Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Rolfe]

So how do you think the appeal will go and why?

It matters what I think?

I think you answered your own question.

No, really, I've seen far to many lawyers completely fail to grasp what should be quite simple, or obfuscate like mad and baffle the bench into submission, to make any prediction about how any court case will go.

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

Just my opinions, but . . . I don't think the skype call is rebuttal evidence against the inmates' testimony that Rudy said Knox/Sollecito were innocent. So, I think there has to be another reason for this testimony, and I think its possible that the prosecution wants all three of these witnesses to testify that Rudy previously made out-of-court accusations against the defendants. In the case of the police, yes, this must have happened during an interrogation, perhaps in 2007 or maybe later (didn't Mignini interview Rudy sometime in 2009?). In the case of Benedetti, it could have happened during a prison visit.

But the bulk of the Skype call has Guede saying things that are very similar to the story that Alessi (and the other inmates) say Guede told him in prison. So I think Hellmann wants to understand a number of things:

1) Does Guede confirm or deny that he said these things to Alessi in prison?

2) Does he confirm or deny that he said the things he said in the Skype call to Benedetti? (He really can't deny this under threat of perjury - it's all on tape)

3) Once it's confirmed that he said this to Benedetti, the next question will be why he gave this version of events to Benedetti? Why, for example, does he only mention Knox peripherally and very nebulously in this conversation, and is indecisive about Sollecito, while some months later he appeared certain that they were both actively involved?

4) If Guede denies having the prison conversation with Alessi, the follow up question would be whether the story given by Alessi was Guede's version of events at that time. If Guede denies that, he can be presented with the version he gave to Benedetti in rebuttal.

 

[Kaosium]

I think it will fail. I don't see any compelling new evidence not considered by the original trial. Calling on convicted murderers to support the appeal is an act of desperation in my opinion.

How about the guy who had to testify behind the screen because he was a police informant? Do you suppose when they have him testify for the prosecution in other cases it's an act of desperation?

 

[LondonJohn]

If Amanda and Raffaele wins this appeal, what can the proscecution do next, or what would they do next.

The prosecution can (I believe) appeal at the Supreme Court level. But they would only be able to argue that the law had been improperly applied, rather than on any findings of fact or argument. I would imagine such a move to be highly unlikely, unless there was indeed an egregious breach of the law on behalf of Hellmann's court.

 

[Rolfe]

Talk about memes!

It matters what I think?

This is a debatable issue and seemingly not a major plank of the appeal. Excuse me if I don't automatically accept opinions from anonymous posters who rely on google for their expertise. Let's see what Hellman makes of this issue. Of course if the judgement doesn't accord with the opinion of many here, add another person to the conspiracy.

OK, let's do this one again. It doesn't matter in the slightest what you think, or what I think for that matter. But you choose to post in this thread, so one would imagine you might be prepared at least to try to defenc your position with reference to the actual evidence.

I don't give a monkey's what is or isn't argued in court, except it would be a great pity if two innocent people were jailed for decades simply because the lawyers were acting like lawyers. Nevertheless, the court does not create reality.

It's a simple conundrum. Either the evidence of the meal time is wrong, or the evidence of the post mortem findings is wrong, or the alibi is not unbreakable. And I'm not getting my expertise from Google either.

So why do you think one of these three things is wrong?

Rolfe. And I really do have to go do that PM now.

 

[lionking]

How about the guy who had to testify behind the screen because he was a police informant? Do you suppose when they have him testify for the prosecution in other cases it's an act of desperation?

What on earth does this have to do with this case? Do you have a scoop about someone testifying to AK and RS's innocence behind a screen?

 

[LondonJohn]

I think it will fail. I don't see any compelling new evidence not considered by the original trial. Calling on convicted murderers to support the appeal is an act of desperation in my opinion.

The defence didn't "call on convicted murderers to support the appeal". The defence asked that the inmates be heard to determine whether or not there was any truth to their allegations. There's a huge difference. But I guess I didn't expect you to know (or even understand) that.

Since you haven't apparently read the appeal submissions, you'll be unaware of potential new evidence (of course it's as yet untested and unverified) regarding activity on Sollecito's laptop throughout the evening and night. Would you consider that to be "compelling new evidence"?

And do you see any "compelling evidence" considered in the first trial being thrown out in the appeal trial? (Hint: it's all prosecution evidence and testimony so far...). Also, do you understand that there are different ways in which even the existing evidence from the first trial can be argued in the appeal trial?

 

[LondonJohn]

What on earth does this have to do with this case? Do you have a scoop about someone testifying to AK and RS's innocence behind a screen?

One of the inmates who testified on Saturday to corroborate Alessi's story did so from behind a screen, as he was apparently a police informant on another case. It's not a scoop - it's been widely reported.

 

[Katody Matrass]

What on earth does this have to do with this case? Do you have a scoop about someone testifying to AK and RS's innocence behind a screen?

I think your erroneous opinion about the case comes from obliviousness (is there such a word ?).

 

[lionking]

One of the inmates who testified on Saturday to corroborate Alessi's story did so from behind a screen, as he was apparently a police informant on another case. It's not a scoop - it's been widely reported.

Fair enough. I didn't see this reported.

 

[billyryan]

When I say, no I'm not 100% convinced the pair are innocent, I'm really coming from a similar place to Alt+F4. I'm allowing for new and/or different information to emerge which would alter the playing field. On the information as it stands at the moment, no I don't see how they could have done it. And that's leaving aside the fact that the crime as alleged is so bizarre I would want some fairly compelling evidence even to go there in the first place.

I don't care what they say in court, and I don't care how the defence screw it up (if they do), IF it is established fact that Meredith ate her last meal starting before 6.30, and her duodenum was empty at post mortem while her stomach contained about 500ml ingesta including recognisable pieces of semi-digested pizza, then she died not long after 9pm. End of story. A bunch of incompetent lawyers (now there's a tautology) getting it wrong doesn't change reality.

Ergo, if Knox and Sollecito have an unbreakable alibi for that time, they didn't do it. It's that simple. It really is. Change the time of the meal, change the post mortem findings, or break that alibi, and everything changes. But until you do that, I'm afraid it really is that simple.

When I started reading the original cartwheel thread, it all seemed so complicated. Glass that was on top of some other stuff, blood that wasn't blood, a knife that didn't match the imprint of another knife on a sheet, shutters that were broken and wouldn't close, sheesh! And SG making unsubstantiated assertions. And the thread was growing faster than I could read it. And I had other, much larger fish to fry.

But the other fish are fried to a frazzle. I'm 100% convinced that Megrahi had nothing at all to do with putting the bomb on PA103, and I'm 95% convinced he wasn't guilty of other unspecified crimes either, but was merely a wheeler-dealer for the Gadaffi regime who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time on perfectly unremarkable business. I'm 99% convinced that the bomb was introduced at Heathrow airport, much later in the day. There's a lot more to it than that, starting with why was it necessary to cover up what really happened and pin the blame on an uninvolved innocent, but people have pretty much stopped talking to me about it on the forum. If a resounding silence can mean one has won a debate, I've got the gold cup.

There's a lot further to go of course. I have four substantial books still to read, and I'm pretty sure there's more to be gleaned from the 14Mb file that is the complete court transcript. But it's boring, talking to yourself. I looked at the Massei/Mingini thread and saw the information about the meal time and state of the duodenum, and thought, WTF??? I came over here, to a thread that at least has actual live people who aren't me posting in it, and found a debate substantially different from where it was in late 2009.

So, for the pair to be guilty you have to do one of three things. Change the time of the meal, change the post mortem findings, or break the alibi. Where is the evidence that we should be seeking to do that? What is there that suggests guilt, so strongly that one of these three things has got to be wrong?

I'm not seeing it. Glass that was on top of cothes on the floor of a young woman's room - like no young woman ever left her clothes lying around. A tiny bit of DNA on an item that was kicking around for weeks before being collected, and seems to be low-copy-number and mixed with other stuff. Some equally weak findings in relation to a knife that seems to have been arbitrarily selected from a kitchen drawer for no readily apparent reason.

Gimme a break!

It even seems to have got to the point where the prosecution cannot even place Knox inside the room while the murder was being committed. Wasn't she supposed to have done the stabbing, before? Some line about "now we will make you have sex"? It's getting quite silly.

So fine, produce the doubt about the time of the meal, or the post mortem findings, or break the alibi. I'm waiting. Or even show some concrete evidence of the "WTF?" variety that strongly suggests one of these three items must be in error.

But all I'm seeing is hand-waving, evasion, obfuscation, and an obsession with arguing irrelevancies and procedural detail.

Rolfe.

Brilliant post Rolfe nothing more can or needs to be said after that,it is now certain beyond all reasonable doubt that Meredith was attacked within a few minutes of arriving home and she was dead by 9-30

You mention Micheal Stone and wonder if anyone knows who he is,shooting dead mourners in a graveyard are we talking about the same guy

Rudy will surely seek to speak to his lawyer this week to seek advice for Monday, he must surely ask his lawyer what are the consequences for him if he tries to help the prosecution and convict Amanda and Raffaele by lying as against the consequences if he sticks to the truth that Amanda and Raffaele were not present that Meredith was dead by 9-30 that he stole her money that he broke Philomena's window,even if he does stick to the story of the mythical bushy haired stranger having committed the murder,just for instance if Rudy says Raffaele was present at a certain time and Raffaele has computer evidence to prove he was not,he did not have sex with Meredith and the stain between Merediths legs proves he did

 

[LondonJohn]

Brilliant post Rolfe nothing more can or needs to be said after that,it is now certain beyond all reasonable doubt that Meredith was attacked within a few minutes of arriving home and she was dead by 9-30

You mention Micheal Stone and wonder if anyone knows who he is,shooting dead mourners in a graveyard are we talking about the same guy

Rudy will surely seek to speak to his lawyer this week to seek advice for Monday, he must surely ask his lawyer what are the consequences for him if he tries to help the prosecution and convict Amanda and Raffaele by lying as against the consequences if he sticks to the truth that Amanda and Raffaele were not present that Meredith was dead by 9-30 that he stole her money that he broke Philomena's window,even if he does stick to the story of the mythical bushy haired stranger having committed the murder,just for instance if Rudy says Raffaele was present at a certain time and Raffaele has computer evidence to prove he was not,he did not have sex with Meredith and the stain between Merediths legs proves he did

I think that Rolfe is most likely referring to the Michael Stone who was convicted of the murders of Lin and Megan Russell in the Kent countryside in the mid-90s. But you're right that there is another Michael Stone who shot republican mourners at a funeral. I don't think his conviction was ever in much doubt though - there's TV footage of him shooting the gun and throwing grenades!

 

[billyryan]

I think that Rolfe is most likely referring to the Michael Stone who was convicted of the murders of Lin and Megan Russell in the Kent countryside in the mid-90s. But you're right that there is another Michael Stone who shot republican mourners at a funeral. I don't think his conviction was ever in much doubt though - there's TV footage of him shooting the gun and throwing grenades!

You could be right but I am sure Rolfe will let us know,there was video evidence and an unretracted confession of the incident in Belfast,can't help believing if it happened in Perugia Mignini would release him and charge someone else

 

[RoseMontague]

Why wait, Rose? The 4th of July is right around the corner.

Thank you for your interest Mary_H, but it is a work in progress. I have an outline, links, notes, and quotes (two of which I just added yesterday). It will be a series of 6 posts based on the format of the book A History of the World in 6 Glasses. Mine will be called A History of the Groundhog Day Massacre in 6 Shooters (or Shots-haven't decided). It will begin a week before with the 6 parts and end with an aftermath and wrap-up on Groundhog Day.

I am still doing a good bit of research on the shots (just one per day), since I am calling them, and this is what I have so far:

Woo Woo
Kool Aid
Kamikaze
B-52
Cement Mixer
Screaming Orgasm

You can guess at what each shot will cover, I bet. I am open to suggestions if you have a favorite shot that might be more appropriate.

I wonder if the mods will allow me to get all the way through?

 

[zeb]

The prosecution can (I believe) appeal at the Supreme Court level. But they would only be able to argue that the law had been improperly applied, rather than on any findings of fact or argument. I would imagine such a move to be highly unlikely, unless there was indeed an egregious breach of the law on behalf of Hellmann's court.

Thank you

 

[Paninaro]

Btw, where did you find the translation? I checked pmf earlier when it first came up but only found a partial version, much less than this.

I shamelessly lifted it from PMF in the greater interest of truth and a wider understanding. They must have completed it by then. Unfortunately I'm not Italian. All credit to PMF. I should have stated that. Good work by them.

Rudy Guedes story is obviously a pack of lies. It's not proof that Knox and Sollecito were not involved, but the logical conclusion is that he is lying to explain his own actions only. Since it doesn't add anything to the explanation to bring Knox and Sollecito into the real chain of events Guede is lying to hide the truth about, the most likely explanation is that he doesn't lie in order to try to hide their involvment.

I agree Rudy mentioned almost everything he could be blamed for but I wonder why he denies the sperm. Perhaps it really isn't a sperm stain after all. Rudy says they did oral stuff, he could have left his sperm that way and said it could possibly be his yet he denies it's his.

I think so too, so maybe it's not a sperm stain from Guede. He also seems genuinely puzzled by the washing machine business, but since that never took place it's no wonder. On the other hand; the " Because when I left she was dressed, see?, But Meredith was dressed." reeks of lies. Whether or not one believes that Knox and Sollecito were involved. But if one argues that the scene in the Kercher's room was staged, including that Knox and Sollecito undressed the dead and bloody body after Guede left, one must assume that Guede tells some truths and some lies, i.e one has to cherry pick what one needs to support ones theory. So I see no reason not to believe he lied about this as well and that Kercher indeed was seminaked the way she was found already by the time Guede left.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I think needing a conspiracy of silence to hold the innocentisti position together is fairly elephantine.

Why? Did it take an elephantine sized conspiracy of silence to convict Lindy Chamberlind for the murder of her daughter, and to reject her appeal? Did it take an elephantine sized conspiracy of silence to convict Arthur Allen Thomas of double homicide, twice? And in his case there really was the fact that a police officer planted evidence.

You seem to be assuming that for RS and AK to be innocent that every cop and Judge in Italy must not only know, but are being quiet about it. I think that is a crazy position to take, but even if you were to claim that every cop in the ILE knew and was keeping quiet, are you going to also claim that such a culture could never exist in a police force? Or do you really need reminding of the corruption in the Queensland Police force during the late 70's and throughout the 1980's until the Fitzgerald Inquiry exposed it in 1987. (And I'd note that some insiders are claiming that it's getting almost as bad once again, and with the Crime and Misconduct Commission investigating police in both Surfer's and Bisbane for serious criminal offences, including drug running, who knows.)

Or is it that you think that Italy is some how immune to having incompetent and/or corrupt cops like the rest of world, even those in your own backyard?

 

[Kaosium]

When I say, no I'm not 100% convinced the pair are innocent, I'm really coming from a similar place to Alt+F4. I'm allowing for new and/or different information to emerge which would alter the playing field. On the information as it stands at the moment, no I don't see how they could have done it. And that's leaving aside the fact that the crime as alleged is so bizarre I would want some fairly compelling evidence even to go there in the first place.

I qualified mine as well, because there is one piece of evidence that could change my mind as to whether they had any involvement, and that's the tape of the interrogation. If that tape more or less corroborated what the cops said then I could accept that Amanda had actually repressed memories of the murder due to slipping out shortly after her and Raffaele were done celebrating that she didn't have to go to work that night, maybe to get a mop, and was cowering in the kitchen when Rudy Guede did what he did, but being so terrified she didn't actually see him very well and just assumed for some reason it was Patrick.

A long shot which would require me to alter many of my ideas about the case, but with the video evidence I would have to accept it, and there is at least the bare bones already in place. However the evidence would still suggest the cops were incompetent, corrupt or both, as they still would have been lying about misrepresenting most everything else about the interrogation and still have made a gross error arresting Patrick. So I don't bother thinking about it much.

Yes, you have the gold cup, I lurked that thread for a little while after that guy deserted Libya trying to figure out what happened and maybe make an argument for the learning experience, but it appeared about all I might have against real evidence to the contrary was a rat deserting a sinking ship willing to say whatever his rescuers wanted. Or he could have been telling the truth as far as he knew, and still have been misinformed or lied to. One lonely little rat against evidence is not much to work with!

 

[RoseMontague]

Frank's latest contains the rant in court retold:

‘They didn’t want to know anything from me, they just came to perform inspections in my cell, with arrogance, they just prosecuted me and tried to shut me up, they gave me a lawyer who was wife of the vice-Questore, they put me in isolation’. He, who comes from the ‘Quartieri Spagnoli’ of Naples, he, officially a criminal, understands that all this is illegal. He understands that against his friend Raffaele Sollecito there’s no proof, and to convict people you need a proof, a real one.

He holds, in his own style, the same positions of the Florence judges who condemned Mignini. “You are no good at your job!”, he repeatedly yelled at the prosecutors: “you are a clan, you are a clan!!” he kept yelling. The same argument Berlusconi runs when he reminds them that prosecutor and judge have to be one against each other, and not part of the same team. The same concept we met many times in our analysis, when we noticed the copy and paste effect. The cops accuse someone and then prosecutors and judges -10, 100, 1000 judges- are only able to repeat that accusation, never mind how absurd it is, never mind if there’s no proof or if all the evidence disappeared.

LOL

http://perugiashock.com/2011/06/20/you-are-a-clan-2/#more-504

Here is another quote, anyone know the details behind this one?

They told him some local pushers were Gadafi agents, about to invade the Libyan embassy, and he believed them… They were arrested guess where? In Rome, while jumping into the embassy? While looking at the embassy? At least on their way to Rome? No, in Perugia, sleeping at home… A strange way to make a push…What are they going to be charged with, crime of dreaming a push?…

 

[Rolfe]

I think that Rolfe is most likely referring to the Michael Stone who was convicted of the murders of Lin and Megan Russell in the Kent countryside in the mid-90s. But you're right that there is another Michael Stone who shot republican mourners at a funeral. I don't think his conviction was ever in much doubt though - there's TV footage of him shooting the gun and throwing grenades!

You're right, I was talking about the man convicted of the murders of Lin and Megan Russell, and the GBH of Josie Russell. Who most certainly should not have been found guilty of the crime, and quite probably didn't do it (the whole article linked here is interesting to students of miscarriages of justice, but go to page six for the start of the section dealing with the Stone case).

I was unaware of the Irish case of the same name.

Rolfe.