• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
RoseMontague said:
Looking at the last article by Mr. Kercher and the list of the "cold, hard facts of the case" that Mr. Kercher considers evidence of guilt it is difficult for me to put all the blame on Maresca for the opinions of Mr. Kercher.
Click to expand...

Can you link this article?
 
LondonJohn said:
If (c), then the court would still have to weigh up whether Guede was lying on the stand in his denial of ever saying this to Alessi. In this evaluation, they would look at the relative motivations of Guede and Alessi (and the alleged corroborators). I suspect that the court would have little option but to conclude that Alessi and the corroborators were likely lying, unless there was any other independent corroboration.
Click to expand...

I disagree on your last point. I think it would simply then be a matter of who the court found most credible on the stand, and I can't see any reason for them to automatically conclude that Guede is more credible than the other three witnesses. That he would lie about what he said is obvious, since it's a change to the story he told during the trial. But if the defence lawyers are allowed to question him and he tries to stick to the obviously false 'date with Meredith' story, then it will be clear that he's lying, and in that context Alessi et al's story might even appear the more credible. The jury won't need to conclude that Alessi's story is categorically true, but even if it could possibly be true that casts some doubt on things.

The fact Giacomo Benedetti is being called to testify also seems significant; Guede won't be able to deny he told Giacomo that Knox had nothing to do with it because the conversation was recorded. If the defence lawyers are able to ask Guede why he said Amanda wasn't involved and then changed his mind, that could be interesting. Another option for the defence could be to push Guede on whether or not he can positively identify Amanda and Raffaele as the people there that night. What if he says he can't be certain it was them? (not so different from what he's said already, after all). We know of course that, one way or another, he's lying through his teeth, but still, "Rudy says Amanda and Raffaele weren't there" makes for very good defence headlines.

I think the point of the defence strategy here is reasonable doubt, and it's starting to look like a surprisingly good move. On reading PMF just now, I noticed that some posters there (apparently finding Alessi and Aviello credible) interpreted yesterday's witnesses as meaning there can now be no argument about multiple attackers and a staged break-in. I don't see it that way at all: I think what the defence are hoping to convey to the jury is that even if you believe there were multiple attackers and a staged break-in, there is still reasonable doubt that Amanda and Raffaele were involved. I'd thought that requesting Alessi and Aviello could backfire on the defence, but actually it now seems like quite a shrewd strategy.
 
katy_did said:
I disagree on your last point. I think it would simply then be a matter of who the court found most credible on the stand, and I can't see any reason for them to automatically conclude that Guede is more credible than the other three witnesses.

That he would lie about what he said is obvious, since it's a change to the story he told during the trial. But if the defence lawyers are allowed to question him and he tries to stick to the obviously false 'date with Meredith' story, then it will be clear that he's lying, and in that context Alessi et al's story might even appear the more credible. The jury won't need to conclude that Alessi's story is categorically true, but even if it could possibly be true that casts some doubt on things.

The fact Giacomo Benedetti is being called to testify also seems significant; Guede won't be able to deny he told Giacomo that Knox had nothing to do with it because the conversation was recorded.

If the defence lawyers are able to ask Guede why he said Amanda wasn't involved and then changed his mind, that could be interesting. Another option for the defence could be to push Guede on whether or not he can positively identify Amanda and Raffaele as the people there that night. What if he says he can't be certain it was them? (not so different from what he's said already, after all). We know of course that, one way or another, he's lying through his teeth, but still, "Rudy says Amanda and Raffaele weren't there" makes for very good defence headlines.

I think the point of the defence strategy here is reasonable doubt, and it's starting to look like a surprisingly good move. On reading PMF just now, I noticed that some posters there (apparently finding Alessi and Aviello credible) interpreted yesterday's witnesses as meaning there can now be no argument about multiple attackers and a staged break-in. I don't see it that way at all: I think what the defence are hoping to convey to the jury is that even if you believe there were multiple attackers and a staged break-in, there is still reasonable doubt that Amanda and Raffaele were involved. I'd thought that requesting Alessi and Aviello could backfire on the defence, but actually it now seems like quite a shrewd strategy.
Click to expand...

If Rudy sticks to the same story in court, it will be no surprise.

What's the motivation for Rudy to help someone?
Why would a convict help the system?
Do convicts risk further punishment in Italy? If so, they have nothing to gain. If Rudy snitches on his cohort in murder, will that help him in prison?

I have spoken to a few from various prisons, and jails, and asked them if discussing and talking about the crimes, they're serving for, is common.

All said most definitely. They said the inmates spend a lot of time discussing their crimes and other personal issues. So with this info, I tend to believe Rudy was discussing the crime. He's had a lot of time to do nothing but talk to his new-acquaintances. Being a high profile case, it would be well known inside what Rudys situation is and create attention from others.

So with this small set of data, I tend to believe over these years, Rudy has talked about that night in probably more detail than we know.

Very likely, imo, Alessi and convicts from the break area, know more about that night than Maresca, Girgha, Mignini, Matteini, Massei and all the the rest combined.

As for the other convict, who says he has the keys and knife... buried, this is a "put up or shut up" situation. This seems a easy one to disqualify quickly.

So it seems Rudy reappears, June 17th?
What is Judge Hellman expecting to gain from this?

I do think Rudy could answer a few more things without completely telling the truth and remaining "safely" in his current position. A few more slips of the details would be interesting.

For instance, I think Rudy could spew some more details while maintaining his position.

The blood in the bathroom and the partial-footprint could be explained. Rudy already admitted to going to the bathroom twice for towels. Adding some detail might help.

If he were to explain the bare footprint and the blood smear on the light switch, and even the tiny blood sprayed patterns, it would be helpful for finding the truth. Maybe the lamp movement?

I don't know Italian law, could Rudy be punished more for changing his story? If so, we c an expect nothing from him.


off topic....

This weekend there was the famous Vancouver kiss picture on the news, in the interview he said she was stressed and he was only comforting her.
Most found the picture beautiful and romantically sexual.

But when Raffaele did the same, possibly, "comforted Amanda", it was viewed as ugliness by so many. This was seen as a cold hearted kiss, a suspicious response by Raffaele and Amanda after Merediths body was found.

perspectives can be so different.
 
katy_did said:
I disagree on your last point. I think it would simply then be a matter of who the court found most credible on the stand, and I can't see any reason for them to automatically conclude that Guede is more credible than the other three witnesses. That he would lie about what he said is obvious, since it's a change to the story he told during the trial. But if the defence lawyers are allowed to question him and he tries to stick to the obviously false 'date with Meredith' story, then it will be clear that he's lying, and in that context Alessi et al's story might even appear the more credible. The jury won't need to conclude that Alessi's story is categorically true, but even if it could possibly be true that casts some doubt on things.

The fact Giacomo Benedetti is being called to testify also seems significant; Guede won't be able to deny he told Giacomo that Knox had nothing to do with it because the conversation was recorded. If the defence lawyers are able to ask Guede why he said Amanda wasn't involved and then changed his mind, that could be interesting. Another option for the defence could be to push Guede on whether or not he can positively identify Amanda and Raffaele as the people there that night. What if he says he can't be certain it was them? (not so different from what he's said already, after all). We know of course that, one way or another, he's lying through his teeth, but still, "Rudy says Amanda and Raffaele weren't there" makes for very good defence headlines.

I think the point of the defence strategy here is reasonable doubt, and it's starting to look like a surprisingly good move. On reading PMF just now, I noticed that some posters there (apparently finding Alessi and Aviello credible) interpreted yesterday's witnesses as meaning there can now be no argument about multiple attackers and a staged break-in. I don't see it that way at all: I think what the defence are hoping to convey to the jury is that even if you believe there were multiple attackers and a staged break-in, there is still reasonable doubt that Amanda and Raffaele were involved. I'd thought that requesting Alessi and Aviello could backfire on the defence, but actually it now seems like quite a shrewd strategy.
Click to expand...


I get your point. But I still think that - in the absence of any strong reason to believe otherwise - the court would err on the side of Guede if he said he'd never said this stuff to Alessi. But, as you say (and as I pointed out in my original post), there are many factors which may assist the court in weighing up the relative credibility of Guede and Alessi (and the alleged corroborators). The main one, of course, is currently a total unknown: what Guede will actually say on the stand on the 27th, what questions will be allowed to be asked of him, and how he responds to questioning. Another important one (as you point out) is the Skype call, in which he's on tape stating that Knox was not there, and demurring on whether the "mystery Italian man" was Sollecito or not.

I just have a feeling that all this will not amount to much. I think that Guede will flat out deny ever having the conversation with Alessi, and that the Skype call will similarly be batted away. And I think that Hellmann will not allow any questioning on the wider aspects of the crime. But if this indeed what transpires, the mistake that some people (including journalists who should know far better) are making is to suggest that this will in some way be deeply damaging to Knox's/Sollecito's chances of acquittal in the appeal trial. As far as I'm concerned, there is already a massive chunk of reasonable doubt in numerous other areas of the case. The defence teams need to ensure that they argue all of these reasonable doubt points to their full potential; if they do so, I feel an acquittal is highly likely (indeed very probable). Furthermore, if the new computer evidence is accurate and reliable, then there's more than reasonable doubt - there's active indication of non-involvement on the part of at least one of the two defendants.
 
By the way, Latza Nadeau's new piece on the Daily Beast contains this nugget of stupidity (my bolding):

Whether prison gossip and brotherly accusations will make any difference to the judges deciding her appellate case is anyone’s guess, but her time is running out to prove her innocence.
Click to expand...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/06/18/amanda-knox-appeal-can-prison-gossip-free-her.html

So a supposed "serious journalist" who's been following this trial since the beginning still appears not to know that the defendant does not have to prove his/her innocence in an appeal trial of this type in Italy. Quite remarkable, and indicative of Latza Nadeau's basic lack of intelligence and inability to understand what's happening in Perugia right now.
 
Last edited:
RoseMontague said:
Frank has a post up about the hearing

http://perugiashock.com/2011/06/19/the-killer-is-free/
Click to expand...


And as Frank points out, the prosecution actually tried to argue that the inmates could not be heard because they were under investigation for lying about facts related to this case - when this investigation concerned the very allegations that they had come to court to testify to! You seriously couldn't make it up......
 
LondonJohn said:
See the post immediately above yours for an indication of the "balance" contained in this sure-to-be-nominated-for-a-Pulitzer article.... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Yeah I saw the post, kind of scared me that we posted almost at the same time :eek:; balance in the sense that it is an alternative view to Frank’s not better or worse just a different perspective. I’ll refrain from passing any judgement on individuals journalistic skills and leave it to people to make on their own minds.
 
Rose, that article written by Mr. Kercher was very interesting in that it displays his view.

I noticed early on that the Kerchers were taken under comfort by the prosecution and Perugia police. They were comforted and attended to by the Perugia police from the earliest times. Someone recommended Maresca, possibly even the prosecutor his self.

Mr. Kerchers article is a telling view of the evidence he gives thought to.

Not only in the whole of the article, but whats important to him, as the father of Meredith. He lists some evidence, while other, commonly debated evidence, is not listed in his article.

<snips / highlights>

Then the long legal process began: investigation, arrests, trials and now the appeal.

APPEAL comments:
The defence lawyers are contesting the DNA evidence from the alleged murder weapon, a knife found in a drawer at Sollecito’s apartment. They say the DNA samples — Meredith’s on the tip of the blade, Knox’s on the handle — are too small to be admissible as evidence. They also argue that DNA on a clasp from Meredith’s bra, found in her room six weeks after her body was discovered, could have been contaminated.
This is disputed by the top forensics team from Rome, led by Patrizia Stefanoni, an internationally respected forensic scientist.

The fact that recently, in Britain, someone was convicted on 17-year-old DNA evidence is ignored by the defence.

Massei Repor comments:

Knox’s supporters in America, while concentrating on the DNA, do not seem to be aware of the huge body of other evidence that was given. Under Italian law a judge has to write an official report on how a verdict was reached. Judge Giancarlo Massei, who presided at the trial of Knox and Sollecito, produced a 400-page report.
It is quite revealing, showing that — although Knox’s DNA and Meredith’s genetic material were found mixed together in several locations in the bathroom — much more than the DNA evidence was responsible for the decision to convict.

For example:
1) Sollecito claimed to have been working at his computer on the evening of the murder, but computer records show that it was inactive. Both Sollecito’s and Knox’s mobile phones were switched off that night.
2) A witness saw the couple several times in the vicinity of the cottage on the night of the killing, although they said they were at Sollecito’s home. Their alibis changed nine times, with Sollecito saying that he could not remember whether Knox was with him all evening. They even hinted at putting the blame on each other. Apart from Meredith, only Knox and two other flatmates, who were away at the time, had keys to the cottage.
3) Sollecito’s naked footprint was found on a bathmat in the cottage; and Knox’s footprints were found outside Meredith’s room, in the passageway and in another room, where police believe a break-in was staged. (These footprints were revealed with luminol, a chemical used by forensic investigators to detect traces of blood at crime scenes, as it glows blue in reaction with the iron in haemoglobin. It can show bloody footprints even after attempts to clean them away.)
4) As for the “break-in”, the police immediately noticed that glass from a broken window was on top of clothes supposedly scattered by an intruder. The glass would have been under the clothes if the window had been broken before the room was ransacked. No valuables were taken, and a real burglar would have found far easier access to the house without breaking a window.
5) Sollecito told the police that nothing had been taken from the room supposedly broken into. But how would he know? It was used by an Italian girl, not present on the night of the killing, who had not yet checked it out for herself.
6) Knox described the position of Meredith’s body and how she had died, although she had not been able to see into Meredith’s room when the door was broken down by the police.

Rudys Supreme Court comments:
7) 40 wounds on Meredith’s body, it found that he did not act alone and that two others were involved. There is also a suggestion that her body and the room were rearranged after the killing.
- Guede, who admitted having been in the cottage on the night of the murder, fled the premises and went to a disco before escaping to Germany, where he was arrested.
8) So who cleaned up the house in an attempt to remove all traces of their presence that night?
 
Last edited:
LJ
I think Judge Hellmann, would want to put this case to bed before the summer brake, I agree on what you say about Guede, but I think it was the Judge who wanted Guede on the stand.
So if that is the case, Guede has no where to run, or hide, if he tells the truth, maybe the judge will just let his jail time stand, if he lies there is nothing stopping the Judge senting back his case back to the SCOI, and asking for a review, of his case.
So if the prosecution want to talk to Guede, I am sure the judge will want to know why, due to the fact it is the judge who would like to hear what he as to say.
 
the putative semen stain versus prison gossip

Now there is one more reason to test it. On a different subject the title of Ms. Nadeau's article is "Can Prison Gossip Free Knox," and I don't recall seeing anything in the article about Raffaele Sollecito.
 
Last edited:
RoseMontague said:
I do appreciate the twit, however.
Click to expand...


Yes: exciting tweets from the twit, weren't they!

Especially since they needed to be typed into her mobile device pretty quickly (and with a 140-character limit per tweet), yet she was still diligent enough to eschew the shorter five-character "Alessi" for the 12-character "child killer" pretty much every time she referred to him in those tweets. High-end stuff indeed!
 
zeb said:
LJ
I think Judge Hellmann, would want to put this case to bed before the summer brake, I agree on what you say about Guede, but I think it was the Judge who wanted Guede on the stand.
So if that is the case, Guede has no where to run, or hide, if he tells the truth, maybe the judge will just let his jail time stand, if he lies there is nothing stopping the Judge senting back his case back to the SCOI, and asking for a review, of his case.
So if the prosecution want to talk to Guede, I am sure the judge will want to know why, due to the fact it is the judge who would like to hear what he as to say.
Click to expand...


There's virtually no way this case will end before the summer break, unless the prosecution withdraws its case (and I'm not sure that they can even do that in Italian law anyhow). I don't think that Hellmann can throw the case out, even if Guede gets on the stand and says that Knox and Sollecito had nothing to do with it.

It's also not unlikely that Hellmann will allow additional new testimony and evidence once the DNA report has come in and been discussed, and that woun't be until the end of July. Therefore, I think we should all expect that the evidence/testimony phase will straddle the Summer recess, and carry on until around early October. The argument phase would then probably last for a few weeks, meaning that deliberation and verdict would happen in late October or early November.
 
halides1 said:
Now there is one more reason to test it. On a different subject the title of Ms. Nadeau's article is "Can Prison Gossip Free Knox," and I don't recall seeing anything in the article about Raffaele Sollecito.
Click to expand...

On your first sentence, I agree, and I suspect that Hellmann will allow its testing in late-July. On your second sentence, it speaks both to Latza Nadeau's basic lack of journalistic credibility, and also to her constant need to sex up her articles in order to get paid (she's a freelancer).
 
halides1 said:
Now there is one more reason to test it. On a different subject the title of Ms. Nadeau's article is "Can Prison Gossip Free Knox," and I don't recall seeing anything in the article about Raffaele Sollecito.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.

He looked good. He was dressed more casual this time and he has let his hair grow back some from the May hearing. He really should button one more shirt button and I am not a fan of unbuttoned cuffs either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom