Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Katody Matrass said:
Just like expected Maresca and prosecution fiercely defending Guede from any serious questions. What are they afraid of?
Click to expand...
I believe under Italian law just like in the trial Guede cannot be compelled to answer any questions outside of those related to Alessi’s testimony, which is why defence counsel had to ask whether he would answer questions about the night Meredith was murdered, so far only Amanda has taken the witness stand.
 
LondonJohn said:
That's exactly correct. Those who think it's somehow a disaster for the defence are wrong - and the ones who are crowing the most loudly that it's a disaster to the defence are suffering (in my opinion) from a potent combination of poor logical reasoning and an increasing desperation to be shown to be on the "winning side" (as they see it).
Click to expand...

I am on your side LJ, but I am not blind. The defense needs to pull a bunnie wabbit out of the hat to salvage something from today's hearing.
 
LondonJohn said:
Re Latza Nadeau's tweet saying: "Inmate claims lawyer for sollecito promised a reduction in sentence for aviello's testimony last week."

Somebody please enlighten me as to how one of Sollecito's lawyers could ever deliver a reduction in someone's prison sentence. It's practically impossible.
Click to expand...

Maybe the sex change is part of the deal?


LondonJohn said:
PS: I see that someone with the twitter name "somealibi" has just signed up for Twitter, and is already in communication with Latza Nadeau. I see also that this person has already offered an unsolicited reply to a random girl in Texas who happened to mention Knox in one of her tweets - what's more, this "somealibi" character seems keen to propagate the myth that there's a "$1 million PR campaign" being run on Knox's behalf. So whoever this "somealibi" is, he clearly doesn't know much about the case.....
Click to expand...

LOL! What a pick-up line!

I think he'd do better if he said he worked for the million dollar PR campaign...

Where are you seeing this? I just signed up for twitter too.

Okay...I figured it out, girl just about the age Amanda was, looks awfully similar...

"I'm a musically driven bird, who loves all things offbeat. 1/2 flower child. Texas Rangers baseball and Beatles addict! Age 21."

Just coincidence of course
 
Last edited:
Katody Matrass said:
Why do you think Maresca is siding with Guede?
Click to expand...
I don’t know that he is siding with Guede that would be weird given that he is representing the Kercher family; he obviously thinks Raffaele and Amanda have some kind of involvement with the night Meredith was murdered. Guede as we all know has had his conviction confirmed.
 
RoseMontague said:
I am on your side LJ, but I am not blind. The defense needs to pull a bunnie wabbit out of the hat to salvage something from today's hearing.
Click to expand...


But I disagree. I know that many of the media headlines will be along the lines of "Guede confirms that Knox and Sollecito were there", but that's not important. I think that Guede was always going to say exactly that, and I don't think that him saying that makes a jot of difference to Knox's or Sollecito's chances in the appeal.

What's of far more potential interest (to me) is how the defence might use some of today's testimony in their arguments, when the trial reached that phase. I think there's a good argument to be made that Guede seemingly went from prevaricating over Knox's/Sollecito's presence at the murder scene in his Skype call of November 2007, to being virtually certain of their presence by mid/late-2008 (and thereafter).

That, incidentally, is why I think the defence brought up Guede's letter - there are now two incontrovertible pieces of evidence in the court records (the Skype call and the letter) that demonstrate Guede's intriguing conversion from vagueness to certainty in regards to Knox's/Sollecito's presence. I think that many people observing today's proceedings are not reading between the lines (or consciously choosing not to do so).
 
Kaosium said:
Maybe the sex change is part of the deal?
Click to expand...

Hey, maybe that's where Sollecito's father comes in: he is a urologist, after all!


LOL! What a pick-up line!

I think he'd do better if he said he worked for the million dollar PR campaign...

Where are you seeing this? I just signed up for twitter too.
Click to expand...


BLNadeau twitter feed here:

http://twitter.com/#!/blnadeau

All will become clear as you read her recent tweets.
 
LondonJohn said:
Who here was "cluelessly cheering that it would be all over for them today", pilot?
Click to expand...

Since you yourself were the individual who corrected the cheerleader....Uhhh just yesterday....

LondonJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Forgive me if I must consider your 'argument' and question as little more than the tired home team tactic of whining for 'cites' whenever the opposition decimates another innocence clueless claim while attempting to rebut.

So again in compliance with your previously expressed concerns about cyberspace conservation, lets just watch reruns of music in the mud and try to forget how disastrous today was for the Defense (or what is left of it)
 
Last edited:
CoulsdonUK said:
I don’t know that he is siding with Guede that would be weird given that he is representing the Kercher family; he obviously thinks Raffaele and Amanda have some kind of involvement with the night Meredith was murdered. Guede as we all know has had his conviction confirmed.
Click to expand...

It had been "twitted" today:
Dalla vedova asks rudy if he was involved in murder. Maresca objects.

Don't you think Maresca should be interested in truth on behalf of Kerchers? It's not the first time he tries to prevent finding truth. He protested testing the inside of the knife, now he tries to stop Guede from spilling the beans. What is Maresca so afraid of?
 
RoseMontague said:
Not a good day for the defense (at least so far).
Click to expand...

RoseMontague said:
I am on your side LJ, but I am not blind. The defense needs to pull a bunnie wabbit out of the hat to salvage something from today's hearing.
Click to expand...

Just curious: do you really think that Hellmann and his jurors are more likely to convict now than they were last week, despite the fact that they haven't learned anything new? (Well, unless you count that business about Aviello's alleged gender identity issues, I suppose.)

I mean, it could be the case -- people are pretty crazy -- but I just wanted to make sure that was actually your opinion.
 
Last edited:
pilot padron said:
Since you yourself were the individual who corrected the cheerleader....Uhhh just yesterday....



Forgive me if I must consider your 'argument' and question as little more than the tired home team tactic of whining for 'cites' whenever the opposition decimates another innocence clueless claim while attempting to rebut.

So again in compliance with your previously expressed concerns about cyberspace conservation, lets just watch reruns of music in the mud and try to forget how disastrous today was for the Defense (or what is left of it)
Click to expand...


May I commiserate with you on your inability to comprehend the situation. My post that you just quoted from was in response to a post from kevinfay, who was arguing that it would be nice if it was all over tomorrow (i.e. today), but from the point of view of a guilty verdict.

So if you're calling kevinfay a "cheerleader" (which you are), then you're accusing him of being a cheerleader for guilt. As well as clueless. Oh dear. :D
 
komponisto said:
Just curious: do you really think that Hellmann and his jurors are more likely to convict now than they were last week, despite the fact that they haven't learned anything new? (Well, unless you count that business about Aviello's alleged gender identity issues, I suppose.)

I mean, it could be the case -- people are pretty crazy -- but I just wanted to make sure that was actually your opinion.
Click to expand...

If you are asking me if I think that Italian courts are ruled by logic and sound reasoning, I think you already know my answer, at least from what I have seen of this case and the Sarah Scazzi case.

My wishful thinking here is that the defense has an explosive piece of evidence showing a reason for Rudy's change in testimony that you have outlined. Without that it is just speculation, in my opinion.
 
RoseMontague said:
If you are asking me if I think that Italian courts are ruled by logic and sound reasoning, I think you already know my answer, at least from what I have seen of this case and the Sarah Scazzi case.

My wishful thinking here is that the defense has an explosive piece of evidence showing a reason for Rudy's change in testimony that you have outlined. Without that it is just speculation, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Why would Rudy Guede's testimony as the convicted murderer of Meredith Kercher outweigh the Skype guy and the three inmates with nothing to gain that heard him say they weren't involved?
 
Kaosium said:
Extremely clear...and not the answer he was looking for. Did you check my edit above? ;)
Click to expand...

I did. And I concur.

Another twitter feed relevant to the case can be found here:

http://twitter.com/#!/truejusticeorg

It seems that the person with this account is rather keen to promote the idea that "thousands of people" have been reading a particular website devoted to the case (although I see there was a sudden leap from "hundreds" to "thousands" on the same day just over a week ago....) :D
 
halides1 said:
Yes, but why do you think that Mr. Maresca objected? Also, should the judge have allowed Rudy's testimony to encompass more than Alessi?
Click to expand...

And don't you think it's highly ironic given the fact that Maresca last week tried to undermine Alessi by in effect (by showing a picture) asking Alessi if he had been involved in the Tommy murder? And now Maresca is objecting to the same type of questioning of Guede, even though the proposed Guede questioning is much more relevant because it involves the actual crime at hand, i.e., the murder of Maresca's "client"???

I think Maresca knows that Knox and Sollecito are innocent. Has this become all about saving face, too? Maresca convinced his clients that Sollecito and Knox did it, and spent (accepted) gobs of their money on trials and charges, and now he is trying his best not to look stupid? Somebody should shut this guy down, although I suspect Hellman can see through this.
 
Don't you think Maresca should be interested in truth on behalf of Kercher’s?
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure Maresca would argue that is exactly what he is doing; only his truth probably differs from yours.

He protested testing the inside of the knife
Click to expand...

Well that is one point of view; on the other hand it was unfortunate for Raffaele and Amanda that neither defence teams actually made a formal request in their submissions for the testing you describe.

now he tries to stop Guede from spilling the beans. What is Maresca so afraid of?
Click to expand...

Guede cannot be made to answer any questions; really there were never any beans to be spilt today.

As far as I know Maresca has not been admonished by the judges nor would it appear that he is breaking any legal protocol, as much as Raffaele and Amanda’s supporters may disapprove he is acting on the behalf of Meredith and her family.
 
CoulsdonUK said:
I am pretty sure Maresca would argue that is exactly what he is doing; only his truth probably differs from yours.
Click to expand...


How can objecting to hearing testimony from Guede be described in any way whatsoever as a search for the truth (regardless of what the truth actually is)? I'd be interested to hear your answer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom