Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Diocletus]

"...crushing testimony against Amanda Knox." Sorry if you don't think that's a description of a disaster and a debacle. But hey, that's what the defense gets when their super witnesses are convicted felons. You know your case is doomed when you hitch your star to a man that beat a baby to death with a shovel.

I've only read two things of any substance that Rudy said today:

1) I did not tell Alessi that Sollecito/Knox were innocent, and

2) Two days after release of the Massei report, I wrote a letter saying that I was completely uninvolved in the murder of Kercher by Knox/Sollecito.

Neither one of these things is especially notable.

First, Rudy may deny saying that he told Alessi that Knox Sollecito are inncoent, but the facts remain that such is consistent with Rudy's Skype calls and Alessi's testimony is corroborated by two eyewitnesses.

Second, the Knox/Sollecito allegation is exculpatory, which would seriously undermine Rudy's credibility on this issue, if he had any, which he doesn't.

The real disaster of the day was that the defense was denied the opportunity to cross examine and Amanda wasn't allowed to stand up and confront Rudy. It's worth noting, though, that sometimes when things like this don't go your way, it's because the judge wants to make sure that the guy who is to lose the war has won all of the battles. Then it's harder for the loser to complain. It's hardly the end of the appeal that there was no opportunity to confront.

Anyway, I'm convinced that the DNA is the critical, driving issue at this point. And that "Rudy day" was not a big deal.

 

[LondonJohn]

But hey, that's what the defense gets when their super witnesses are convicted felons. You know your case is doomed when you hitch your star to a man that beat a baby to death with a shovel.[/QUOTE]


Why do you use the phraseology "when you hitch your star to a man that beat a baby to death with a shovel"? Why are you under the (mistaken) impression that the defence were "hitching their star" to him (or to Aviello, for that matter)?

Do you know how these inmates came to be testifying in Hellmann's court? I'll run through it once again:

1) At various times in 2008/2009, these inmates came forward with allegations related to the case.

2) The defence asked that they be heard in the first trial, to evaluate their allegations. Judge Massei refused these requests out of hand. He was very possibly behaving unlawfully by doing so, according to the rules governing the Italian judiciary (courts in Italy have an obligation to investigate and evaluate any reasonable avenue that might have an impact upon the case being tried).

3) The defence teams argued this in their appeal submissions: they were not arguing that either Aviello or Alessi was necessarily credible or truthful, but that their allegations needed to be examined, tested and evaluated in a courtroom.

4) Judge Hellmann clearly agreed with this line of argument, and he ordered the inmates to appear - as indeed he should have done in his investigative capacity.

5) These were not "defence witnesses" in the anglo-saxon sense of witness ownership. They were called by the court - by Hellmann - at the request of the defence to find out the veracity of their allegations one way or another.

Does that make it any clearer? I'm getting tired of having to repeat myself on this issue, TBH. Maybe I'll make a Machine-like cut-&-paste piece that I can just repeatedly lift into the thread

 

[snook1]

I don't think Rudy appeared believable to anyone. And according to guilters the court is bound by the cassation verdict, which says that Rudy's story is a bunch of lies.

E.g. their motivation specifically points out that they don't believe his story about Amanda ringing the doorbell to enter because she had a key.

I also don't think Rudy came across as a reliable witness.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm enjoying watching the CTers trying to spin today's defense disaster in their favor.

 

[LondonJohn]

I thought you were calling Sky London to ask? .... then you wouldn't need to waste so many useless keystrokes?

I already knew the only answer that matters long ago - that the translation was a "sack of crap", and that Knox had said no such thing. That was definitively apparent about 30 minutes after the video first aired, and was in fact already highly probable the moment the video appeared. Unfortunately, it took some of us far longer than others to figure this out.

It was you who kept imploring me to call the Sky Corporation. Why would I want to do such a thing? I already had the right answer - beyond that, it's for Sky to determine how such a cock-up occurred, not me.

But you were the one who said (out of nowhere) that you were going to call your mate Tony if it all turned out to be a wrong translation. And it all turned out to be a wrong translation. So how did the conversation with Tony go? Or maybe you got shy and didn't call him as you said you would?

 

[HumanityBlues]

It sounds like Rudy just gave a proverbial "nu uh". Was anyone expecting any different? And as far as bringing in some inmate to accuse Raffaele's attorney have offering money to have a sex change in exchange for testimony......good luck with that angle.

 

[snook1]

Anyway, I'm convinced that the DNA is the critical, driving issue at this point. And that "Rudy day" was not a big deal.

Well, it was a big deal. For the first time since few years, all three of them met in the court. Amanda and Raffaele, apparently, stared at him. The tension, as reported, was huge. Finally, both Amanda and Raffaele stood up and made declarations. That's not your everyday court hearing.

However, I'm also convinced about the DNA report being the very important part of the appeal. I can't wait to see what the report will say and I wonder if there will be any leaks....?

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm enjoying watching the CTers trying to spin today's defense disaster in their favor.

Fascinating. Have you got anything to add to the actual debate? Or are you now exclusively specialising in wise-crack one-liner witticisms related to the arguers rather than the arguments?

 

[Katody Matrass]

It's disappointing that judge prevented Amanda and the defence from confronting Guede directly about his lies.

I think there is disappointment among guilters, too. Some of them surely were hoping that Guede would tell the really true truth this time, and disperse all the terrible impossibilities that riddle the case and prevent them from putting together a non-ridiculous reconstruction. IIRC somealibi had been boasting how he's gonna make Guede tell the truth. Weren't there some epistolary undertakings about it ?

To their dismay it was Maresca who jumped up in Guede's defence to stop any real questioning. Yet it appears it was the defence, not prosecution, who were ready and willing to get truth from Guede or deconstruct his lies.

 

[Kevinfay]

1) If you have to ask .......Please re read my previous oft cited description detailed in several past arguments of my understanding of the thinly concealed underlying motivations for such deliberately diversionary requests , and my repeatedly explained decision in past arguments not to acquiesce to same

2) Oh dear yes; the distant detached observer made exactly that outrageous claim.

3) is using 'ilk' to argue a term of endearment or another borderline....?

4) IF Jugdge Hellmann allows it ??? Oh dear, has not he read anything here ??How on earth could he not allow that 'game changer' of Google documented ToD??

5) OK; must be another distant detached pontificator

6) Not at all do I get it, but some tag team member of the majority here probably does and will momentarily fawningly high five your argument and or pile on mine as per past custom

7) As a matter of fact, since this apparently is important enough for you to bring it up in multiple later arguments, I actually did explain via PM how my original argument was diverted and distorted by the poster it was aimed at and who had nothing better to use to in the feeble attempt rebut what I argued apparently very successfully.

On point 7 could I ask LondonJohn what exactly was he trying to say on this point, again he seems to be investing an awful lot of keystrokes on it. Could he explain what he is trying to achieve?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I wonder who was responsible for conducting and approving the dreadful mistranslation?

How did Tony and his pals take it when you called him up to take him to task over it?

Come on give it up, this is Sky after all.

They showed a photo of Osama Bin Laden’s head after he was killed and this was 8am, of course later in the day when they realised it was a photo shop job they just dropped it. This type of thing happens because the 24/7 media industry is obsessed with beating their competitors, not providing accurate information, although it is interesting how many of Raffaele and Amanda’s supporters flocked to media reports on Curatolo testimony; C’est la vie.

 

[Diocletus]

Well, it was a big deal. For the first time since few years, all three of them met in the court. Amanda and Raffaele, apparently, stared at him. The tension, as reported, was huge. Finally, both Amanda and Raffaele stood up and made declarations. That's not your everyday court hearing.

Well, ok, perhaps there was tension, but I'm talking about substantive/evidentiary developments. Not much there. Nobody stays in jail or gets out of jail based on Rudy Day.

 

[Kevinfay]

I already knew the only answer that matters long ago - that the translation was a "sack of crap", and that Knox had said no such thing. That was definitively apparent about 30 minutes after the video first aired, and was in fact already highly probable the moment the video appeared. Unfortunately, it took some of us far longer than others to figure this out.

It was you who kept imploring me to call the Sky Corporation. Why would I want to do such a thing? I already had the right answer - beyond that, it's for Sky to determine how such a cock-up occurred, not me.

But you were the one who said (out of nowhere) that you were going to call your mate Tony if it all turned out to be a wrong translation. And it all turned out to be a wrong translation. So how did the conversation with Tony go? Or maybe you got shy and didn't call him as you said you would?

From the number of posts you've made, wondering how the mistranslation was made, surely you are going to call Sky London, who you are apparently so familiar with?.

There seems to be some posters on this board who wouldn't pay the price of a stamp or the price of a phone call to further our understanding of the case?. Perhaps, their opinions (or perhaps I should say agendas) should be weighed accordingly?

 

[Danceme]

There is now evidence on the record that Guede's Skype call from mid-November contained nothing more than a vague reference to the "bushy-haired man" rushing past him

I can't find any reference to a "bushy-haired man" in the translated Skype conversation, just a Description of a person who was not much bigger than him and who had hair colour between blond and brown. Perhaps you could point me in the direction of his quote regarding the "bushy-haired man".

The other important thing is that Guede would not only almost certainly have been well aware of Knox's and Sollecito's arrests at the time he made the Skype calls,

what was the date of the Skype conversation, I can't remember right now? And why does it end abruptly, is it that that was all that was published?

 

[LondonJohn]

Come on give it up, this is Sky after all.

They showed a photo of Osama Bin Laden’s head after he was killed and this was 8am, of course later in the day when they realised it was a photo shop job they just dropped it. This type of thing happens because the 24/7 media industry is obsessed with beating their competitors, not providing accurate information, although it is interesting how many of Raffaele and Amanda’s supporters flocked to media reports on Curatolo testimony; C’est la vie.

No, I totally agree. It was in fact obvious from the outset that Sky had almost certainly made a serious error in its translation. See, rational observers tend to evaluate new evidence as they receive it, rather than accept everything as totally correct and credible.

In this specific case, it was very easy to immediately deduce that this was a mistake by Sky - mainly because Knox had made her statement some hours earlier, and if she'd really said such a thing it would have been all over the news coverage of the case by that time. Some of us pointed this out immediately. One poster not only took the Sky piece as unquestionably accurate, but he also then went the further step to announce that the game was up for Knox and Sollecito. Game over. Convicted.

It was this astonishingly poor reasoning that I was railing against, as much as (or probably more than) the underlying issue of the veracity of the Sky piece. And when this poster also started going on about a mate of his in Sky Music Italia, I'm afraid he opened the door to being called out on it. All this "I'm going to call my mates and find out what really happened" doesn't impress me much, I'm afraid. It rather gets my back up, in fact.

(BTW and marginally relevant, I was watching Sky News the morning (UK time) after the Bin Laden raid occurred. Sky did their lovely Google Earth (or maybe Microsft Virtual Earth - can't remember which one they license) "fly-in" into what they labelled as the Bin Laden compound. Only, I'd been watching CNN's coverage minutes earlier, and their take on the compound was in a totally different location and a completely different shape. Feeling curious, I opened Google Earth myself, and quickly located the real compound by cross-referencing various news websites and descriptions of its location in relation to the town of Abbottabad and the military academy. Needless to say, Sky was wrong and CNN was right.....)

 

[Danceme]

Anyone know if Frank was in court today?

 

[Justinian2]

Justinian2,

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

That would be a good witness. Sounds like that testimony would be hard to screw up.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Another thought:

It was rather miserable that they walk in their superwitness Guede to bring the "crushing accusation" and he just clams up and sits there, while mignini has to read his lousy letter.

 

[LondonJohn]

I can't find any reference to a "bushy-haired man" in the translated Skype conversation, just a Description of a person who was not much bigger than him and who had hair colour between blond and brown. Perhaps you could point me in the direction of his quote regarding the "bushy-haired man".


what was the date of the Skype conversation, I can't remember right now? And why does it end abruptly, is it that that was all that was published?

Ahhhhh no: "bushy-haired man" or "bushy-haired stranger" is just a turn of phrase to describe a situation when someone gives a generic definition of a person who didn't really exist, but who is necessary to the fictional narrative invented by that person to try to escape prosecution. (I think it originated in the Diana Downs case in the US, where she claimed that a bushy-haired stranger had taken her car and shot her children - but it turned out that she'd killed them herself).

So Guede's "bushy-haired stranger" moment comes in the Skype call when he describes (or rather, doesn't describe) the alleged killer of Meredith - a person whom he said brushed past him in the dim hallway, and exchanged words with him. He says only that the man had "brownish" hair, was of medium height, and spoke Italian without an accent. Sollecito, on the other hand, was of average height, but he had very dark brown hair at the time of the murder, and he spoke Italian with a strong Apulian accent (from the deep South of Italy).

The point here is that Guede claims in his Skype call to only be able to recall a very generic description of the man who he claimed barged past him just after murdering Meredith. And yet within a few more months, he's miraculously convinced that this man was Sollecito.

The Skype conversation took place some time between November 18th-19th 2007. And yes, I think there is more than has been published.

 

[Kevinfay]

Thanks, again.

I'm a little confused on these Skype conversations.

So, he didn't mention Knox and Sollecito in the Skype conversation. Why is that? If he was sure, they were there, why he didn't say anything to Giacomo? Wouldn't it be good for him to claim from the start that these two were involved? For me it's highly suspicious that he changed his mind only after he saw what's goin on in the media. That's what always bugged me about his story.

Thoughtful over on PMF translated the Skype conversations, a day or two ago.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guede's defense was that the fought with a guy who fitted the description of RS, down to his accent ... not local, not northern (i.e. southern like RS).

He claimed to have heard AK's voice and see her at the front door and again saw her 'outline' at the gate (from Filomena's window).

Vague, but enough to finger AK and RS as being present at the crime scene.

In the Skype conversation, when Giacomo asked whether Knox killed Meredith, he said 'No, non c'entra un cazzo' ... No, she had sod all to do with it.

AK retreating to the front door and then the gate, fits her claim that she was in the kitchen with her fingers in her ears as the murder happened. RS has never said anything, but the DNA suggests that only Guede and Solletico were in the murder room.