Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

If AK and RS serve their full sentences that will mean that they will have been found guiltly in the main trial and two appeals. Knox would be particulary lucky not to be serving her time in the brutal US prision system.

As you know, I believe that the evidence supports both Knox's claim that she was present, but not involved in the murder. and Guede's version that she was present but not involved.

It would be wonderful if we see an end to the whole affair tomorrow, with Guede's testimony. My main concern is that, if I am right, Knox will get a reduced sentence, but also be able to rebuild her life as someone who made very grave errors, but will not be made to 'wear the mask of a killer'.

There is zero chance that "we will see and end to all this tomorrow". We are in the middle of a criminal trial: the only way in which it could conceivably end is if the presiding judge throws out the case, and there is no possible scenario by which he could do that tomorrow.

You still seem unaware that we are merely in the evidence/testimony phase of the appeal trial, and that the argument, deliberation and verdict all have to follow - unless the case is thrown out. I don't know how many times I have to reiterate: this is not an appeal in the common law anglo-saxon judicial system sense of the word.

What will happen tomorrow is the following: Guede will be questioned, and he will provide testimony. His testimony will be added to the body of evidence, upon which the legal arguments will subsequently be based. If Guede says "I never said this to Alessi, and I tell you all that Knox and Sollecito were the real killers", then not only would this have no effect on the trial process, but actually it would be open to questions about its truthfulness, since such a statement would clearly be extremely self-serving for Guede.

And even if Guede were to stand up tomorrow in court and say "I've had an epiphany! I need to tell the truth, and the truth is that I did all this myself and that Knox and Sollecito had absolutely nothing to do with it", not even this would cause the trial to be over. It would merely be entered as evidence, and subject to legal argument between the prosecution, defence and the court.

My own opinion is that tomorrow is not going to be a quarter as exciting as many people seem to be thinking. I think the the questioning of Guede will be pretty narrow. I think he will deny saying that stuff to Alessi. I think, however, that he will get caught trying to explain how he reconciles his imprecision about Knox's/Sollecito's participation during his Skype call with his apparent later near-certainty that they were the real killers. I think the whole thing will last no longer than an hour (including many recesses and pauses), and that nothing revelatory will come out.

 

[LondonJohn]

I agree.



Kool & The Gang are still performing live?

Hell yeah! They are rocking out! hehe (or should that be "jazz/funk/r&b-ing out"?)

Actually, they have a very slick set and are a very accomplished (and very large) group of musicians. And of course they benefit from much of their back catalogue being memorable, catchy songs. I saw them live last year in an 80s revival show at Wembley, and they know how to work a crowd

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm sure I've already answered this, but anyway:

If these two scientists have something to contribute to the defense, then surely they should contact the defense lawyers, the appeals are being conducted in open court, not in any exchange of letters?

They have done so. The judge's decision to order an independent review of all the DNA evidence may well have been influenced by the defence backing up its arguments with the opinions of various well-regarded DNA scientists. And the work that Conti and Vecchiotti (the independent scientists) appear to have done seems to be in line with the views of the other scientists. I believe it's highly likely that Conti's/Vecchiotti's conclusions and recommendations will mirror those of the other independent DNA experts as well.

"oooooh lalala, let's go dancin'; oooooh lalala........ reggae dancin'"

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh my word: some commentators elsewhere are either too ignorant or unintelligent to understand the situation with disco buses (and the situation re disco buses vs tourist buses or municipal buses). I'll try to help them by spelling out the situation once again:

1) The large out-of-town discos near Perugia operate shuttle buses from Piazza Grimana to the discos, in order to enable people to get there and back without having to take a taxi or drive themselves. It's entirely obvious to see the rationale for the out-of-town discos to lay on these buses.

2) The discos/clubs in the centre of Perugia do not operate shuttle buses: it's obviously not necessary because a) these discos/clubs are in the middle of town anyhow, and b) the centre of Perugia is perfectly well served by municipal buses and taxis, and for many people it's walkable anyway.

3) The disco shuttle buses are plain white in colour, with no logos, and differ significantly from tourist buses (which are usually coloured and carrying the operator's logo) and municipal buses (which are either yellow or light blue, and carry advertising along their side).

4) Curatolo was very specific that he saw disco shuttle buses. Furthermore, he testified that he saw groups of young people waiting to board these buses. It's certain that he was referring to disco buses, rather than municipal or tourist buses. And Curatolo had been living in the square for years by that point: he would have known full-well the difference between the various buses.

5) The fact that Guede went to Domus that night is neither here nor there in the discussion about disco buses. If he'd chosen to get there by bus, he would have needed to take a municipal bus. He couldn't have taken a disco shuttle bus: Domus (along with every single other disco/club in the centre of Perugia) operates no such buses.

6) All the large out-of-town discos were closed on the evening/night of November 1st/2nd 2007. There were therefore no disco buses in Piazza Grimana at any point on that evening/night.

"How you gonna do it if you really don't wanna dance, by standin' on the wall? GET YOUR BACK UP OFF THE WALL!"

 

[Kevinfay]

kevinfay,

I don't yet see the appeal as being entirely fair on the issue of DNA. It is fine that independent experts are looking at the data, but it would be better to allow more defense witnesses to testify after they have examined the electronic data files and other files that were not released. Speaking not from a legal standpoint but a logical one, the inconsistency with respect to the TOD in Guede's trial versus this one is problematic for me.

I think that the defense have the best lawyer in the land, I'm sure she will call the very best experts on DNA,TOD etc. AK and RS can't really ask for more?.

 

[Kevinfay]

kevinfay,

I wrote my original comment in response to your assertion that the FOA was a joke. With respect to the trial and appeal, I have documented here and elsewhere that the defense team and the forensic scientists with which it consulted were denied the electronic data files that they needed to examine and to rebut the prosecution's case. Judge Hellmann did accept a letter from one forensic scientist at the beginning of the trial, but he has not allowed the defense to call any new DNA forensic witnesses (yet), and I am not entirely comfortable with that decision. That caveat noted, Conti and Vecchiotti have impressed me so far, and I eagerly await the results of their report.
EDT
The first trial was neither fair nor transparent. Dr. Stefanoni was not forthcoming with the information on the negative TMB tests or the amount of DNA on the clasp. That alone would be grounds for a mistrial in some jurisdictions. The failure of the prosecution to turn over machine logs and standard operating procedures (as well as the EDFs) is an even more egregious problem, IMO.

The appeals are there precisely to review any potential errors in the main trial? That is what is happening now.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

"I think" sounds like an act of faith to me. But then again I somehow can't express an opinion on this thread.

Welcome to the JREF forums, where no amount of playing the victim excuses you from being asked to provide evidence for your beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be.

It's a place to discuss skepticism and critical thinking, you see. If you don't know what those are, ask around.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think that the defense have the best lawyer in the land, I'm sure she will call the very best experts on DNA,TOD etc. AK and RS can't really ask for more?.

You think that Giulia Bongiorno (I assume that it's her you're referring to) is really the best criminal defence lawyer for a murder defendant in Italy, do you? Care to list how many murder defendants she's defended in her entire career before Sollecito? (Hint, the answer is less than 1 but greater than -1). Care to list the previous clients she's defended, and what they were charged with? (Hint: it's not even crimes of violence). Care to tell us what proportion of her time and energy she's been able to devote to defending Sollecito to date?

 

[Kevinfay]

kevinfay,

You gave no specifics with respect to what Amanda's parents said or did; therefore, your argument about the FOA is insubstantial. However, I don't see how one can defend Amanda and Raffaele without sooner or later mentioning all of the (in cognizance of Frank Sfarzo's recent experiences) misstatements that ILE made over the course of the investigation. The link I provided links to three previous posts, the first of which is the most extensive list.

You wrote, "To save time, could you list the elements which you believe were not adressed correctly in the first trial, that you think will not be addressed in the appeal ... those are the ones we need to be thinking about?"

I am not certain of everything that the appeals court will agree to examine. Let me mention a few things that struck me about the first trial, beyond the lack of discovery with respect to the forensics, as I mentioned upthread (citations available on request). Allowing the prosecution to move the TOD back at least an hour in its close, and allowing the main trial and the slander trial to run concurrently were perhaps the worst. Allowing PM Mignini to stuff words into Amanda's mouth during his close (as noted at the blog Simple Justice) was pretty bad as well. It would be idiotic for the appeals court not to examine TOD from the point of view of stomach contents. In addition, I would like to see Sgt. Pasquali's results with respect to the rock be argued a second time. I am fairly certain that the laws of physics and physiology operate the same in Perugia as the rest of the planet, but perhaps Massei had a good reasons for believing otherwise.

I still think that the FOA is a joke. They certainly had a negative influence on the affair, by raising false hopes for AK and her family.

 

[LondonJohn]

The appeals are there precisely to review any potential errors in the main trial? That is what is happening now.

For the twelvetieth time, no. You are still under the impression that this is an appeal in the anglo-saxon sense. It is not. It is an entirely new trial. It is not a review in any sense of the word. It is not "reviewing the main trial" - indeed in many senses this appeal trial is the main trial. The evidence and testimony from the first trial is carried over from the first trial, but can be (and is in this case) supplemented by addition evidence or testimony. The arguments are completely new, and without any reference to the first trial. the same is true of the deliberation and verdict.

 

[LondonJohn]

I still think that the FOA is a joke. They certainly had a negative influence on the affair, by raising false hopes for AK and her family.

What? I think that Knox and her family are influenced by what happens in the courtrooms of Perugia, and by what their legal advisers tell them. You seriously think that someone on the internet saying "Amanda is innocent! She'll be home by Christmas! LOLS xxxxx" has any effect whatsoever upon Knox or her family?

 

[Kevinfay]

kevinfay,

To the best of my knowledge Raffaele was arrested at 1 AM. It strikes me as odd that Amanda could be anything but a suspect as of the moment of his arrest, as opposed to 1:45 AM.

With respect to any supposed interference of the Knox or Mellas families in the judicial process, I don't have any reason to believe that they did. If I were of a very contrarian frame of mind, I could argue that John Kercher's complaining about how much the appeals process is hurting his family is an attempt to interfere with the appeals process. In reality I think that it is a stretch to make that argument, but I also think that Kaosium is on the right track here. The Kercher family has gotten pulled into this mess in a time and way that does not help the overall process. Both Maresca and Comodi stood up as if each one had just sat on a cactus, to object when Conti and Vecchiotti suggested opening up the knife to look for blood. My opinion is that Maresca has not helped in the search for truth.
EDT
Maresca asked one of Amanda's friends (Andrew Seliber) about her sex life in Seattle, an inappropriate question, IMO.

Before becoming a suspect, RS said that Knox could have returned to the cottage while he was asleep. Knox became a suspect at 01:45 when she admitted to being at the scene of the murder. I can't see anything odd about that?.

The attempt to pervert the course of justice by RS's family was worse than the Knox family behaviour ... I'll accept that.

I have every sympathy with with the Kercher Family, I can't imagine anyone who doesn't?. However, RS and AK are entitled to their appeals.

 

[Kevinfay]

You think that Giulia Bongiorno (I assume that it's her you're referring to) is really the best criminal defence lawyer for a murder defendant in Italy, do you? Care to list how many murder defendants she's defended in her entire career before Sollecito? (Hint, the answer is less than 1 but greater than -1). Care to list the previous clients she's defended, and what they were charged with? (Hint: it's not even crimes of violence). Care to tell us what proportion of her time and energy she's been able to devote to defending Sollecito to date?

If she is so bad, why not write to RS and suggest he fires her?.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

So you argue that congestion may have caused the 20:15 SMS to be delivered through the downtown cell. I would think that even more congested but who knows...
Well, at least the long term cell memory myth with which this thread began is debunked.

Anyway, almost all of Amanda's traffic went through that cell while Raffaele managed to use the straightforward best cell.

Was not it congested for him?

...and after all that we're back to unsupported personal incredulity.

The onus is on the prosecution to show that the mobile phone traffic on the night of the murder disproves their alibi. You can't do that just by pointing at something that looks to you as if it might be anomalous and saying "Well, I don't see how that happened, and if I don't see how that happened it proves they are guilty". You need to show that the mobile phone traffic couldn't possibly have happened that way without them being outside the house.

All sorts of things could potentially account for the difference you note. Maybe Amanda had a different service provider, or a different handset, or her phone was in a different location within the flat, or levels of congestion were different at different times.

Now if you could put a number of how unlikely the available phone traffic evidence is under the assumption that Raffaele and Amanda stayed home all night as they claim we might be able to get somewhere. Are the odds of seeing the data we are seeing (under that hypothesis) one in ten? One in one thousand? One in one million? Based on what you've posted I don't get the impression you have any idea.

Bear in mind that the Massei/Christiani/Mignini/Comodi theory is wildly, wildly unlikely to be true. No similar crime has ever been documented in human history, to begin with, and then it also requires us to suspend the laws of nature regarding human digestion completely. It would take an incredibly unlikely, and hence incredibly strong, piece of evidence to drag that theory back into the realm of the remotely plausible, let alone to drag it all the way to truth-beyond-reasonable-doubt.

 

[Kevinfay]

For the twelvetieth time, no. You are still under the impression that this is an appeal in the anglo-saxon sense. It is not. It is an entirely new trial. It is not a review in any sense of the word. It is not "reviewing the main trial" - indeed in many senses this appeal trial is the main trial. The evidence and testimony from the first trial is carried over from the first trial, but can be (and is in this case) supplemented by addition evidence or testimony. The arguments are completely new, and without any reference to the first trial. the same is true of the deliberation and verdict.

So, your convinced that RS and Knox will be aquitted?

 

[Alt+F4]

You think that Giulia Bongiorno (I assume that it's her you're referring to) is really the best criminal defence lawyer for a murder defendant in Italy, do you? Care to list how many murder defendants she's defended in her entire career before Sollecito? (Hint, the answer is less than 1 but greater than -1). Care to list the previous clients she's defended, and what they were charged with? (Hint: it's not even crimes of violence). Care to tell us what proportion of her time and energy she's been able to devote to defending Sollecito to date?

Yet RS and his family, who we are told are very wealthy, chose her. What do they know that you don't? A lot I'd suspect.

 

[LondonJohn]

If she is so bad, why not write to RS and suggest he fires her?.

Ahh the old false dichotomy trick rears its ugly head again! I didn't say she was "so bad". I argued that she was not the best in the land (as you had stated).

I think she (and all the other defence lawyers) made a number of demonstrable mistakes in the first trial. I think that they will have addressed these areas, and be far better prepared by the time of arguments in the appeal trial. The appeal submission documents certainly seem to bear this out. In addition, even if Sollecito had been extremely disappointed by Bongiorno's performance in the first trial, it would probably be a strategic mistake to replace her before the appeal trial.

I think Bongiorno is a good criminal defence lawyer with an excellent record of winning cases, but that she was hampered in the first trial by having no prior experience of murder trials (and all the different aspects involved in murder trials as opposed to fraud/corruption trials) and her time availability. I've said before that she should have recused herself from representing Sollecito because of this, and that she should instead have recommended a criminal defence lawyer with a proven track record of defending murder suspects.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

If she is so bad, why not write to RS and suggest he fires her?.

I really don't understand where the guilters think they are going with this meme.

Is the implicit argument "You cannot really believe this to be true, or else you would be doing X, Y and Z?". If so it's an irrelevant argument because whether or not something is true is independent of whether any particular person really believes it to be true. You might as well say "If you really believed that there are ongoing atrocities in the Congo, you would have lobbied your government to intervene further. If you have not lobbied your government then it follows that there are no ongoing atrocities in the Congo".

Or is the implicit argument merely "If you believe this to be true and are not doing X, Y and Z you are a bad person"? If so this is equally irrelevant. You might as well argue "You are a bad person for not lobbying your government to intervene in the Congo, hence there are no ongoing atrocities in the Congo".

Either way it's a stupid argument.

Either AK and RS have the best lawyers in the universe or they do not. What LondonJohn may or may not secretly believe about it or have privately done about it is neither here nor there.

Why not focus on the available hard facts about whether or not AK and RS have the best lawyers in the universe? My guess is that the guilters don't focus on that because any discussion that stays focused on hard facts rather than attacks on personalities isn't going to go well for the guilters, and they know it.

 

[platonov]

Yet RS and his family, who we are told are very wealthy, chose her. What do they know that you don't? A lot I'd suspect.

That's an outrageous suggestion

Withdraw it at once Madam !!

 

[LondonJohn]

Yet RS and his family, who we are told are very wealthy, chose her. What do they know that you don't? A lot I'd suspect.

Oh great, you're back with all your precise and cogent arguments! Do you know Bongiorno's record of defending murder suspects? Because I do, and the answer is that she had no prior experience of defending such suspects. All her previous criminal defence work had been with clients who were charged with fraud or corruption. And I also know how much time Bongiorno was able to devote to this trial. It wasn't much, and this alone has resulted in a very slow court process (even by Italian standards).

I think that Sollecito's father picked Bongiorno because she is very well-known for her political profile and for her work in former PM Andreotti's defence (even though the records suggest that her role in his trial was relatively minor). Almost nobody outside of the law has any idea who the real stars are in the field of criminal defence, especially in regard to serious crimes. I therefore think that Sollecito's father made his decision along the lines of this: "Bongiorno's famous, she's powerful, and she is renowned for getting Andreotti acquitted. So we'll get her to defend my son".

Quite apart from Bongiorno's proven lack of experience in murder cases, the fact that her availability was so limited should have been a huge red flag in and of itself. I still can't understand why Bongiorno took the case (and why the Sollecito family kept with her employment) in the knowledge that she could only dedicate one day (or two days maximum) to the case per week. My guess is that Sollecito and his father became dazzled by her undoubtedly slick presentation skills and confidence. I therefore blame Bongiorno far more than I blame Sollecito or his family. In my view, she should have turned down the case. I think that the allure and profile of the case proved to be to much for her to turn down.