Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[CoulsdonUK]

How is objecting to the knife being opened acting on behalf of the Kercher family?

Simply the defence did not request it, therefore he has a right to a legal objection that it was not part of the defence appeal submission, for me the more interesting point is why didn’t the defence request!

Another question, what was the judge’s ruling on this?

How is asking Andrew Seliber about Amanda's intimate life in Seattle in the interests of the Kerchers?

Sorry. relevance to the appeal?

Do you have any evidence that Amanda's supporters or Raffaele's supporters disapprove of anyone's acting on behalf of Meredith's family?

In the context of this thread yes, just read any of the observation of Marseca and no I really cannot be bothered to provide # post references.

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?

No. However, I would argue (still) that Italy has the absolute right to prosecute this case according to its own laws.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

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

I guess we have very different ideas of civility!

 

[LondonJohn]

So Nadeau now tweets that there's been an announcement that closing arguments will start in September, with the verdict probably at some point in October. Which is also what I predicted (not that I want to blow my own trumpet of course ).

This means that there will be time for additional witnesses and evidence to be presented between now and the Summer recess (which will be between late July and early September). FWIW, I think that Hellmann will allow the following:

1) new evidence on Sollecito's computer logs, along with related expert testimony;

2) the recall of Quintavalle and Capezzali for additional testimony;

3) the addition of new expert testimony on ToD in relation to Meredith's stomach/intestine contents.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

What Amanda said today

ABC news reported, "After Guede left the stand and the courtroom, Knox, speaking in Italian, told the court that the only time she, Sollecito and Guede was in the same room was in a courtroom."

 

[komponisto]

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.

Another document worth reading is the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Crawford v. Washington, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, which traces the history of the clause. Of particular note is the following, from p.50:

[T]he principal evil at which the Confrontation Clause was directed was the civil-law mode of criminal procedure, and particularly its use of ex parte examinations as evidence against the accused.

 

[Kaosium]

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?.



'

What on earth are you talking about Kevin?

 

[LondonJohn]

ABC news reported, "After Guede left the stand and the courtroom, Knox, speaking in Italian, told the court that the only time she, Sollecito and Guede was in the same room was in a courtroom."

But her statement to this effect won't have had any actual beneficial effect for her - since (as Mandy Rice-Davies said), "she would say that, wouldn't she". Not that it did her any harm, but it didn't do her any good either.

And this is a further example of why it's usually advisable for defendants to remain silent. They usually can't do themselves any good by testifying (or even speaking/writing), but conversely they have the potential to do themselves great harm.

Suppose, for example, that Knox had slipped up when making this statement, and that she had instead said that she and Guede had never been in the same room together. Since there's decent evidence that they had been in the same room together - and had probably even exchanged brief words with each other - such a slip could be extremely costly for Knox.

Or suppose that Knox had said something like this: "Guede was the one who was in Meredith's room, and it was he who plunged the knife into Meredith's neck". The prosecution could easily use such a statement to argue that the only way Knox could make such an accusation from a position of authority was if she had been present herself.

The court already knows that Knox and Sollecito deny involvement in the murder. The two defendants should start to understand this more properly, in my opinion, and they should leave it to their lawyers to argue the case on their behalf. As I keep saying, the best they can hope for by speaking out themselves is that the court hears what it already knows (that their position is that they weren't involved). But the worst they can fear by speaking out themselves is that they get caught out in a contradiction, or mistakenly say something that might be construed as a sign of guilt.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Simply the defence did not request it, therefore he has a right to a legal objection that it was not part of the defence appeal submission, for me the more interesting point is why didn’t the defence request!

Another question, what was the judge’s ruling on this?



Sorry. relevance to the appeal?



In the context of this thread yes, just read any of the observation of Marseca and no I really cannot be bothered to provide # post references.



No. However, I would argue (still) that Italy has the absolute right to prosecute this case according to its own laws.

CoulsdonUK,

He may have that right, but I don't see why opposing the Conti and Vecchiotti is in his clients' interest, do you?

My question to you was how is Mr. Maresca's question to Mr. Seliber acting in the interest of his client; it was not about the appeal. Given Mr. Kercher's anger over Ms. Knox's notoriety, one could argue that his question (to the degree that it made Ms. Knox's intimate conduct the center of attention) went against Mr. Kercher's interest.

You missed the point of my question with respect to Mr. Maresca and supporters of Knox and Sollecito. If someone asked me, what do I think of Mr. Maresca's representing the Kercher's interests, I would say, "It would be a good thing."

 

[LondonJohn]

What on earth are you talking about Kevin?

That's what I was thinking

Sounds like unthinking wish-fulfillment to me...

(PS: kevin, I believe you have been branded a "clueless cheerleader" by another member of this forum. How do you take to this personal insult?)

 

[Diocletus]

So Nadeau now tweets that there's been an announcement that closing arguments will start in September, with the verdict probably at some point in October. Which is also what I predicted (not that I want to blow my own trumpet of course ).

This means that there will be time for additional witnesses and evidence to be presented between now and the Summer recess (which will be between late July and early September). FWIW, I think that Hellmann will allow the following:

1) new evidence on Sollecito's computer logs, along with related expert testimony;

2) the recall of Quintavalle and Capezzali for additional testimony;

3) the addition of new expert testimony on ToD in relation to Meredith's stomach/intestine contents.

I don't know. My reaction was that the DNA evidence would be the last thing before summer recess, and then argument would commence immediately after. I don't think this leaves time for additional evidence that requires appointment and investigation of an expert, so my sense would be that it would not be possible to develop new evidence on TOD within this time frame. That's not to say that the court can't just look at the TOD record and make a new determination on that issue.

The interesting thing to me is that the court now appears to believe that when the DNA evidence comes back, it will have sufficient evidence before it to decide the appeal. This suggests to me that the DNA evidence is viewed as determinative, as I think we all suspected.

The scuttlebutt seems to be that the knife goes away. And for me, it is difficult to believe that the bra clasp results get affirmed without a seriously qualified opinion on the contamination issue (remember, the experts are looking, in part, at chain of custody evidence).

If both of these items go the way of the defense, then it is hard to see how the court could then abruptly end the proceeding with a decision in favor of the prosecution.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

credible?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/27/amanda-knox-appeal-sex-change
QUOTE
Zaccari – who described himself as a former police informer and restaurant owner – was followed on to the stand by Alexander Ilicet, a Montenegrin who shared a cell with Aviello and claimed his cell-mate had boasted of being offered €158,000 by Bongiorno that he had planned to use for a sex change.

Francesco Maresca, a lawyer representing the Kercher family, called the statements "extremely credible" but Bongiorno said: "We are beyond the realms of the reasonable," adding: "Not even the prosecutors appear to believe this story and I will be reporting this libel."
ENDQUOTE

 

[Justinian2]

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.

I'm baaack! I just completed a contracting assignment with good recommendations.

Has there been anything else of interest on today's testimony other that a reading of the letter apparently prepared and signed by Guede's lawyer?

So now we get the shadowy hallucinations of a convicted murderer entered into the records. With Mignini gone, perhaps the Stockholm Syndrome won't effect this set of jurists more than logic and fact.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't know. My reaction was that the DNA evidence would be the last thing before summer recess, and then argument would commence immediately after. I don't think this leaves time for additional evidence that requires appointment and investigation of an expert, so my sense would be that it would not be possible to develop new evidence on TOD within this time frame. That's not to say that the court can't just look at the TOD record and make a new determination on that issue.

The interesting thing to me is that the court now appears to believe that when the DNA evidence comes back, it will have sufficient evidence before it to decide the appeal. This suggests to me that the DNA evidence is viewed as determinative, as I think we all suspected.

The scuttlebutt seems to be that the knife goes away. And for me, it is difficult to believe that the bra clasp results get affirmed without a seriously qualified opinion on the contamination issue (remember, the experts are looking, in part, at chain of custody evidence).

If both of these items go the way of the defense, then it is hard to see how the court could then abruptly end the proceeding with a decision in favor of the prosecution.

There's almost a month between the submission of the DNA report and its discussion in court. And the situation with regard to the computer evidence and ToD would not be analogous to the independent DNA report in terms of appointments, swearing in, etc. The court appointed the DNA review, and the experts could not even begin their work until after they had been sworn in and formally given the assignment.

But for the computer evidence, all that needs to happen is that a document that has been previously prepared (on the computer logs) be submitted to the court for examination, and that the defence and prosecution be allowed to summon their own experts to debate the issue. And for ToD, all that is necessary is for the defence to summon experts to testify on this one narrow issue, and for the prosecution to summon its own experts if required.

All this could be easily sorted out over the next week or two, in time for everything to be completed by the end of July.

 

[Paninaro]

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.

That the proven perpetrator of a crime can point out two other people in a courtroom, without those two people or their attorneys being allowed to ask him follow up questions is truly absurd, and it's very hard to see how this is in the interest of justice.

But since this is the Italian way of justice, let's hope what logically follows from that is this: When the judges take today's testimony of Rudy Guede into account they will agree with each other that everything Rudy Guede says regarding that night and that points to the guilt of Knox and Sollecito is of absolutely no value whatsoever. Moreover, the fact once again underlined that he's clearly lying cannot exonerate them, but it's even more possible, now that he has refused to answer questions about the details, that the things he is lying about is that he's trying to pin the murder he committed on his own on two others for his own benefit. It is very unlikely he does this to cover for Knox and Sollecito.

He has both before and after the murder told people stories about the murder, which though these stories are clearly untrue, both have in common that Knox and Sollecito were not present. There is reason to believe that those stories can be true in at least that respect. Especially since we, again, can't see any reason that these stories were an attempt to clear Knox and Sollecito. They were meant to divert guilt from Guede himself, the first time before he knew for sure that the police would go down the path that the pair were involved with him, Guede, and without knowing the police were listening in, which gives the Skype call the character of a kind of free spoken, of guard, unpressured, spontanious statement. The second time after he already told another story, already proven false by the court in his sentence, to the effect that Knox and Sollecito were the real killers without his involvment. In prison he retracts this story and is in addition to his previous crimes guilty of perjury, if this is true.

Anyway, this leads to a certain amount of reasonable doubt in itself. There is a clear chance that Guede is correct when he's stating that Knox and Sollecito were not there, because the only thing we know for sure is that he was there when Meredith Kercher was murdered. He saw what happened and his confessions can be true on this point, as that truth is against his own interests and clearly not made in the purpose to benefit the accused.

 

[komponisto]

Misleading headline

An example of the often subtle ways that journalistic laziness can be harmful is provided by the headline of Andrea Vogt's latest story:

"Knox declares innocence; codefendant blames her".

As Vogt or whoever wrote the headline should very well know, people with vague knowledge of the case who glance at the headline and don't bother to read the story will tend to assume that this refers to Sollecito.

Worse than ambiguous, the word "codefendant" is in fact erroneous here: Guede is not being tried alongside Knox and Sollecito -- his process was separate and is now over. A fair headline would read: "Knox and boyfriend declare innocence; convict blames them". (Observe how different a story that suggests.)

This is part of a pattern that has persisted from the beginning: a failure on the part of reporters to put sufficient emphasis on Guede and the difference between the case against him and the case against Knox and Sollecito. (Only recently did I even see, for vitually the first time, a story that bothered to follow up the usual "all three maintain their innocence" with "unlike Knox and Sollecito, Guede has admitted being at the scene of the crime.")

 

[Kevinfay]

What on earth are you talking about Kevin?

Watch the Video ..... or are you in denial?

Knox said they went out and got drunk that evening .... what happened to staying home with Raff?

It's on the video, in the court record and also in the minds of the jurors?

Did you see the reaction of her lawyer?

Calling the jailbirds was a fiasco, but ultimately, irrelevant?. We might be entertained by the case of Buongiorno vs the convicts, but it is yet another side issue.

I hope Knox's lawyers now insist that she breaks ranks with Raff, and comes clean. It's her only hope of salvaging something from the mess she has gotten into?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

skype call

I'm baaack! I just completed a contracting assignment with good recommendations.

Has there been anything else of interest on today's testimony other that a reading of the letter apparently prepared and signed by Guede's lawyer?

So now we get the shadowy hallucinations of a convicted murderer entered into the records. With Mignini gone, perhaps the Stockholm Syndrome won't effect this set of jurists more than logic and fact.

Justinian2,

I have not heard anything about the person with whom Guede had a skype conversation, but I thought he was supposed to testify.

 

[Diocletus]

But for the computer evidence, all that needs to happen is that a document that has been previously prepared (on the computer logs) be submitted to the court for examination, and that the defence and prosecution be allowed to summon their own experts to debate the issue. And for ToD, all that is necessary is for the defence to summon experts to testify on this one narrow issue, and for the prosecution to summon its own experts if required.

All this could be easily sorted out over the next week or two, in time for everything to be completed by the end of July.

I hope you're right. Computer records + TOD = Alibi. And, the only way for the defendants to be actually exonerated is through the alibi. Otherwise, the best they can hope for is some wishy washy "well, there's not enough evidence so we have reasonable doubt" thing.

Perhaps at the next session, the parties are supposed to present a list of items they need addressed within the next month.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not seeing it

Watch the Video or are you in denial?

Knox said they went out and got drunk that evening .... what happened to staying home with Raff?

It's on the video, in the court record and also in the minds of the jurors?

Kevinfay,

I did not see a link in your original comment, and what I have read and quoted here with respect to Ms. Knox's testimony is that she said that the first time the three of them were in the same room was in a courtroom.

 

[platonov]

Oops

Originally Posted by Kaosium

What on earth are you talking about Kevin?

That's what I was thinking

Sounds like unthinking wish-fulfillment to me...

Wish fulfillment - hardly, unless its on the part of translation team used for the Sky News piece.

If that translation is accurate ? its bye bye to any slim chance the appeal had.

Either way not a good day for the defence.

Perhaps its time to talk about US constitutional law or Kercher Snr again.