Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[platonov]

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.....

So the production of & testimony from 'the baby killer & co' and 'the mobster' - and any subsequent testimony from RG - can have no downside for AK & RS under any circumstances but only a possible upside and may indeed secure an acquittal for the pair.

OK, that's that cleared that up.

Obviously the AK/RS defence teams would have been crazy not to go this route if that is indeed the case.
Guys like these must be in much demand in murder trials.

 

[Chris C]

So the production of & testimony from 'the baby killer & co' and 'the mobster' - and any subsequent testimony from RG - can have no downside for AK & RS under any circumstances but only a possible upside and may indeed secure an acquittal for the pair.

OK, that's that cleared that up.

Obviously the AK/RS defence teams would have been crazy not to go this route if that is indeed the case.
Guys like these must be in much demand in murder trials.

They seem to be doing a pretty good job on the lack of dna evidence.

 

[LondonJohn]

So the production of & testimony from 'the baby killer & co' and 'the mobster' - and any subsequent testimony from RG - can have no downside for AK & RS under any circumstances but only a possible upside and may indeed secure an acquittal for the pair.

OK, that's that cleared that up.

Obviously the AK/RS defence teams would have been crazy not to go this route if that is indeed the case.
Guys like these must be in much demand in murder trials.

They are - if (and only if) they can be determined to be telling the truth.

If however they are not telling the truth (which happens to be my current opinion in both these particular instances), then they do not do any positive damage to the murder defendants. That's the point - but I guess I don't expect you to either understand it or want to agree with it.

Tell you what, I'll bring up the analogy that I used earlier, and see if you understand or agree with this one: Imagine there was an alleged witness who suddenly came forward to claim that he'd seen Knox and Sollecito running out of the cottage at 11.50pm holding knives and covered in blood. If this witness were examined in open court, and his testimony were determined to be reliable and truthful, then it would be essentially game over for Knox and Sollecito. If, on the other hand, his testimony were examined and found to be a lie, then do you think that this finding would be damaging to the prosecution (or actively beneficial to the defence)? Have a little think about it - I'm sure you'll be able to figure out the right answer in the end (hint: the answer is no, it would not be damaging at all to the prosecution* - or helpful to the defence - if this alleged witness were shown to be a liar).

* Unless of course this "witness" - or someone else with testimony potentially very damaging to the defendants - had always formed a key plank of the prosecution case. Mentioning no names. Curatolo.

 

[LondonJohn]

I wonder who's going to be the first brave soul to correct the misapprehension being promoted in some quarters that the defence cannot argue that the murder was possibly the work of a sole assailant because of the Supreme Court judgement in Guede's case? It actually frightens me a little that people who purport to be lawyers cannot understand the legal principle behind this issue. But then again, perhaps some of them are only pretending to be lawyers.....

PS Just to be clear on this issue: the findings of fact in Guede's trial process have no bearing on the findings of fact in Knox's/Sollecito's trial. The two courts are at liberty to come to very different findings of fact regarding the same crime - even if those findings contradict each other*. However, if the findings of fact have a potentially material impact upon the conviction of either party/parties, then this may be grounds for a further post-conviction appeal. For example, if the appeal trial for Knox and Sollecito found that a person other than Knox, Sollecito or Guede committed the murder, then Guede would almost certainly be able to appeal his conviction on those grounds. If, however, the Knox/Sollecito appeal finds that the crime was committed by Guede acting alone, then Guede would have no grounds for appeal even though this finding of fact differs from that from his own trials.

* a ready example being the contradiction in ToD found by Micheli's court (Guede) and Massei's court (Knox/Sollecito).

 

[Antony]

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.

That may happen, in which case this whole episode of Guede's confidantes in prison will have been a waste of time. But it would be odd for the Knox/Sollecito defence teams to engage in this manoeuvre to bring Guede to the witness stand, and then not be allowed to cross-examine him.

I don't really know what to make of the testimony - it would take a lot to convince me the crime was committed by anyone other than Guede on his own, and there are in any case discrepancies between Aviello's story and Allessi's - although both are second-hand accounts.

 

[Kaosium]

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?

Maresca is the lawyer for the police in both the case against Amanda for daring to tell her story on the stand, and her parents for that rather innocuous Times article recently re-posted by Fine.

So what's the 'message' here? Amanda and her parents don't get to tell her side of the story? If they do they are punished some more? What in that Times article did you see that shouldn't be allowed?

 

[Katody Matrass]

I don't really know what to make of the testimony - it would take a lot to convince me the crime was committed by anyone other than Guede on his own, and there are in any case discrepancies between Aviello's story and Allessi's - although both are second-hand accounts.

Guede's buddy in his story is obviously imaginary. What is important is that he again dropped AK and RS from his story. And that is confirmed by other inmates apart from Alessi. OTOH Aviello's tale is total ******** IMO.

I can't see why the defense wouldn't get to cross examine Guede about his version of the crime. From what Maresca has shown today it looks like even questions rather unrelated are allowed.

 

[LondonJohn]

That may happen, in which case this whole episode of Guede's confidantes in prison will have been a waste of time. But it would be odd for the Knox/Sollecito defence teams to engage in this manoeuvre to bring Guede to the witness stand, and then not be allowed to cross-examine him.

I don't really know what to make of the testimony - it would take a lot to convince me the crime was committed by anyone other than Guede on his own, and there are in any case discrepancies between Aviello's story and Allessi's - although both are second-hand accounts.

As I said before, bringing Guede to the stand is a necessary step in evaluating the impact of Alessi's (+ corroborators') testimony upon Knox and Sollecito. After all, even if the appeal court believed Alessi to be telling the truth, this would only be hearsay evidence as it applied to Knox and Sollecito. In order for the testimony to have any real impact, Guede would need to agree in court that he said all this to Alessi (thus removing the hearsay element).

Incidentally, I see that some of the other paralegals can't tell the difference between a defendant's right to make spontaneous declarations (allowed) and a defendant's right to ask direct questions of witnesses (not allowed). Quelle surprise!

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh, and I see that the paralegals are still misunderstanding the elements of the inquisitorial approach that are still in place in Italian criminal justice system. The five inmates were not called as defence witnesses in the same way as the prosecution and defence in an adversarial (anglo-saxon) system "own" their witnesses. They were requested by the defence to be heard and questioned (by all interested parties), in the search for the truth. The defence never said that the inmates' stories were necessarily trustworthy or reliable - the point at issue was that their veracity and reliability should be tested in open court, rather than arbitrarily dismissed by a judge without any just cause.

Therefore, if these witnesses turn out to be telling tall tales, it's not any kind of mark against the defence - in the way that it might be in an adversarial system. I hoped that people with some legal training might be able to understand and assimilate the differences between anglo-saxon and Italian criminal justice systems, but I guess I over-estimated things somewhat.

 

[Kaosium]

I wonder who's going to be the first brave soul to correct the misapprehension being promoted in some quarters that the defence cannot argue that the murder was possibly the work of a sole assailant because of the Supreme Court judgement in Guede's case? It actually frightens me a little that people who purport to be lawyers cannot understand the legal principle behind this issue. But then again, perhaps some of them are only pretending to be lawyers.....

PS Just to be clear on this issue: the findings of fact in Guede's trial process have no bearing on the findings of fact in Knox's/Sollecito's trial. The two courts are at liberty to come to very different findings of fact regarding the same crime - even if those findings contradict each other*. However, if the findings of fact have a potentially material impact upon the conviction of either party/parties, then this may be grounds for a further post-conviction appeal. For example, if the appeal trial for Knox and Sollecito found that a person other than Knox, Sollecito or Guede committed the murder, then Guede would almost certainly be able to appeal his conviction on those grounds. If, however, the Knox/Sollecito appeal finds that the crime was committed by Guede acting alone, then Guede would have no grounds for appeal even though this finding of fact differs from that from his own trials.

* a ready example being the contradiction in ToD found by Micheli's court (Guede) and Massei's court (Knox/Sollecito).

I understand perfectly what you're saying about this issue, it makes sense to me. What I have never been able to figure out is how Mignini and Maresca from about November until the Micheli Motivations Report came out stated more than once that somehow the result of Rudy's trial would negatively impact Raffaele and Amanda.

What could they have possibly have been talking about? That has puzzled me for more than six months. Mignini put it once as 'respect' that the Supreme Court would 'respect' the Massei Report, and that would be damaging to Raffaele and Amanda. It didn't seem like that came to pass when the report was released, and there's been no official word since, but perhaps the reason it still gets play in some quarters is it has never been put to rest what Mignini and Maresca could have possibly been referring to. As you've noted repeatedly it flies in the face of every principle of justice imaginable, yet still they made those statements and I've never been able to figure out what they meant by that.

 

[Kaosium]

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.

Have you or anyone else been able to find out who in the prosecution made this request? It would seem the lead prosecutor, whose name continually eludes me, would have had to have done so officially, but I think it would be especially telling were we to find if Mignini, Comodi or Maresca were pleased with this development and celebrating it as a 'victory.'

 

[billyryan]

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.

I won't disagree with you LJ that this is possible,but Rudy has already said this to Mignini and Comodi when they went to interview him after Alessi made his original statement to Raffaele's lawyers,if Hellmann intends to do it this way why bring Rudy at all,why not just have the statement he made to Mignini read out in court.
I believe there will have to be some questioning of Rudy by the defence lawyers,whether or not it will be limited remains to be seen,having allowed Maresca pull his stunt today without as far as I know any consequences I would imagine he will have to allow the defence lawyers some latitude
I just wonder if Maresca got the permission of the Kercher's to confront Alessi with a photograph of the young boy he killed,and if he got the permission of the child's parents before he pulled that stunt

 

[Magister]

Have you or anyone else been able to find out who in the prosecution made this request? It would seem the lead prosecutor, whose name continually eludes me, would have had to have done so officially, but I think it would be especially telling were we to find if Mignini, Comodi or Maresca were pleased with this development and celebrating it as a 'victory.'

It would seem Costagliola


http://www.umbria24.it/mez-alessi-«...estimoniera-nella-prossima-udienza/46594.html

 

[Katody Matrass]

http://www.umbrialeft.it/notizie/meredith-mario-alessi-aula-come-testimone

Defense apparently is eager to question Guede about the crime.

Maresca says Guede would have to answer only about his talk with Alessi.

I think prosecution will try to prevent Guede's questioning about the crime but Hellmann will allow it.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I wonder who's going to be the first brave soul to correct the misapprehension being promoted in some quarters that the defence cannot argue that the murder was possibly the work of a sole assailant because of the Supreme Court judgement in Guede's case? It actually frightens me a little that people who purport to be lawyers cannot understand the legal principle behind this issue. But then again, perhaps some of them are only pretending to be lawyers.....

PS Just to be clear on this issue: the findings of fact in Guede's trial process have no bearing on the findings of fact in Knox's/Sollecito's trial. The two courts are at liberty to come to very different findings of fact regarding the same crime - even if those findings contradict each other*. However, if the findings of fact have a potentially material impact upon the conviction of either party/parties, then this may be grounds for a further post-conviction appeal. For example, if the appeal trial for Knox and Sollecito found that a person other than Knox, Sollecito or Guede committed the murder, then Guede would almost certainly be able to appeal his conviction on those grounds. If, however, the Knox/Sollecito appeal finds that the crime was committed by Guede acting alone, then Guede would have no grounds for appeal even though this finding of fact differs from that from his own trials.

* a ready example being the contradiction in ToD found by Micheli's court (Guede) and Massei's court (Knox/Sollecito).

Can you provide any recent cases where murder suspects have taken different trial options fast track and full trial the convictions differed in the way you describe?

 

[Kevinfay]

Maresca
--------

Well, Maresca has forced me to update my scheduled trip to Siena and Perugia, starting 1st July.

We'll be arriving at Firenze Porta Santa Maria Novella Station before heading south to Siena.

I feel that I have no option but to leave a note at the reception to his office, reading:

******* GOOD ON YER KID !!!

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 10. Do not attempt to evade the autocensor.

He first had that disgusting pervert running for cover with shame, and then reduced the Cammora slob to an incoherent, pathetic, raging, non-entity ... which we all know he is.

All this, without there being any need for a lynch mob to show how civilized people think of them ! .... reason enough for the Kerchers to hire him?.

Concurrently, he is looking after the civil suit, which simply means that murderers will not profit from their crimes, through book deals, film rights etc.

I checked earlier to see if the audio tapes are available on Corriere dell Umbria and unfortunately they were not .. we simply must get hold of them somehow?. Action on me? ... more than happy to do it !!! ..... must have been an interesting day, we're clean out of coffee and the cigarettes are running low here!!

 

[platonov]

Its all good.

They are - if (and only if) they can be determined to be telling the truth.
If however they are not telling the truth (which happens to be my current opinion in both these particular instances), then they do not do any positive damage to the murder defendants. That's the point - but I guess I don't expect you to either understand it or want to agree with it.

Tell you what, I'll bring up the analogy that I used earlier, and see if you understand or agree with this one: Imagine there was an alleged witness who suddenly came forward to claim that he'd seen Knox and Sollecito running out of the cottage at 11.50pm holding knives and covered in blood. If this witness were examined in open court, and his testimony were determined to be reliable and truthful, then it would be essentially game over for Knox and Sollecito. If, on the other hand, his testimony were examined and found to be a lie, then do you think that this finding would be damaging to the prosecution (or actively beneficial to the defence)? Have a little think about it - I'm sure you'll be able to figure out the right answer in the end (hint: the answer is no, it would not be damaging at all to the prosecution* - or helpful to the defence - if this alleged witness were shown to be a liar).

* Unless of course this "witness" - or someone else with testimony potentially very damaging to the defendants - had always formed a key plank of the prosecution case. Mentioning no names. Curatolo.

But that makes no difference [we already know that at least one of the 2 A's is lying] - there is no downside. Its shows how strong a case the defence have that they can spend time on this*, if nothing else.
Better yet nothing RG (or others) say as a result can have a negative effect on the AK/RS appeal.

Its all good.

*the pursuit of justice - nobody in the court, one hopes, thinks there is any connection between the defence and these 'guys'.

ps The analogy is not necessary - with me you can take the blindingly obvious as read. It also keeps the posts shorter

ETA Well, apart from 'the Jackal' Maresca possibly, who in a shocking display of his lack of breeding was uncouth enough to point out that 'the baby killer' was a baby killer. Social graces and etiquette are in decline sadly.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Maresca is the lawyer for the police in both the case against Amanda for daring to tell her story on the stand, and her parents for that rather innocuous Times article recently re-posted by Fine.

So what's the 'message' here? Amanda and her parents don't get to tell her side of the story? If they do they are punished some more? What in that Times article did you see that shouldn't be allowed?

Amanda has taken every opportunity to speak out via the media through spontaneous declarations in court and her testimony in the trial. I have read in UK printed media and seen more of Amanda's family on UK TV than the Kercher's, so I don't really get the impression that they haven't had ample and numerous opportunities to tell their version of events leading up to and after Meredith was discovered.

What are your conclusions of today's testimonies?

 

[billyryan]

Monica Napoleoni is being recalled as a witness,witness to what I don't know,according to Frank Sfarzo without her the trial would never have taken place,she was forced to return as a witness after Curatolo and according to the grapevine she lied through her teeth,Mignini has,what he thought was off the record,being critical of the emotional female police officers,I wonder is she being lined up as the scape goat

 

[Kaosium]

Amanda has taken every opportunity to speak out via the media through spontaneous declarations in court and her testimony in the trial. I have read in UK printed media and seen more of Amanda's family on UK TV than the Kercher's, so I don't really get the impression that they haven't had ample and numerous opportunities to tell their version of events leading up to and after Meredith was discovered.

My point was that Maresca is participating in an effort to silence those who criticize the prosecution and police or who support the innocence of Amanda and Raffaele. The charge reportedly filed against Alessi we heard about at the beginning of the days events would now make him the nineteenth extra person charged by the prosecution. Speaking out in defense of someone is quite simply very much different than attempting to silence someone from doing so in my mind.

At any rate, I am sorry I lost my temper. I owe you an apology for that.

What are your conclusions of today's testimonies?

I couldn't help but notice that one story didn't include a break-in at all from the report I read, the other included a staging as well, I don't know what to make of that. I found it interesting the Romanian didn't testify to anything after signing that letter, I wonder if he just wanted a day out of prison!

I dunno what to think about Rudy Guede testifying on the 27th, that's the biggest news of the day in my mind. I have always wondered why he never offered the prosecution a story condemning Raffaele and Amanda, for an 'inveterate liar' it would seem his best bet from the beginning was to try to pin it on the two the cops had caught and invested their reputations on. The defense seems to think it a positive development from the little I read, I've not seen commentary on it from anyone on the prosecution side, which struck me as curious as apparently it was their request.

What did you think of that development?