Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Alt+F4]

Generally, when one has to hitch their legal wagon to a psychotic baby murderer, one doesn't have a very compelling case.

Indeed. The two most wrongly convicted people in the world couldn't get anyone else. No one wanted to bother changing their vaction plans in order to testify for the pair. The defense couldn't even get a shut-in (Nara Capezzali) on the stand over the summer. So much for all the support we're told they get in Italy.

 

[komponisto]

BTW - [Stefanoni] is so NOT respected in any way, she's incompetent and a liar.

Indeed. By contrast, Carlo Torre, who testified for Amanda, actually is an internationally respected forensic scientist.

 

[Paninaro]

Todays super-witnesses, exactly as I predicted. One ranted against the system and people listened. The baby killer got an hour break where I'm sure he was given non-prison food. The five got to see women not in uniform.
............................

Alessi had to be attended by a nurse, because of low blood pressure. It doesn't really sound like he was having the time of his life. Any argument that this was the reason for him to testify is a guess based on what some people would like to think about his testimony, rather than on reasoning.

It doesn't seem very far fetched that he was telling the truth. Rudy Guede telling another false story to a guy he came close to due to sharing a cell with him. What's not believable about that? Maybe he wanted Alessi to like him better.

Rudy the Orphan, the abandoned child, blaming his misdoings on his imaginery friend to people he had to stay friendly with in prison so they wont turn on him, a black guy surrended by a lot of potential enemies.

This doesn't mean that the real story he was not telling was that he acted alone of course. The real story could still be that he was trying to hide his involvment in the group murder with Knox and Sollecito. But since not the story Rudy told, but the fact that he told it, seems reasonable enough, as that is corroborated by other inmates, it could very well constitute reasonable doubt.

You earlier in this thread compared Curatolo to Alessi. The big difference between them is of course that Curatolo is a witness for the prosecution and should help establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, while Alessis testimony only needs to help establish this reasonable doubt. Since there are more inmates to back up Alessis story and it´s probable enough in itself, it's proof of Rudy Guede confessing to be involved in the murder without Knox and Sollecito. It's only hearsay of course, but as I understand it that is not a problem in the Italian court system. Witnesses are apparently strong evidence in Italian justice. Just as Curatolo testimony came a long way to help convict Knox and Sollecito. Mignini explained this in his interview; witnesses has to be taken into account in a way that's maybe not fully understood by people used to judicial systems like in the US/UK.

(and forgive me my poor command of the english language. I'm not a native speaker. But I assure you I can understand you perfectly. Expressing yourself correctly is always more difficult than understanding others. )

 

[Chris_Halkides]

scientific reputations

Indeed. By contrast, Carlo Torre, who testified for Amanda, actually is an internationally respected forensic scientist.

Komponisto,

I agree. What is more is that most or all of the people who people who wrote and signed the open letter of 19 November 2009 on the DNA evidence have published multiple articles in internationally known forensics journals. The only article anyone found with Stefanoni's name on it cannot be said to advance the science of forensic genetics, or even close. Coupled with her team's disregarding of glove-changing protocols and other problems with the forensics, her lack of a publication record refutes Mr. Kercher's claim.

 

[Alt+F4]

Alessi had to be attended by a nurse, because of low blood pressure.

To bad he didn't die right there in the court room.

It doesn't seem very far fetched that he was telling the truth. Rudy Guede telling another false story to a guy he came close to due to sharing a cell with him. What's not believable about that? Maybe he wanted Alessi to like him better.

Why would RG want Alessi to like him better? I hear that child killers aren't very popular in prison.

This doesn't mean that the real story he was not telling was that he acted alone of course. The real story could still be that he was trying to hide his involvment in the group murder with Knox and Sollecito. But since not the story Rudy told, but the fact that he told it, seems reasonable enough, as that is corroborated by other inmates, it could very well constitute reasonable doubt.

My take on this is that the defense is trying make the point that it's possible that persons other than AK and RS committed this murder. The defense knows they won't win with a "lone wolf" theory so they have to suggest others were involved.

(and forgive me my poor command of the english language. I'm not a native speaker. But I assure you I can understand you perfectly. Expressing yourself correctly is always more difficult than understanding others. )

Your English seems fine to me.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

pertinent

Generally, when one has to hitch their legal wagon to a psychotic baby murderer, one doesn't have a very compelling case.

TCS,

When the defense has to bring forward witnesses at the appeal stage to get people to remember, and the judge to (just maybe) test, a putative semen stain in a rape/murder, it suggests that the original trial did not examine all of the pertinent evidence.

 

[platonov]

Indeed. By contrast, Carlo Torre, who testified for Amanda, actually is an internationally respected forensic scientist.

He may well be but he didn't do so well on the stand. IIRC

He contradicted another defence witness and then claimed that it was the first murder in history where more than one knife was used, apparently.

As someone here remarked when others wondered what the jury made of this claim 'He even managed to forget Julius Caesar - not bad going for an Italian'

 

[zeb]

ALT+F4
Do love your new picture.
It seems I to got get my old superman suit out of the attic, just to fight evil. you make me laugh at times.
But you have out done, your self this time.
very well done.
Just being cool.
And having a good laugh

 

[Kaosium]

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......

It's like a Seventies movie.

I wish I knew just who was being referred to as 'the prosecution' in a lot of these articles. Costagliola? Mignini? Comodi?

 

[Draca]

Does it really matter? You don't think AK's parents and RS's dad don't have people prepping them for the media? Neither side are professional media folks and they want to get their side of the case out as effectively as they can. I don't fault either side for doing that.

Yes, it does matter. He put his name on that article. Certainly the families have been prepared for what they should and shouldn't say. This is different though. He is acting as judge and jury toward Amanda and Raffaele. Why is he taking on the role of explaining the evidence to convict them? He has the right to his opinion but I think it was highly inappropriate to include in his article that they are guilty. It is fine to write of his emotions about the death of his daughter, but it practically public emotional blackmail in regards to the appeal to say how dare these guilty people appeal and cause us this pain.

Also, in the original version of this article he didn't even mention Rudy Guede by name. It was Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and some other guy. I find that extremely disturbing.

From his Daily Mail article:
Yet to my family she is, unequivocally, culpable.


Daily Mail
It's utterly despicable that the girl jailed for killing my daughter has become a celebrity
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ate-attack-cult-Foxy-Knoxy.html#ixzz1PjyhLpn4


Mirror
We will never forget our murdered daughter Meredith Kercher, by her dad John
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...y-her-dad-john-115875-22790628/#ixzz1PkFQ3kM4


Sunday Times
Rescuing Meredith from the ‘Foxy Knoxy’ frenzy
As the media circus turns murder into entertainment, John Kercher remembers his warm, funny daughter — and the cold, hard facts of the case
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php...irl_meredith_was_funny_clever_and_extremely_/


The Sun
My View
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...s-evidence-that-may-undermine-conviction.html

 

[spartacus]

I have always thought that the second and third article written by John Kercher were written with help from Harry Rag, etc. The style of writing breaks from his personal feelings in the beginning to TJMK talking points toward the end. I know as a tabloid writer he is capable of writing the piece, but they just don't sound authentic. Unless he wrote that part using TJMK lists as a guide....

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...dith-kercher-by-her-dad-john-115875-22790628/

I had meant to go through and compare this to TJMK lists but never did.

This statement about Stefanoni is completely Harry Rag for example. There is no way this is John Kercher:
"However, the head of *forensics in Rome, Patrizia Stefanoni, who conducted the tests, is one of the most respected in Europe, if not the world."

BTW - She is so NOT respected in any way, she's incompetent and a liar.

The overkill is definite Harry Rag, there are other reasons I think he knows Kercher that I don't want to get into. I usually refrained from reading the Kercher articles but I think it is appropriate for Rose to address it directly. Having your daughter killed is no excuse to let innocent people rot in jail. That is not justice, but perhaps the best thing is to ignore.

In other news, why is everyone ignoring the Guede story via Alessi? He said he had a drunken companion named "ciccione" who accompanied him and participated in the rape-murder and then gave him money to get out of the country. Is this impossible?

http://www.quotidianamente.net/cron...dovete-assolvere-amanda-e-raffaele»-1897.html

I guess it is more probable he told the story to relieve himself of guilt in the eyes of Alessi. But Alessi's crimes were worse if anything, so why would he want to do that?

@Paninaro - your English is fine, thanks

 

[Alt+F4]

ALT+F4
Do love your new picture.
It seems I to got get my old superman suit out of the attic, just to fight evil. you make me laugh at times.
But you have out done, your self this time.
very well done.
Just being cool.
And having a good laugh

It's from a Lego Star Wars movie I was helping one of my nephews "produce".

 

[Alt+F4]

Yes, it does matter. He put his name on that article. Certainly the families have been prepared for what they should and shouldn't say. This is different though. He is acting as judge and jury toward Amanda and Raffaele. Why is he taking on the role of explaining the evidence to convict them? He has the right to his opinion but I think it was highly inappropriate to include in his article that they are guilty.

It's nothing but his opinion, ghostwritten or not. It carry no more weight of guilt or innocence than anything AK or RS's families have said.

 

[tsig]

Generally, when one has to hitch their legal wagon to a psychotic baby murderer, one doesn't have a very compelling case.

Even psychotic baby murderers can recognize innocence when they see it.

They hit it with a shovel.

 

[jhunter1163]

Why is he taking on the role of explaining the evidence to convict them? He has the right to his opinion but I think it was highly inappropriate to include in his article that they are guilty.

I feel it necessary to point out that AK and RS have been found guilty in a court of law.

 

[Danceme]

In other news, why is everyone ignoring the Guede story via Alessi? He said he had a drunken companion named "ciccione" who accompanied him and participated in the rape-murder and then gave him money to get out of the country. Is this possible?

And Frank's article said the killer escaped to England!

Personally I think it was not a good idea to have these convicts testify, but if they absolutely had to why did they not just drop Aviello? He completely contradicted the story of the other convicts so far as to even claim Rudy was also innocent. That only looked bad IMO and took away from any credibility any one of them may have garnered on the stand.

 

[tsig]

And Frank's article said the killer escaped to England!

Personally I think it was not a good idea to have these convicts testify, but if they absolutely had to why did they not just drop Aviello? He completely contradicted the story of the other convicts so far as to even claim Rudy was also innocent. That only looked bad IMO and took away from any credibility any one of them may have garnered on the stand.

Yes, if that's the best they got then this is over with and Amanda, et. al. will be spending a lot longer in Italy.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

trial and appeals

I feel it necessary to point out that AK and RS have been found guilty in a court of law.

jhunter1163,

They are still presumed innocent until they exhaust their appeals; however, it is obvious by his actions that Mr. Kercher thought that they were culpable prior to the beginning of the trial. John Kercher wrote, "This appeal, like the initial court case, will drag on for months, while the dark tunnel between my family and our ability to grieve for Meredith in peace becomes ever longer.
If Knox doesn’t get the result she wants, our agony will be even more protracted: she may then take her case to Italy’s Supreme Court in Rome. Put simply, our ordeal could go on for years." (highlighting mine)

I have problems with this passage. It makes Amanda sound like a child running to one parent and then the other pleading for a later bed time, not someone fighting for a normal life. Mr. Kercher is implying that people who support her and Raffaele's appeals are increasing his family's pain. In this passage and in others he suggests that the case for their guilt that there must be something wrong with their supporters. Mr. Kercher seems to be uncomfortable with automatic appeals, but that is as much a part of the Italian system as PM Mignini's stuffing words into Amanda's mouth and changing the TOD in his closing remarks.

 

[jhunter1163]

I guess I was guilty of looking at this through the lens of the American court system in my post above; I should have said that AK and RS have been convicted of the crime. My apologies.

 

[LondonJohn]

And Frank's article said the killer escaped to England!

Personally I think it was not a good idea to have these convicts testify, but if they absolutely had to why did they not just drop Aviello? He completely contradicted the story of the other convicts so far as to even claim Rudy was also innocent. That only looked bad IMO and took away from any credibility any one of them may have garnered on the stand.

Because you (and many others) still don't seem to be able to grasp the situation properly. The defence's claim was this: there are two groups of people - a group of 4 (including Alessi), and Aviello - who have made potentially significant claims regarding this case. Neither the defence, nor the prosecutors, nor the police, nor the courts have any real idea just how accurate, truthful or reliable either of these claims is, mainly because the police and prosecutors declined to investigate properly when they first came to light, and because Judge Massei arbitrarily refused to let the claims be investigated in the first trial.

Therefore, the defence demanded that these claims were investigated in open court so that everybody could determine their veracity. The defence are not asserting that either or both of these groups of people are telling the truth - and nor have they ever made this assertion. Their view is that either one might be true, or both might be false, but until and unless the claims were subjected to official court scrutiny, it would be near-impossible to investigate them properly (i.e. courts have powers of investigation and subpoena that defence lawyers (or even prosecutors) don't have).

This request was all about allowing the claims to be properly investigated. What it emphatically was not was the defence claiming that one or both of these claims was necessarily forming part of its defence against the murder charges. Obviously, if either of the claims turns out to have any substance, then the defence will likely use that information to its benefit. But if both claims turn out to be lies, then the defence will be satisfied that they were investigated properly and found to have no substance, and move on accordingly.

At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum, the is NOT the adversarial (prosecution vs defence) anglo-saxon justice system, where each side only produces witnesses who support that side's case. The Italian courts retain elements of an inquisitorial approach, and also have an investigative role to play in and of themselves. I wish people were able to understand the differences, and to therefore appreciate the real reason why the defence wanted these inmate witnesses heard and examined in court.