Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[CoulsdonUK]

Maresca was originally hired to prevent another autopsy and to get Meredith's body released to the family. It is clear to me that his actions indicate the Kercher's had already decided on guilt before the trial even began. Mr. Kercher's article listing the reasons he believed in guilt was telling. He has bought the prosecution case hook, line, and sinking ship.

If it were my daughter the very last people I would be thinking about would be those arrested for her murder and I would want to get her home as soon as possible; the Kercher family’s response to Meredith’s murder has been completely normal in my opinion and like the Sollecito’s and Knox’s they are entitled to voice their opinion.

 

[christianahannah]

I don't think it was really the money, Christiana, was Maresca ever in court against Rudy? Did he insist upon more aggravations or contest mitigations? I'm pretty sure all fast track does is lop a third off the top of the sentence when the rest is done, the other factors matter too, otherwise why would they bother with them?

Do you think apologizing for not being the murderer amounts to remorse?

A link in English concerning the civil action filed by Maresca against Rudy, even though Rudy opted for a fast-track trial.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...edith-Kercher-claim-20m-damages-suspects.html

And I agree, a civil suit instigated in a murder trial is very rarely about money for the plaintiffs, for if the defendant(s) are found guilty there is usually no money to be recovered.

Added later: Sorry I missed your last question: Do I think someone can later be remorseful for a horrendous act which they have committed? I suppose so, however, I don't see where that helped Rudy in any way - his sentence given was a result of the fast-track trial (not his apology) and he had a pretty hefty monetary judgement against him as well.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Judge says he needs to hear Rudy.

LOL.

Interesting according Ms Nadeau Aviello flew into a rage sadly she doesn’t say why she also mentions the judge needs to speak to Rudy.

In what way do you mean “actively working on the side of the prosecution”?, he could hardly be acting on the behalf of Meredith and her family and sit with the defence.

 

[katy_did]

Judge says he needs to hear Rudy.

LOL.

Ha. I'm starting to think Hellmann is just looking to create the maximum number of plot twists for the film version, to make sure he gets a decent role in it - I can see the dramatic scene already, the Courtroom waiting with bated breath for Rudy Guede to arrive and to say...what?!

If Guede does have to testify (I'll wait for an independent source, given Barbie Nadeau's record of (in)accuracy ) I think that will be good for the defence. Guede will probably try and stick to his story about being in the bathroom and coming out to find someone (Raffaele) attacking Meredith, and everyone agrees he's lying about that. The defence should be able to tear him apart if he clings to that story; he'll look like a liar. Could even be a key bit of testimony if they manage to catch him out. Of course, he could also just sit there and refuse to say anything - probably the best strategy, from his point of view!

 

[RoseMontague]

Interesting according Ms Nadeau Aviello flew into a rage sadly she doesn’t say why she also mentions the judge needs to speak to Rudy.

In what way do you mean “actively working on the side of the prosecution”?, he could hardly be acting on the behalf of Meredith and her family and sit with the defence.

Exactly. The Kerchers were not searching for the truth, in their minds the truth had already been decided before the trial began. That is the reason Maresca was in court for the trial. The search for justice for the Kerchers is simply making sure Amanda and Raffaele are found guilty and now for the appeal it is simply the same.

 

[RoseMontague]

Ha. I'm starting to think Hellmann is just looking to create the maximum number of plot twists for the film version, to make sure he gets a decent role in it - I can see the dramatic scene already, the Courtroom waiting with bated breath for Rudy Guede to arrive and to say...what?!

If Guede does have to testify (I'll wait for an independent source, given Barbie Nadeau's record of (in)accuracy ) I think that will be good for the defence. Guede will probably try and stick to his story about being in the bathroom and coming out to find someone (Raffaele) attacking Meredith, and everyone agrees he's lying about that. The defence should be able to tear him apart if he clings to that story; he'll look like a liar. Could even be a key bit of testimony if they manage to catch him out. Of course, he could also just sit there and refuse to say anything - probably the best strategy, from his point of view!

Think Maresca will fight this one as well?

 

[Katody Matrass]

Judge says he needs to hear Rudy.

LOL.

That's it.

I was wondering all that time what purpose Hellmann had on mind when he suddenly agreed on that one minor request of the defense. The request to hear the jail witnesses had seemingly little to offer what would help decide the case compared to the requests for the computer data or ToD reevaluation etc.
But neither defense nor the prosecution had the will to hear Guede on the stand. Looks like Hellmann allowed the jailhouse witnesses to get Guede.

 

[christianahannah]

Ha. I'm starting to think Hellmann is just looking to create the maximum number of plot twists for the film version, to make sure he gets a decent role in it - I can see the dramatic scene already, the Courtroom waiting with bated breath for Rudy Guede to arrive and to say...what?!

If Guede does have to testify (I'll wait for an independent source, given Barbie Nadeau's record of (in)accuracy ) I think that will be good for the defence. Guede will probably try and stick to his story about being in the bathroom and coming out to find someone (Raffaele) attacking Meredith, and everyone agrees he's lying about that. The defence should be able to tear him apart if he clings to that story; he'll look like a liar. Could even be a key bit of testimony if they manage to catch him out. Of course, he could also just sit there and refuse to say anything - probably the best strategy, from his point of view!

Couldn't Rudy also just stick to the accuracy or inaccuracy of what Alessi testified to in court? Why couldn't Rudy say Alessi made the story up and leave it at that?

 

[Danceme]

I think you are confusing Alessi and Luciano Aviello.

Yes, you're right. Same thing though, isn't he also one of the witnesses? And it's still a valid point about no one even presuming to search for the so called evidence.

Maresca was originally hired to prevent another autopsy and to get Meredith's body released to the family. It is clear to me that his actions indicate the Kercher's had already decided on guilt before the trial even began. Mr. Kercher's article listing the reasons he believed in guilt was telling. He has bought the prosecution case hook, line, and sinking ship.

jeez, not you too! On what evidence can you say that? You have no idea what was going on in the Kercher's minds, and if you can cast your mind back they seemed a little non-committal in their statement about the verdict.

Exactly. The Kerchers were not searching for the truth, in their minds the truth had already been decided before the trial began. That is the reason Maresca was in court for the trial. The search for justice for the Kerchers is simply making sure Amanda and Raffaele are found guilty and now for the appeal it is simply the same.

Rose, really!

 

[katy_did]

Think Maresca will fight this one as well?

Hmmm, that's going to be a tough one for him, isn't it?! Making Rudy look bad would help Amanda and Raffaele, but if he goes easy on him (or doesn't question him) that'll tell its own story...

 

[Danceme]

The Kercher's seem a sane, level headed lot. They are likely not obsessed with Internet forums on this case and discussing all the minutia discussed here. They are simply a family who lost their beloved daughter in horribly tragic circumstances and their only fault is trusting in the courts to find the truth. I'm sure they are not out there trying to dissect it for themselves, that would be too painful, so I fail to understand the lack of compassion shown them here by Kaosium and Rose Montague, just to name the latest posting such drivel about them. You should be ashamed. They are victims too.

 

[katy_did]

Couldn't Rudy also just stick to the accuracy or inaccuracy of what Alessi testified to in court? Why couldn't Rudy say Alessi made the story up and leave it at that?

Once on the stand, wouldn't he have to answer the defence lawyers' questions, though? If so, I can't imagine they'll let him get away with just saying Alessi's story isn't true without giving his account of what is true. I guess it will depend both on how much freedom the defence have to question him, and on the tactics they decide to use.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Exactly. The Kerchers were not searching for the truth, in their minds the truth had already been decided before the trial began. That is the reason Maresca was in court for the trial. The search for justice for the Kerchers is simply making sure Amanda and Raffaele are found guilty and now for the appeal it is simply the same.

That is your opinion and of course you are entitled to it, I would say your version of truth differs from the Kercher’s.

 

[christianahannah]

Exactly. The Kerchers were not searching for the truth, in their minds the truth had already been decided before the trial began. That is the reason Maresca was in court for the trial. The search for justice for the Kerchers is simply making sure Amanda and Raffaele are found guilty and now for the appeal it is simply the same.

No, I'm pretty sure the Kerchers were searching for the truth - as horrible as that truth would be for them to bear.

 

[christianahannah]

Once on the stand, wouldn't he have to answer the defence lawyers' questions, though? If so, I can't imagine they'll let him get away with just saying Alessi's story isn't true without giving his account of what is true. I guess it will depend both on how much freedom the defence have to question him, and on the tactics they decide to use.

I am not sure whether the questioning would be a free-for-all or narrowly limited to what was alleged Rudy had said to Alessi.

Obviously, the defense can ask whatever questions they want, however, whether the court will demand Rudy answer those questions will remain to be seen.

I also wonder whether Rudy will be represented by Biscotti should Rudy be called to court.

 

[Fine]

Mario Alessi ain't showin' much respect for Maresca's tactics either....

During the hearing, the photograph of little Tommaso Onofri was shown by the Kercher family lawyer, Francesco Maresca. Addressing a few questions to Alessi, at one point showed him the photograph of the child. "You know who this is?". Asked the lawyer to the witness. "No," said Alessi. "Okay, we know it," said the lawyer, then Maresca. Repubblica

///

 

[zeb]

Kercher

Just to put things right the Kerchers, was in court for the first day of the trial, and on the very last day of the trial.
So what they are doing is relaying on Maresca, to inform them about the case.
Even I sure the government of the UK would have found a way for one of the Kercher family to be in Italy, and give that member unemployment funds paid to that member of the family, to say in Italy,
If that member of the family could not get a job, which what I am reading, Amanda got a job.
The DWB would turn a blind eye, and just pay out, yes they are hard, but humans as well, to tell you the truth, they would bend the rules as far as a member of the Kercher family was in Italy.
And please do no for get, John Kercher was up set that the government would not pay £10.000 pound for his and family say in Italy, for two days.
That trip for two days would be £2.000 if they took the cheep rout, and that mean food and a bed to sleep in.

 

[Danceme]

But neither defense nor the prosecution had the will to hear Guede on the stand. Looks like Hellmann allowed the jailhouse witnesses to get Guede.

What does this actually mean? It's my understanding Rudy exercised his right to silence in A and R's trial, not that no one had the will to hear him.

 

[Katody Matrass]

What does this actually mean? It's my understanding Rudy exercised his right to silence in A and R's trial, not that no one had the will to hear him.

Just my speculation. Apparently it's possible to put Guede on the stand this time, whether he likes it or not, yet no one asked for it before Hellmann did it today.

 

[Danceme]

Just to put things right the Kerchers, was in court for the first day of the trial, and on the very last day of the trial.
So what they are doing is relaying on Maresca, to inform them about the case.
Even I sure the government of the UK would have found a way for one of the Kercher family to be in Italy, and give that member unemployment funds paid to that member of the family, to say in Italy,
If that member of the family could not get a job, which what I am reading, Amanda got a job.
The DWB would turn a blind eye, and just pay out, yes they are hard, but humans as well, to tell you the truth, they would bend the rules as far as a member of the Kercher family was in Italy.
And please do no for get, John Kercher was up set that the government would not pay £10.000 pound for his and family say in Italy, for two days.
That trip for two days would be £2.000 if they took the cheep rout, and that mean food and a bed to sleep in.

You do seem to imagine or make up a disproportionate amount of stuff zeb. So are we to believe the UK offers unemployment funds to nationals having to attend trials elsewhere? And can you post the link to the evidence On that 10,000 please.