Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Diocletus]

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.

But alas, Maresca and Meredith's family are wrong. Such tabloid lawyering has no place in a criminal trial.

 

[pilot padron]

By the way

Is it not rather telling that every bit of the play by play source information that everyone here is hanging on ever tidbit of and fact thereof, and using same in every argument, comes from:

Barbie Nadeau
Andrea Vogt
TJMK
PMF

Per chance forgive if one wonders why these same sources are ever so endlessly demoted, derided, demeaned, and personally viciously attacked on this site.

Yet the one source delivering unassailable 'manna from above' and noticeably never attacked by those arguing innocence here, Fabulous Frank, is simply nowhere to be heard on this important morn,

I mean, Sfarzo was even recently heralded by another cheerleader here arguing that he was "the only *Italian* (reporter/blogger) who has attended every Court session".
WOW, just WOW .

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Maresca and the knife

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

CoulsdonUK,

If the forensic scientists found Meredith's blood on the inside of the knife, it would make the chances of the appeal succeeding become essentially zero. If Maresca believed them to be guilty, then he should been agitating for the knife to be opened. I am sorry to say that your answer makes no sense.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

deflection about the knife

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.

CoulsdonUK,

Far from being an answer to the question of why Maresca objected, your words are a deflection.

 

[bolint]

From the news so far it seems that the Alessi gambit was a backfire for the Amanda defence with collateral damage to Raffaele.
It yielded nothing pro, only brought Rudy back into the courtroom which the defence should have had to avoid at all cost.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The lime jello, marshmallow, cottage cheese "surprise"

Yet the one source delivering unassailable 'manna from above' and noticeably never attacked by those arguing innocence here, Fabulous Frank, is simply nowhere to be heard on this important morn,

pilot padron,

Maybe Frank saw what happened when Mario Spezi tried to write about the Monster of Florence case. Spezi finally said enough and stopped, but I hope that Frank keeps going.

I find it interesting that Ms. Nadeau published a list of questions for Ms. Knox but not one for Mr. Guede. Why am I not surprised?

 

[komponisto]

Also, should the judge have allowed Rudy's testimony to encompass more than Alessi?

From what I understand he did allow it to so encompass, but also allowed Rudy to decline to answer. He may have been legally obligated to proceed in this way.

Those interested in contrasting the Italian and American justice systems should take note of a key difference here: what happened today -- Rudy's letter of accusation being read, with Rudy being allowed not to answer questions -- is exactly the type of thing that is expressly forbidden in the United States under the Confrontation Clause.

 

[Kaosium]

From the news so far it seems that the Alessi gambit was a backfire for the Amanda defence with collateral damage to Raffaele.
It yielded nothing pro, only brought Rudy back into the courtroom which the defence should have had to avoid at all cost.

Why? I'm not getting this part. If he didn't sound credible to the jury he helps Amanda and Raffaele's case. If Amanda and Raffaele stared him down and Rudy couldn't look at them as Barbie indicated, that might register too.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Is it not rather telling that every bit of the play by play source information that everyone here is hanging on ever tidbit of and fact thereof, and using same in every argument, comes from:

Barbie Nadeau
Andrea Vogt
TJMK
PMF

Per chance forgive if one wonders why these same sources are ever so endlessly demoted, derided, demeaned, and personally viciously attacked on this site.

Yet the one source delivering unassailable 'manna from above' and noticeably never attacked by those arguing innocence here, Fabulous Frank, is simply nowhere to be heard on this important morn,

I mean, Sfarzo was even recently heralded by another cheerleader here arguing that he was "the only *Italian* (reporter/blogger) who has attended every Court session".
WOW, just WOW .

Well you can bet your sweet bippy Frank is there, he just doesn't Tweet. He will write about it though.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

From the news so far it seems that the Alessi gambit was a backfire for the Amanda defence with collateral damage to Raffaele.
It yielded nothing pro, only brought Rudy back into the courtroom which the defence should have had to avoid at all cost.

Exactly, what did the defense think they would gain by calling the baby killer and mofia guys to the stand, no way could they have thought Rudy would then be called, that was suicide. To think, the Knox's people said they prove Amanda was not there - very bad choice.........

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Yes, but why do you think that Mr. Maresca objected?

Clearly Maresca thinks that Guede, Raffaele and Amanda played some part in Meredith’s murder.

I could be wrong (if I am there will be dozens of posts pointing that out). However, Guede as in the trial cannot be compelled to testify in Raffaele and Amanda’s appeal, that I believe is his right just as Raffaele has the right not to testify, neither can be forced.

 

[Diocletus]

From what I understand he did allow it to so encompass, but also allowed Rudy to decline to answer. He may have been legally obligated to proceed in this way.

Those interested in contrasting the Italian and American justice systems should take note of a key difference here: what happened today -- Rudy's letter of accusation being read, with Rudy being allowed not to answer questions -- is exactly the type of thing that is expressly forbidden in the United States under the Confrontation Clause.

Good point. I also read that Rudy refused to identify the signature on the letter, which means that it was not authenticated. To allow the prosecution to read an unauthenticated hearsay accusation against a criminal defendant is absurd.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I am sorry to say that your answer makes no sense.

Here we go again. A question did either defence teams formally request that the knife should be opened for further examination; a simple yes or no?

Given that the court appointed experts are now focusing on methods and procedures used for the examination of the knife and Meredith Bra clasp for reasons I do not need to explain, your point is irrelevant.

Maresca does not have to operate with yours or anyone of Raffaele and Amanda’s supporter’s approval, he is representing the Kercher family.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Mr. Maresca and forensics

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,

How is objecting to the knife being opened acting on behalf of the Kercher family? How is asking Andrew Seliber about Amanda's intimate life in Seattle in the interests of the Kerchers? Do you have any evidence that Amanda's supporters or Raffaele's supporters disapprove of anyone's acting on behalf of Meredith's family? Do you agree with his assessment on the basis of this case that Italy is teaching the world, and the U.S., how to do forensics?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

Far from being an answer to the question of why Maresca objected, your words are a deflection.

Halides1

I am not on a witness stand you are not an attorney in a court and JREF is certainly not a court of law, please do keep that in mind.

 

[Kaosium]

Here we go again. A question did either defence teams formally request that the knife should be opened for further examination; a simple yes or no?

What does that have to do with anything? Why would the defense be interested in a search for condemning evidence against their clients?

Given that the court appointed experts are now focusing on methods and procedures used for the examination of the knife and Meredith Bra clasp for reasons I do not need to explain, your point is irrelevant.

Not to the most germane point. It appeared Maresca knew that knife had never been used in the murder. That means something.

Maresca does not have to operate with yours or anyone of Raffaele and Amanda’s supporter’s approval, he is representing the Kercher family.

Or he is destroying them, lawyers who put their interests before their clients can do that.

Do the Kerchers have an English lawyer? Were they advised by one when they chose Maresca?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Geoffrey Stone on the confrontation clause

From what I understand he did allow it to so encompass, but also allowed Rudy to decline to answer. He may have been legally obligated to proceed in this way.

Those interested in contrasting the Italian and American justice systems should take note of a key difference here: what happened today -- Rudy's letter of accusation being read, with Rudy being allowed not to answer questions -- is exactly the type of thing that is expressly forbidden in the United States under the Confrontation Clause.

komponisto,

Great point. That is what I was hinting at but had not formulated it as articulately as you did. The right to confront one's accusers ought not to be tossed aside lightly, IMO. The only decent essay at my fingertips that is related is Professor Geoffrey Stone's commentary on hearsay evidence. "More than one hundred years ago, the Supreme Court described the right of confrontation as one of our nation's most 'fundamental guarantees of life and liberty.'" I would only add that the same applies to the evidence: one should be able to see and challenge it. That fundamental right was trampled upon with respect to the forensics introduced into the trial of the first instance.

 

[Kaosium]

Halides1

I am not on a witness stand you are not an attorney in a court and JREF is certainly not a court of law, please do keep that in mind.

LOL! Fair enough. However, it appears you equate the Kerchers to Maresca, why is that? There's nothing resembling that from those that think Amanda and Raffaele innocent, nor for that matter do you often see stirring defenses of Mignini from those who think them guilty. If you go back in the PMF archives you'll see there's those that despise him.

They're lawyers--hirelings--and if they do a poor job they get criticized.

 

[Kevinfay]

So, Guede says that both Knox and Raff were at the crime scene.

The video clip of Knox's testimony on Sky news has her saying of Guede:

'He knows we all got drunk that evening, but I don't know what happened to him that evening, I just don't know what we did, other than go out that evening ... I'm after the truth'

Its all over? ... except that there is no evidence of Knox in Meredith's bedroom. Will she get a reduced sentence and not be branded a killer?.



'

 

[Chris_Halkides]

One should expect to have one's views tested

Halides1

I am not on a witness stand you are not an attorney in a court and JREF is certainly not a court of law, please do keep that in mind.

CoulsdonUK,

JREF is a place in which one's views are subject to scrutiny and to civil challenge. Please keep that in mind.