judge Hellmann did accept a letter from one forensic scientist at the beginning of the trial, but he has not allowed the defense to call any new DNA forensic witnesses (yet), and I am not entirely comfortable with that decision. That caveat noted, Conti and Vecchiotti have impressed me so far, and I eagerly await the results of their report.
EDT
The first trial was neither fair nor transparent. Dr. Stefanoni was not forthcoming with the information on the negative TMB tests or the amount of DNA on the clasp. That alone would be grounds for a mistrial in some jurisdictions. The failure of the prosecution to turn over machine logs and standard operating procedures (as well as the EDFs) is an even more egregious problem, IMO.

halides,

OK, we agree that there is an effective and ineffective way of being a 'Friend of Amanda'?. I would go so far as to say that the FOA has also been dismally poor at being friends of Knox's family ... encouraging them to make statements designed to interfere with the judicial process and to make unfounded statements about the conduct of the police.

The stark contrast between the Knox family/FAO behaviour and that of Meredith's family had no bearing on the outcome of the trial, but has made a bad situation worse for Curt and his family?

Calling the FOA a joke is perhaps an understatement?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

To save time, could you list the elements which you believe were not adressed correctly in the first trial, that you think will not be addressed in the appeal ... those are the ones we need to be thinking about?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I've seen that several posters seem to be concerned that Knox's questioning was not recorded before she made her confession to being present at the murder scene at ... the interview was terminated 01:45, because she then became an offical suspect, and the interview could not continue without her having a lawyer.

I would like to say that if recording potential witness interviews was standard procedure in Perugia, or indeed Italy, in November 2007, I share the outrage of my fellow posters.

If this does prove to be the case, then following my trip to Siena on 2nd July, for the Palio Festival, I will travel a little further south to Perugia to register my protest both with the chief of police and the head of the police union .... personally.

We could also make our views know at the annual police conference ... where incidently, in 2007, before the murder was committed, the head of the police union talked about the problem of accusations of misconduct against the police becoming part of the standard defense in all major trials ... the lawyers, criminologists, etc. as well as serving officers, seemed to have decided that the only solution was to test such allegations in court, which of course later happened to the families of AK, RS and others who followed the same strategy.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Physics and Physiology in Perugia

kevinfay,

You gave no specifics with respect to what Amanda's parents said or did; therefore, your argument about the FOA is insubstantial. However, I don't see how one can defend Amanda and Raffaele without sooner or later mentioning all of the (in cognizance of Frank Sfarzo's recent experiences) misstatements that ILE made over the course of the investigation. The link I provided links to three previous posts, the first of which is the most extensive list.

You wrote, "To save time, could you list the elements which you believe were not adressed correctly in the first trial, that you think will not be addressed in the appeal ... those are the ones we need to be thinking about?"

I am not certain of everything that the appeals court will agree to examine. Let me mention a few things that struck me about the first trial, beyond the lack of discovery with respect to the forensics, as I mentioned upthread (citations available on request). Allowing the prosecution to move the TOD back at least an hour in its close, and allowing the main trial and the slander trial to run concurrently were perhaps the worst. Allowing PM Mignini to stuff words into Amanda's mouth during his close (as noted at the blog Simple Justice) was pretty bad as well. It would be idiotic for the appeals court not to examine TOD from the point of view of stomach contents. In addition, I would like to see Sgt. Pasquali's results with respect to the rock be argued a second time. I am fairly certain that the laws of physics and physiology operate the same in Perugia as the rest of the planet, but perhaps Massei had a good reasons for believing otherwise.

 

[spartacus]

halides,

OK, we agree that there is an effective and ineffective way of being a 'Friend of Amanda'?. I would go so far as to say that the FOA has also been dismally poor at being friends of Knox's family ... encouraging them to make statements designed to interfere with the judicial process and to make unfounded statements about the conduct of the police.

The stark contrast between the Knox family/FAO behaviour and that of Meredith's family had no bearing on the outcome of the trial, but has made a bad situation worse for Curt and his family?

Calling the FOA a joke is perhaps an understatement?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

To save time, could you list the elements which you believe were not adressed correctly in the first trial, that you think will not be addressed in the appeal ... those are the ones we need to be thinking about?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I've seen that several posters seem to be concerned that Knox's questioning was not recorded before she made her confession to being present at the murder scene at ... the interview was terminated 01:45, because she then became an offical suspect, and the interview could not continue without her having a lawyer.

I would like to say that if recording potential witness interviews was standard procedure in Perugia, or indeed Italy, in November 2007, I share the outrage of my fellow posters.

First of all, could you tell us who is in the FOA? I found a web site but never a list of the members of that notorious organization. Is it connected to the Masonic order of the Red Rose with bases in Seattle and Leeds formed to train youngsters in demonic ways, identified by the cunning medium Gabriella Carlizzi, whose channeling from the dead Padre Pietro Mignini used to formulate his opinion of a sexual human sacrifice that underlay the murder of Meredith Kercher that he presented to the court in the pre-trial hearing?

Or is rather a label thrown at anyone who writes on these forums that think this case may have been royally screwed up? I don't know why it is embarassing to advocate for truth and justice, do you? I think it is rather a good idea to try and get to the bottom of the case. There are a number of people here who are very knowledgeable about the case and there are a large list of examples of problems with how the investigation was handled. As for publicity, most of us are no longer interested in the theory of the "million dollar media campaign". We haven't heard from the PR firm in over a year, as far as I know. And to update you, in the past year there was only one pro-guilt article in The Sun followed two days later by a remarkable article that included Mignini putting his foot in the mouth with the conclusion drawn by the paper that the case was a disgrace. In the US, there has been a steady stream of stories on CNN, ABC etc best summarized by a journalist stating that she was "railroaded". In Perugia/Umbria there is a string of articles about the "shock interview" of Mignini that was passed on to Oggi.

Have a good day.

 

[Kevinfay]

kevinfay,

You gave no specifics with respect to what Amanda's parents said or did; therefore, your argument about the FOA is insubstantial. However, I don't see how one can defend Amanda and Raffaele without sooner or later mentioning all of the (in cognizance of Frank Sfarzo's recent experiences) misstatements that ILE made over the course of the investigation. The link I provided links to three previous posts, the first of which is the most extensive list.

You wrote, "To save time, could you list the elements which you believe were not adressed correctly in the first trial, that you think will not be addressed in the appeal ... those are the ones we need to be thinking about?"

I am not certain of everything that the appeals court will agree to examine. Let me mention a few things that struck me about the first trial, beyond the lack of discovery with respect to the forensics, as I mentioned upthread (citations available on request). Allowing the prosecution to move the TOD back at least an hour in its close, and allowing the main trial and the slander trial to run concurrently were perhaps the worst. Allowing PM Mignini to stuff words into Amanda's mouth during his close (as noted at the blog Simple Justice) was pretty bad as well. It would be idiotic for the appeals court not to examine TOD from the point of view of stomach contents. In addition, I would like to see Sgt. Pasquali's results with respect to the rock be argued a second time. I am fairly certain that the laws of physics and physiology operate the same in Perugia as the rest of the planet, but perhaps Massei had a good reasons for believing otherwise.

halides,

I'm sure we will get around to discussing all your points, however, it seems that the Time Of Death is something which particulary concerns people ... I must admit that when I first heard this, I thought 'even the experts never claim to be so precise'. If this is an area that the defense do not want to reopen in the appeal, I am happy to approach the issue with an open mind.

That said, if the issue is not being re opened, by either the defense teams of AK and RS, we must ask why?

 

[Katody Matrass]

halides,

I'm sure we will get around to discussing all your points, however, it seems that the Time Of Death is something which particulary concerns people ... I must admit that when I first heard this, I thought 'even the experts never claim to be so precise'. If this is an area that the defense do not want to reopen in the appeal, I am happy to approach the issue with an open mind.

That said, if the issue is not being re opened, by either the defense teams of AK and RS, we must ask why?

What makes you think defense do not want to reopen ToD issue? Isn't it a substantial part of the appeal motion?