Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[CoulsdonUK]

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.

Where is the evidence that the Kercher family hired Maresca as a second prosecutor?
Questionable decision, what were they thinking?, oh that’s right their daughter had just been brutally murdered and in case of Meredith mother and sister they had just seen her body in the morgue and you conclude with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight that “it looks worse” for the Kercher’s; really how?

 

[Antony]

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.

Thanks for this explanation. It doesn't really answer my questions though; I think if Maresca was truly acting in the Kerchers' interests, then he would be focussing on the way the police screwed up the investigation.

If it's the "inquisitorial" nature of the Italian legal system that allows Maresca to take the side of the prosecution, then that's a paradox. "Inquisitorial" seems to imply a search for the truth, and there doesn't seem to have been much of that in the original trial.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

John Kercher's articles

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.

Danceme,

After the verdict in 2009 Meredith's mother said something along the lines of "you have to go with the evidence." She sounded not unreasonable to me. However, there is no getting around their decision to pursue a civil case before the criminal case had been decided. Moreover, John Kercher has since written several articles, one of which sounded critical of Amanda and her family for pursuing an appeal. I have only the beginnings of understanding of the pain that they felt and are still feeling. But that does not make John Kercher's public display of dissatisfaction with the appeal or with Amanda's notoriety the right course of action.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Thanks for this explanation. It doesn't really answer my questions though; I think if Maresca was truly acting in the Kerchers' interests, then he would be focussing on the way the police screwed up the investigation.

If it's the "inquisitorial" nature of the Italian legal system that allows Maresca to take the side of the prosecution, then that's a paradox. "Inquisitorial" seems to imply a search for the truth, and there doesn't seem to have been much of that in the original trial.

Sorry? You believe the counsel acting for the murder victim and her family should be “focussing on the way the police screwed up the investigation”, can you provide any instance in western jurisprudence where this might have happened?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the hug

Where is the evidence that the Kercher family hired Maresca as a second prosecutor?
Questionable decision, what were they thinking?, oh that’s right their daughter had just been brutally murdered and in case of Meredith mother and sister they had just seen her body in the morgue and you conclude with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight that “it looks worse” for the Kercher’s; really how?

CoulsdonUK,

Did you even read my comment? I laid out my answer to your question before you asked it. Does it not strike you as strange that Mr. Maresca and Mr. Mignini hugged each other over keeping Amanda and Raffaele in jail during a time that they were not even indicted? Have you looked at the appeals court's reasons keeping them imprisoned? Benjamin Sayagh wrote, "It calls Amanda 'histrionic', states that she had never displayed grief at the murder of her roommate, and is a 'restless person who does not disdain multiple frequentations' – i.e. she sleeps around." Besides being factually inaccurate, it is a load of sexist garbage. And this is what Maresca and Mignini hugged about?

It was actually Mr. Maresca and Ms. Comodi who objected to opening the knife. I ask again, "How does this serve justice?" Of course you are under no obligation to answer, but as a person who has answered many questions of yours in the past, I would appreciate one.

 

[platonov]

Italian 'juries' more trusted than before - survey finds.

CoulsdonUK,

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

This sudden outbreak of respect for the majesty and independence of the Italian 'jury' is to be commended.

But given that a previous 'jury', the one posters here are probably most familiar with, didn't find AK credible are you suggesting 'the baby killer' [or 'the mobster' who contradicted* him] has a better shot ?

*And had something to say about a simulated break in - who told Aviello to include that, one wonders ?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

criticism of the appeal process

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

CoulsdonUK,

Do you think that John Kercher was correct in criticizing Amanda and Raffaele and their families for appealing?

 

[christianahannah]

Danceme,

After the verdict in 2009 Meredith's mother said something along the lines of "you have to go with the evidence." She sounded not unreasonable to me. However, there is no getting around their decision to pursue a civil case before the criminal case had been decided. Moreover, John Kercher has since written several articles, one of which sounded critical of Amanda and her family for pursuing an appeal. I have only the beginnings of understanding of the pain that they felt and are still feeling. But that does not make John Kercher's public display of dissatisfaction with the appeal or with Amanda's notoriety the right course of action.

And this is against the law in Italy? How is a civil trial any more effective tried separately if after a defendant is found not guilty by a jury, they can yet be tried again in a civil action (and then maybe found guilty)?

If I had to choose (and I believe there is much to be desired with the judicial system overall) I think better to have both trials presented at the same time saving the defendant the cost of attorneys, time, and if found not guilty in the main case, to hopefully have that judgement also apply for the civil case.

And I believe John was critical of the celebrity surrounding the process and was speaking out as a father, the same as when Amanda's and Raffaele's family speak out on their behalf.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

Did you even read my comment? I laid out my answer to your question before you asked it. Does it not strike you as strange that Mr. Maresca and Mr. Mignini hugged each other over keeping Amanda and Raffaele in jail during a time that they were not even indicted? Have you looked at the appeals court's reasons keeping them imprisoned? Benjamin Sayagh wrote, "It calls Amanda 'histrionic', states that she had never displayed grief at the murder of her roommate, and is a 'restless person who does not disdain multiple frequentations' – i.e. she sleeps around." Besides being factually inaccurate, it is a load of sexist garbage. And this is what Maresca and Mignini hugged about?

It was actually Mr. Maresca and Ms. Comodi who objected to opening the knife. I ask again, "How does this serve justice?" Of course you are under no obligation to answer, but as a person who has answered many questions of yours in the past, I would appreciate one.

Halides1
Yes I read it, but I do not find the behaviour described as odd or wrong, hugging one of the defence team would be odd! However, what I do find strange is that today in the appeal court 5 defence witnesses made varying and conflicting statements of what they heard or what they know and for some posters it is as though it has not happened; no discussion on whether this was a good or risky defence strategy, no comment on how their testimony may have been received in media; no instead the focus for some is on the counsel for the murder victim and her family or once again for the humpteenith time going over what has already been discussed!

I doubt that either of us are ever content with the others response, C’est la vie.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

Do you think that John Kercher was correct in criticizing Amanda and Raffaele and their families for appealing?

I can completely understand why he attacked the media circus that surrounds Amanda, yes. I believe he has as much right to speak about case as Raffaele and Amanda's family.

 

[Antony]

Sorry? You believe the counsel acting for the murder victim and her family should be “focussing on the way the police screwed up the investigation”, can you provide any instance in western jurisprudence where this might have happened?

Tell you what, Coulsdon, if you answer my long-standing question as to why you believe the verdict in the original Knox-Sollecito trial to be correct, then I will address your points.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

grieving parents

And this is against the law in Italy? How is a civil trial any more effective tried separately if after a defendant is found not guilty by a jury, they can yet be tried again in a civil action (and then maybe found guilty)?

If I had to choose (and I believe there is much to be desired with the judicial system overall) I think better to have both trials presented at the same time saving the defendant the cost of attorneys, time, and if found not guilty in the main case, to hopefully have that judgement also apply for the civil case.

And I believe John was critical of the celebrity surrounding the process and was speaking out as a father, the same as when Amanda's and Raffaele's family speak out on their behalf.

christianahannah,

The main reason I brought it up is that it shows that the Kerchers had their minds made up about guilt before the trial had even started. With respect to John Kercher and his comments about the appeal, he described Amanda in terms that made it sound as if she were a spoiled child going first to one parent and then the other, to get her way. He does not appear to believe that a rational person can conclude that the convictions were unsafe, let alone that Amanda and Raffaele may be factually innocent. That is not atypical of grieving parents; indeed the Volz case and the Norfolk Four case suggest that once parents reach a conclusion as to who is guilty, they simply do not surrender their belief.

 

[LondonJohn]

I cannot quite believe that I just saw a report by Nick Martin on Sky TV here in the UK, in which he said the following:

"Amanda Knox is pinning her hopes of freedom on a crew of convicted criminals".

and

"This is the most unlikely alliance. Amanda Knox is now relying on the word of a child killer, a mobster, and a police informant to secure her freedom. But she knows this may be her last chance."

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wo...alf_For_Appeal_For_Murder_Of_Meredith_Kercher

(I'm not sure if people outside the UK can view the embedded TV news report within this web page)

This is complete and utter nonsense, on so many levels. As I've pointed out before, the whole point was that these alleged witnesses needed to be heard in open court, in order that they could be properly questioned by all parties and so that it could be established to the satisfaction of the court whether their stories had any veracity. The defence teams themselves were not claiming that the stories were true, accurate or reliable - just that they needed to be looked at properly. And in fact, Chris Mellas makes exactly this point in his interview within the piece.

Of course, the other point that needs to be reiterated is that this is nowhere near a "last chance" for Knox (or Sollecito, whom the TV report manages to artfully ignore completely....). Neither Knox nor Sollecito is "pinning their hopes of freedom" on these alleged witnesses, and neither of them is "relying on the word of a child killer, a mobster, and a police informant to secure (their) freedom". This is the sort of ridiculous, uninformed, inflammatory reporting that has dogged this case from the very beginning. I also think that it's extremely telling the the whole focus is on Knox, with no mention of Sollecito.

Ah well, maybe the media will figure it out properly some day.....

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not holding my breath waiting for it to happen

Ah well, maybe the media will figure it out properly some day.....

LondonJohn,

LOL, I am not holding my breath. I recall the senior Newsweek reporter who said of the Duke lacrosse case (in an article in the American Journalism Review) words to the effect, "The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong."

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I cannot quite believe that I just saw a report by Nick Martin on Sky TV here in the UK, in which he said the following:

"Amanda Knox is pinning her hopes of freedom on a crew of convicted criminals".

and

"This is the most unlikely alliance. Amanda Knox is now relying on the word of a child killer, a mobster, and a police informant to secure her freedom. But she knows this may be her last chance."

Spot on.

 

[Antony]

2 reports from UK Daily Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8584193/Mobster-claims-Amanda-Knox-is-innocent-of-Meredith-Kerchers-murder.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/8583909/Child-killer-tells-appeal-court-that-Amanda-Knox-is-innocent-of-Meredith-Kercher-murder.html

I would add that the Telegraph (known here as the Torygraph) is not my preferred newspaper, but seems to be covering the trial more - or earlier - than the others.

 

[LondonJohn]

Can I just state again, for the avoidance of all doubt:

1) If either Alessi (plus alleged corroborators) or Aviello are shown to be correct and reliable in their testimony, it will in a single stroke deliver a fatal blow to the prosecution's case. My own take (FWIW) is that they are more likely than not to be being untruthful, but we shall see.

2) If either or both of Alessi (plus corroborators) and Aviello are shown to be liars, fantasists or otherwise unreliable and untrustworthy in their testimony, then this will be of no detrimental impact whatsoever to Knox and Sollecito.

3) If Guede appears in court on the 27th, and points at Knox and Sollecito shouting "It was them! They killed Meredith!!", this will have no practical detrimental impact upon Knox and Sollecito. This is because Guede has already claimed this in his own "defence", and he has a clear vested interest in maintaining this position - regardless of its actual veracity.

4) If, however, Guede appears on the stand on the 27th and confirms Alessi's story (which I judge to be a highly unlikely scenario), then this would pretty much collapse the case against Knox and Sollecito. This is because there would appear to be little ulterior motive for Guede to say such a thing unless it were true: he would actually be implicating himself further in the murder, as well as exonerating people whom he has no reason to want to help (other than if he wants to get the truth finally told).

In conclusion, this whole area with the "inmate witnesses" and Guede being called to testify has (in my opinion) no potential downside for Knox's/Sollecito's defence, and only potential upside - although my personal view is that they will gain no upside from all this.

I also believe that anyone who argues that either a) a discrediting of the "inmate witnesses" or b) Guede appearing in court to once again allege that Knox and Sollecito were involved, will be significantly damaging to Knox's/Sollecito's chances in the appeal trial is either ignorant, uninformed or willfully misleading. That is all.....

 

[LondonJohn]

Spot on.

And this confirms to me what I already knew about the logic and reasoning driving your arguments.......

 

[LondonJohn]

And another thing....

Some people seem to be getting incredibly ahead of themselves in imagining what Guede is being called to testify about. My strong suspicion is that the questioning of Guede will be strictly limited to this alleged prison conversation with Alessi. It's not inconceivable that Guede may arrive on the stand, take the oath, be asked a single question along the lines of "Did you have a conversation with Alessi, in which you told him that Knox and Sollecito were not involved and that the murder was actually carried out by you and another accomplice?", answer "No, I did not have this conversation", and then be stood down.

 

[Chris C]

The thing that bothers me about guilter logic concerning Alessi is what if he is telling the truth. Guilters don't want Alessi's story to be true because it would free Knox and Sollecito. They are not worried or concerned that it would bring justice to Meredith's killer(s). If its true then you have a murderer running around Perguia still and guilters don't care, so long as poor Rudy only had a minor role and Knox and Sollecito remain in jail. Can they really claim that is justice for Meredith? Though how he only has a minor role with knox and sollecito standing in the hall cheering him on is a rather odd conclusion.