Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Katody Matrass said:
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.
Click to expand...

It was asked for, he took the stand and said he was exercising his right to silence, then stepped back down.
 
christianahannah said:
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.
Click to expand...

Alessi's questioning seems to have been quite broad, with Maresca questioning him about his own conviction etc. Also, I would think that if Rudy is denying the version of events Alessi gave, the question of what he claims really did happen would naturally arise from that. Not too sure though, very interesting to see how it plays out.

Alessi had his lawyer in court, so I would think Guede's lawyer would have to be there too?
 
Danceme said:
It was asked for, he took the stand and said he was exercising his right to silence, then stepped back down.
Click to expand...

Does he still have that right now? Will he show up in court to say he choses silence in face of each question of the defense?
 
This says that the request to hear Guede was made by the prosecution, and granted by the court (i.e. Hellmann). It also says the prosecution will have other inmates testify, as well as two officers from the Perugia Questura.
 
Try Again

Danceme said:
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.
Click to expand...
.

Yes if you are in a part of the EU, you will still get, your Unemployment benefits, and that is a real fact, 10.000 is what your very good mates like to quote, you know Harry rag, and en co.
But seening you are on you last legs.
I will for give you this time
:D
 
Katody Matrass said:
Does he still have that right now? Will he show up in court to say he choses silence in face of each question of the defense?
Click to expand...


No, Guede can be forced to testify, in the same way as the witnesses today were forced to testify. If they invoke their right to silence, they can be found in contempt and given additional jail time. It's only when one is a defendant that one can invoke the right not to testify in one's own defence. I suspect that Guede would retain the right against self-incrimination, even when testifying as a witness, but that's a different matter.

Incidentally, I think that most people (especially the pro-guilt mob, who have a vested interest in getting it wrong) are misunderstanding the mechanism whereby the five inmates came to be testifying today. Sollecito's appeal asked that they be heard so that their stories could be tested in open court. The defence teams didn't argue that the inmates' stories were necessarily believable - only that they needed to be heard and tested in order to properly determine their veracity (or lack of). This is a vestige of Italy's inquisitorial system - it's incumbent upon the courts to use every reasonable means to determine the truth. In this case, the defence teams were essentially arguing that Massei's court had arbitrarily decided that the inmates' stories would add nothing to the court's search for the truth - the defences argued that this was an incorrect ruling, and that the inmates needed to be heard in order to make a proper determination.

Therefore, when I read people saying things like "This could backfire hugely on the defence if the inmates are shown to be telling a pack of lies", that's completely incorrect - and probably willfully so. The defence only ever argued that these inmates should be heard in open court, and that all parties should have the opportunity to question them and test their stories. Of course, if either Alessi or Aviello can be determined to be telling the truth, then this would be positive for Knox's/Sollecito's defence. But if they are all revealed to be liars, fantasists or simply utterly unreliable, then it's not a blow at all to the defence.

Think of a counter-example as an analogy. Suppose that a man had contacted the court to say that he had seen Knox and Sollecito coming out of the front door of the girls' cottage at 11.45pm with blood all over their hands and both brandishing knives. Suppose that the court decided that this "witness" should testify and be cross-examined by all parties. If the witness was examined in court and his testimony were found to be reliable and accurate, then this would be a huge development in favour of the prosecution, and against Knox's/Sollecito's defence.

But suppose instead that this "witness" was discovered during the court examination to be a serial liar in important criminal cases, and that the man was actually verifiably somewhere else in Perugia at the time when he had claimed to have witnessed Knox and Sollecito exiting the cottage. His testimony would therefore be ruled to be unreliable and worthless. But this would not count "against" the prosecution, or "for" Knox/Sollecito. It would merely not move the case one way or another. And this is exactly the situation with the inmate testimony: it will either be positive for Knox/Sollecito, or it will be neutral. It cannot harm Knox/Sollecito if the inmates are found to be unreliable or inaccurate.

Lastly, it was virtually inevitable that Guede would be called to the stand once the court decided that there might be some merit to Alessi's (and the three other corroborating inmates') story. This is because the testimony of Alessi and the other three is no more than hearsay as it affects the case against Knox and Sollecito. The court will need to hear primary testimony from Guede before it makes a proper decision as to whether it's likely that he indeed told Alessi that neither Knox nor Sollecito were involved.

Lastly lastly(!), I know that Twitter is only a frivolous endeavour, but Latza Nadeau has really shown her true colours in her court commentary today. The testimony of Alessi, Aviello and the other inmates should be judged on its merits, with the obvious caveat that they are all serving prison sentences for crimes of varying severity. But to refer to Alessi throughout as "child killer" or "baby killer" (and to Aviello as "mafioso brother") is ludicrously inflammatory and unnecessary. She also doesn't seem to get the reason why their testimony is being heard, which makes a further mockery of her credentials as a so-called "serious journalist". She's a joke, I'm afraid.
 
@Kaosium I also got pissed off reading Barbie's tweets. It was the repeated reference to baby killers that got me. I hope she doesn't write more drivel for Newsweek.

This article says that Alessi testified that Rudy made an emotional confession and that he told him to tell the truth or he would since two innocent people were in jail. He said that he and a friend went to Meredith's house and surprised her. They must have caught her when she was going in the door. They sat on the couch and proposed a menage a trois which she refused and told them to leave. Rudy went to the bathroom and when he came back his friend was on top of her. He masturbated while his friend tried to force oral sex. she wriggled around and he pulled out a knife and she was stabbed in the neck. he tried to stop the bleeding put his friend said they had to finish the job or they would rot in jail. He also said the Knox and Sollecito had nothing to do with it and the story of the prosecutor and TV were wrong.

During the hearing Alessi was treated by a doctor for low blood pressure. At one point he became faint. He was informed that he was being charged by the prosecutor for libel for his statements and they adjourned because apparently he did not have a lawyer present.
 
Danceme said:
Kaosium, I don't think "moral superiority" is limited to one side or the other incidentally.
I do believe the Kercher's had a need for a lawyer, as their advocate, translator, protector, legal educator, whatever.
Click to expand...

That's vacuous nonsense. Advocate? What on Earth for? Protector? From whom? The Kerchers don't need "protection" or "advocacy". Nobody is attacking them or making accusations against them - unlike the Knox and Sollecito families. If John Kercher or another member of his family feel they have to attend court during proceedings then I will agree with you that they need a translator and someone to explain the legal issues, but there's no way their advisor's role should be extending beyond that as far as the trial is concerned.

There is no justification for the representative of the Kerchers to be trying to influence the result of the trial, as Maresca has been doing. The interests of the Kerchers (as for the rest of us) are purely that the truth of their daughter's murder should be established, and that the questions should be answered. Ironically, by acting as part of the prosecution team, Maresca has been doing the opposite of this. Instead of doing this, why hasn't he been asking the police the obvious tough questions about their bungled investigation? Apparently, they didn't even get Meredith's belongings back, including some presents she had bought specifically for them.

They were foreigners as much as Amanda was and needed someone. I can't see why you have a problem with that. I can understand your animosity toward Maresca but not on whether they should have retained a lawyer or not.
Click to expand...

Kindly explain what services a lawyer can provide that are needed by someone in the position of the Kercher family.
 
CoulsdonUK said:
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.
Click to expand...

RoseMontague said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hard as it may be for Maresca supporters to grasp, this is exactly why having legal representation for the victim's family in a murder trial is inimical with justice.
 
Antony said:
That's vacuous nonsense. Advocate? What on Earth for? Protector? From whom? The Kerchers don't need "protection" or "advocacy". Nobody is attacking them or making accusations against them - unlike the Knox and Sollecito families. If John Kercher or another member of his family feel they have to attend court during proceedings then I will agree with you that they need a translator and someone to explain the legal issues, but there's no way their advisor's role should be extending beyond that as far as the trial is concerned.

There is no justification for the representative of the Kerchers to be trying to influence the result of the trial, as Maresca has been doing. The interests of the Kerchers (as for the rest of us) are purely that the truth of their daughter's murder should be established, and that the questions should be answered. Ironically, by acting as part of the prosecution team, Maresca has been doing the opposite of this. Instead of doing this, why hasn't he been asking the police the obvious tough questions about their bungled investigation? Apparently, they didn't even get Meredith's belongings back, including some presents she had bought specifically for them.



Kindly explain what services a lawyer can provide that are needed by someone in the position of the Kercher family.
Click to expand...


Ah but you are making a mistaken comparison with the purely adversarial (prosecution vs defence) anglo-saxon criminal justice system. The Italian system is currently a sort of ugly (and imprecise) hybrid system, with lots of elements of the original inquisitorial system still in place. Under the inquisitorial system, all stakeholders in justice (including the state, the defendant, the court and the victim) have the right to participate actively in the proceedings. This element remains in place, and it means that not only can the victim (or the victim's family in this case) participate in questioning witnesses and arguing the case, but the court itself can also do the same.

So it's not wrong or unusual for the victim's family to be represented by a lawyer in this case. One might also say that it's entirely natural for the victim's lawyer to broadly follow the prosecution argument - it would certainly be unusual if the victim's lawyer were more in step with the defence lawyers, unless the victim thought that the people on trial were innocent. But either way, what it boils down to is that Meredith's family have a right to have a representative in court, and that their representative (Maresca) has the right to participate in the proceedings as he sees fit.

I realise that those of us accustomed to an anglo-saxon system are bemused by the victim having a lawyer involved, and are even more bemused by seeing that lawyer attacking the defence. But I don't think it makes any difference in the bigger picture: the court still has to weigh everything up and decide whether the defendants have been proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In this particular case, if Maresca were to help to provide proof (which he isn't and hasn't - his input seems to be limited to unpleasant sniping), then one couldn't see that as a bad thing in terms of the search for justice.
 
So far I only read one piece on today's hearing and it was the one of Nadeau's. I can't get past her so called articles.

So can someone, please, do a little summary of what happend today?

1.Was it any good for Amanda and Raffale?

2.Did all the inmates testify?

3.What was the outcome?

4. What's with Guede on the stand? From what I've read it was requested by the prosecution. Is it a good thing that he will be testifying and what will he say? Any ideas?

Thanks in advance.
 
snook1 said:
So far I only read one piece on today's hearing and it was the one of Nadeau's. I can't get past her so called articles.

So can someone, please, do a little summary of what happend today?

1.Was it any good for Amanda and Raffale?

2.Did all the inmates testify?

3.What was the outcome?

4. What's with Guede on the stand? From what I've read it was requested by the prosecution. Is it a good thing that he will be testifying and what will he say? Any ideas?

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

1. Overall, yes, maybe. didn't hurt.

2. Alessi, at least one other. Not the my brother did it Mafia guy.

3. See link below

4. yes, yes, we don't know.

This is the best English version out there

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...8BNn_g?docId=352059ed2ad64caab1c5eef06156f1d3
 
Antony said:
Hard as it may be for Maresca supporters to grasp, this is exactly why having legal representation for the victim's family in a murder trial is inimical with justice.
Click to expand...
As you are fully aware the Kercher’s have the right to counsel under Italian jurisprudence, this is a simple fact so I fail to see how it can be viewed as “inimical”. Marseca is there and he is not going anywhere.
 
full sentences

Kevinfay said:
Kaosium,

Sollecito and Knox's lives on the line?

Niether Sollecito nor Knox risk having their lives ended like Meredith and the baby?
Click to expand...
kevinfay,

If Knox and Sollecito serve their full sentences, they will not have careers, may not have families, and will be generally reviled. By the time that they are released, their parents may have died and possibly even some of their friends. Their lives would be effectively ruined.
 
halides1 said:
CoulsdonUK,

It is up to the jury to determine Alessi's credibility in this case, not you or me.
Click to expand...
Halides1

Interesting, I thought I was doing what everyone does on JREF you included, which is to express an opinion then discuss with my fellow posters. My observations of Alessi and how the “lay jury members” may view him still stand, by the way did you read all my posts today?
 
Mr. Maresca

Danceme said:
I really think your outrage over the Kercher's having a lawyer is completely over the top and just goes to show you're incapable of seeing this whole case from any point of view other than as one of Amanda Knox's most impassioned supporters.
You even said they shouldn't have retained one because it isn't required by Italian law, therefore it must have been Mignini's idea. Have you even stopped to consider the overwhelming emotion and confusion the Kercher family must have been feeling when informed their daughter was brutally murdered in another country, one where they didn't understand the language or justice system.
Put yourself in their shoes for a moment and stop with the ludicrous misguided outrage.
Click to expand...
Danceme,

I respect your opinion quite a bit, even if I don't always agree with it. But it seems to me that you are failing to understand why some of us think that Maresca's role has been so pernicious in this case. When the SC decision came down in 2008 that Amanda and Raffaele (at one point in solitary confinement) had to spend nearly a year in custody before even being indicted, PM Mignini and Mr. Maresca hugged each other. They claimed it was because the evidence was good, but we now know that much of it was of dubious quality. Mr. Maresca asked Andrew Seliber, whom I believe had flown to Italy at his own expense to testify, about Amanda's sex life in Seattle (totally inappropriate, IMO). Mr. Maresca had the chutzpah to talk about how Italy was showing the world how to do forensics despite the fact that the defense had its right of discovery trampled upon. When Conti and Vecchiotti asked to open up the knife, Mr. Maresca jumped up to object. How did that serve justice?! And now this.

The Kercher's hired Mr. Maresca to act in effect as a second prosecutor long before the trial of the first instance. This was a questionable decision at the time, IMO, and it looks worse in hindsight. They are surely victims of Rudi Guede, but Mr. Maresca's actions have indirectly hurt them in addition to Mr. Guede's terrible, senseless crime.
 
atypical

CoulsdonUK said:
Halides1

Interesting, I thought I was doing what everyone does on JREF you included, which is to express an opinion then discuss with my fellow posters. My observations of Alessi and how the “lay jury members” may view him still stand, by the way did you read all my posts today?
Click to expand...
CoulsdonUK,

I saw that you mentioned that it was yet to be seen how Alessi's credibility with the jury was going to play out. Your comments earlier seemed quite atypical for you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom