Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Justinian2]

Justinian,

I am not sure how long you were gone, but for me the most interesting things that have happened in the past several months are (in no particular order) Google's shutting down Perugia-Shock, the leaked information that the bra clasp had decayed and the knife had starch on it but no residue from bleach, and Mr. dalla Vedova's statement that the defense never received the forensic files that were sought by Conti and Vecchiotti. I think that Alessi's statements are also worth pondering. PM Mignini seems to be looking for scapegoats. Anyone want to go in with me on a mirror?

Thanks halides1,

I wish I could find out why Perugia-Shock was shut down.

I keep wondering why the defense doesn't get disclosure to all the evidence. Yesterday a letter was read from Guede that the defense didn't know existed. Are the laws in Italy different than the laws in the USA regarding disclosure? In the USA you don't have to disclose evidence before a trial in small claims court but you are required to disclose evidence everywhere else.

Isn't disclosure required in Italy?

It's interesting to note that Mignini provided this letter (I'm pretty sure anyway) and that Guede did not confirm that it was his signature on the letter (I read this somewhere). Was it a Mignini forgery?

 

[Justinian2]

Justinian2,

I have my doubts about the letter. See this.

Interesting.

Bizarrely, instead of explaining himself, Rudy relied on a handwritten letter he’d sent to the court beforehand, already leaked to the press. Even more bizarrely, he claimed that he could not read his own handwriting–a task that Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini magically achieved when he read the letter outloud.

I thought we got rid of Giuliano Mignini. Why is he still around? Was he just demoted?

It really sounds as if Giuliano can read his own handwriting.

Guede's statement is like code that clearly implies: "I didn't write this letter, but I don't want to anger my captors".

 

[Justinian2]

Welcome back, Justinian.

No, I haven't contributed to the defence fund. Personally, I have no wish to get that close to the coal face.

I contributed $100 a couple of times. I stopped the contributions when it seemed like they could lose my donations to an Italian law suit. I ought to contribute something again, not that a $100 will defray much of their million dollar expenses. I suppose that if 5000 people contributed the same as I, then it would make a difference.

I look at it the other way. I make these donations to keep away from the coal face. I want bad justice defeated before it advances to me, raping and plundering the whole way.

 

[Justinian2]

I was kinda wondering that myself. When did the (actually) convicted murderer of Meredith Kercher get attributed with any credibility when he says 'Nope, didn't do it, forget all that evidence of me all over her room, on her clothes, inside, it was them--those two did it!'

This should at least make for an entertaining week of debate though!



Very good questions! Especially when he wouldn't confirm his signature. What was that all about? They read the letter in court but he wouldn't admit to signing it? Was that an error by the person that posted that information?



I think it depends on just how credible the jury found Rudy compared to Amanda and Raffaele when they rebutted his 'testimony.' There's also the three others who testified they said he'd admitted they weren't there, as well as his changing story on the subject.

All that makes for interesting arguments, but is the case for innocence advanced in the minds of the jurists?

One would hope that if the jurists believe that Guede - the only person present in the murder room between the time Meredith was stabbed and the time of death - was telling the truth then the jurists would also think that Amanda is telling the truth.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

gathering moss in Perugia

I have to seriously question the defense strategy (and competence). This is ridiculous.

RoseMontague,

And Raffaele is back to pastel shirts, an ill-advised move, IMO. Yet it was not an entire disaster; Amanda looked proper.

Rolling Stone has an article out. Madison Paxton said, "All of a sudden, Amanda wasn't next to me. I turned around and she has this shocked look on her face. She says, 'I cannot believe that you just walked by her.' Amanda grabbed my hand and pulled me back. This woman couldn't even speak, she was crying so much. But Amanda took her by the hand into a cafe, ordered her a coffee and started talking to her, trying to get her to calm down."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Thank you, Frank

Frank Sfarzo writes about yesterday's proceedings.

Katody Matrass,

Indeed. "That he was doing that because he needed the money to change sex… That even the hon Luxuria (a famous transexual) came to the prison to visit him so to organize the transplant… That Bongiorno and Luxuria had signed a kind of contract with him to make sure both parties would respect the agreement…" Will someone please explain how Mr. Maresca can say that this is "extremely credible?"

Raffaele said, "‘What should I defend myself from, if he doesn’t speak?’...In this case the procedure allows the only witness to a murder to stay silent about that murder. That is his option, but then his accusation should not be allowed. Raffaele understood this simple concept, now he needs the judges to do the same."

 

[pilot padron]

Well said

Of course there is one interesting part of all of this. Rudy is the only person who was provably there and who has given any details of the killing, regardless of how accurate those details are.

While the story seems frabricated on the whole, it does seem to carry a number of details that actually ring true, basically because he has added them to account for what he suppected could be evidence found against him. Things like going into the bathroom for the towels.

So what does he say about time of death? According to Rudy, the attack started about 9:10 with the killing blow about 9:20-9:30.

So what didn't Rudy know? AK and RS have an alibi that even the prosecution accepts at 9:10, and the prosecution doesn't have them leaving RS's place until 9:45pm.

If Rudy is telling the truth about the approximate time of the attack and killing (which lines up with a lot of other evidence and the fact that he thought the scream might have been heard so lends a lot to being truthful) AM and RS were still at his home, according to the prosecution themselves, and if the computer evidence entered in the appeal is shown to be correct, they were still actively at his home during the time Rudy claims the killing occured. Very hard to be in two places at once...

This is where I suspect the case is going to be determined this time around. If the case can be made for a ToD between 9:00pm and 9:30pm (and I believe that the evidence strongly supports this) and it can be shown that Rafelle's computer was still being used during that time, then the DNA, the so called lies, and Rudy's claims mean exactly nothing because people can't be in two places at the same time.

Although I do not accept *all* the points you make, they are none the less on the whole, well made and as such, provided me with food for thought.

Your point about how questionable *some* of Rudy's statements are is not only shared by me, but to me also somewhat diminishes the validity of his timeline, which you seem to value highly

May I ask however how you explain that the highest Court in the land where the most qualified legally trained, accredited, experienced, and competitively selected individuals in the land are privy to the largest accumulation of *all* existing evidence, from *all* existing investigations .......have concluded that Rudy had two 'accomplices' ?

The usual regrettably necessary disclaimers for our audience:
1) The question is sincerely posed as a request for information, and not as a challenge.
2) Please spare us the knee jerk argument, much heralded here, but IMHO little more than a mere questionable mantra, about how Judge Hellmann cannot even consider what his higher colleagues concluded.
3) Also spare the usual knee jerk accusations of arguing from authority.
If I choose to allocate respectful 'authority' to the highest level of legal minds in a Country, allow me that "error" in your eyes

 

[pilot padron]

Oh that is ever so meaningful from Madison

RoseMontague,

And Raffaele is back to pastel shirts, an ill-advised move, IMO. Yet it was not an entire disaster; Amanda looked proper.

Rolling Stone has an article out. Madison Paxton said, "All of a sudden, Amanda wasn't next to me. I turned around and she has this shocked look on her face. She says, 'I cannot believe that you just walked by her.' Amanda grabbed my hand and pulled me back. This woman couldn't even speak, she was crying so much. But Amanda took her by the hand into a cafe, ordered her a coffee and started talking to her, trying to get her to calm down."

WOW
My personal convictions about guilt have been shaken to the core.

That event from Knox's past 'associations' with Madison is the ultimate 'game changer'

After all:
1) Rolling Stone is second only to the US Congressional Record for unbiased and accurate reporting
2) Madison is second only IMHO to her current neighbor, Mr Mellas, as an absolutely impeachable font of factually founded pronouncements to the press about the case.
a) Her previous insights about sleeping jurors and
b) Her unusual and unnecessary repeated dropping of the 'F bomb' to the Rolling Stone Reporter greatly enhanced the credibility I 'admired' above in her and the Reporter and Rolling Stone
3) Never in the history of mankind has there been a murderess who reportedly bought a crying woman a cup of coffee

Therefore I would not even dare to join some cynics who might suggest the need to maybe verify this latest fable from Madison with the crying woman.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

RoseMontague,

And Raffaele is back to pastel shirts, an ill-advised move, IMO. Yet it was not an entire disaster; Amanda looked proper.

Rolling Stone has an article out. Madison Paxton said, "All of a sudden, Amanda wasn't next to me. I turned around and she has this shocked look on her face. She says, 'I cannot believe that you just walked by her.' Amanda grabbed my hand and pulled me back. This woman couldn't even speak, she was crying so much. But Amanda took her by the hand into a cafe, ordered her a coffee and started talking to her, trying to get her to calm down."

Halides1

A paragraph from the link you provided, admittedly taken out of context.

One might expect that the lead role in this blockbuster would be assigned to the victim, a placid, pretty girl from London named Meredith Kercher. The daughter of a tabloid writer and his Indian-born wife, Kercher was a serious student who didn't take herself too seriously; she had been drawn to the Italian city of Perugia, in part, for its reputation as the City of Chocolate. She quickly made a group of British girlfriends, joining them for dinner parties, movie nights and dancing at the local discos. Kercher was beautiful, bubbly, devoted to her family, a model daughter. And yet, less than a day after her murder, Meredith Kercher was all but forgotten.

 

[LondonJohn]

Although I do not accept *all* the points you make, they are none the less on the whole, well made and as such, provided me with food for thought.

Your point about how questionable *some* of Rudy's statements are is not only shared by me, but to me also somewhat diminishes the validity of his timeline, which you seem to value highly

May I ask however how you explain that the highest Court in the land where the most qualified legally trained, accredited, experienced, and competitively selected individuals in the land are privy to the largest accumulation of *all* existing evidence, from *all* existing investigations .......have concluded that Rudy had two 'accomplices' ?

The usual regrettably necessary disclaimers for our audience:
1) The question is sincerely posed as a request for information, and not as a challenge.
2) Please spare us the knee jerk argument, much heralded here, but IMHO little more than a mere questionable mantra, about how Judge Hellmann cannot even consider what his higher colleagues concluded.
3) Also spare the usual knee jerk accusations of arguing from authority.
If I choose to allocate respectful 'authority' to the highest level of legal minds in a Country, allow me that "error" in your eyes

You don't understand the role of the Italian Supreme Court in the normal appeals process, and/or you have subverted its ruling to suit your own agenda.

The Supreme Court's role in the the three-court process for serious criminal trials is to affirm the conviction and to ensure that the law has been correctly applied and followed. It does not investigate findings of fact. Do you not understand that?

So, when the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Guede's case, what it actually said (amongst everything else) was that the two lower courts were applying the law correctly in finding Guede guilty of murder as part of a group act. In other words, it affirmed that the two lower courts made lawful deductions on the findings of fact (including the number of participants) based on the evidence and arguments placed before them*. The Supreme Court did not, however, make its own finding of fact as to the dynamics of the crime. There's a huge difference.

And here's a thing: the Supreme Court also ruled that the two lower courts in Guede's case were applying the law correctly in determining the ToD. So, by your argument, do you think that the appeal court in Knox's/Sollecito's case also has to defer to the higher court on ToD, because the Supreme Court has affirmed a verdict with a ToD prior to 10.30pm?

The sad truth is that you can't answer the above question, because it defeats your logic. The actual answer to the question is no: the appeal court in Knox's/Sollecito's case can find for any time of death it likes, provided that it follows the evidence and arguments presented in that court. It does not have to defer to the Supreme Court ruling, any more than it has to defer to the Supreme Court ruling on the number of participants found in Guede's two prior trials.

PS: Spare us the knee-jerk alliterative adjective-laden (but apostrophe-light) hyperbole about the "highest court in the land" nonsense, and focus on the actual question.

* If, for example, the appeal court in Guede's trial had been presented with a load of evidence, testimony and argument that the murder occurred at (say) 10.00-10.30pm, but had then ruled that the ToD was at 11.40pm, the Supreme Court could question how the lower court arrived at this finding of fact. But the Supreme Court would not itself be debating the finding of fact or even ruling on it as a finding of fact. It would merely be questioning the lower court's application of the law in making that particular finding of fact. There's a massive difference.

 

[LondonJohn]

For me, the most intelligent (and mocked) poster on PMF, Thoughtful, has seen the famous video, which the Sun seems to be using now:

Just listened to the Sun video. UNBELIEVABLE!!

It's roughly ok up until the sentence "lui sa che non c'entriamo" which literally means "he knows we didn't enter [into it]", i.e. "he knows we weren't involved", and suddenly translates this as "he knows we got drunk that night". Why??? What is she hearing???

Next Amanda says "I don't know what happened on that evening" which she translates as "I don't know what happened to him on that evening". But then the strangest bit is "I don't know what we did other than go out that evening. I'm after the truth." In fact, Amanda kind of mumbles the beginning of this sentence, so I'm not quite sure whether she actually said "I wish I could tell him" or "I'm sorry I can't [or wasn't able to] tell him" (Clander?) but then she goes on to say "mistakes are remedied by telling the truth".

This has to be the close to the worst reporting/translating I have ever heard. It's absolutely hilarious. And annoying.

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

On reflection, I'd better go easy on Sky tomorrow ...... why risk meeting rock stars, film stars at Cannes and especially Champions League tickets, just for LondonJohn?

At the French TV festival in St Tropez, the UK Sky people at the next table gave us a load of caviar for free.

But really, Thoughtful is right, Knox does mumble a little bit, but there is absolutely no possiblity of what she said being interpretated the way it was .... UNBELIEVABLE indeed.

Still gonna find out what happened ... Sky seem to be a pretty ruthless outfit ... had she been given notice and wanted to take revenge?

Yeah, wouldn't want you to miss out on all those Champs League tickets and Cannes freebies on my account eh, Kevin. Ahahahahahahahaha.

 

[Katody Matrass]

May I ask however how you explain that the highest Court in the land where the most qualified legally trained, accredited, experienced, and competitively selected individuals in the land are privy to the largest accumulation of *all* existing evidence, from *all* existing investigations .......have concluded that Rudy had two 'accomplices' ?

Nonsense. It haven't. It was not a point of their deliberations whether or how many accomplices Guede had. Neither was it a point of Guede's appeal motion.

 

[Katody Matrass]

On reflection, I'd better go easy on Sky tomorrow ...... why risk meeting rock stars, film stars at Cannes and especially Champions League tickets, just for LondonJohn?

At the French TV festival in St Tropez, the UK Sky people at the next table gave us a load of caviar for free.

ROTFL, thanks for bringing it to my attention, LondonJohn

 

[LondonJohn]

Anybody wanting to complain about the video can email TALKBACK@THE-SUN.co.uk

I just sent them Thoughtful's post, noting that if the translation was correct, the case would be effectively over. Also asked whether the girl had been given notice and was out for revenge.

Anyone complaining about that video to that email address is going to get a very confused response. The video was made by Sky News, which is part of Sky TV, which is wholly-owned by BSkyB, which is majority-owned by News International (still with me?). The Sun newspaper (whose email address you so usefully provided), on the other hand, is wholly-owned by News International.

So The Sun newspaper and Sky News are nothing more than distant cousins, connected through their parent ownership by News International (although Sky News is in fact two steps removed from News International). The Sun and Sky News share no staff, facilities or office space - indeed they are sited at opposite sides of London (Wapping for the Sun, Isleworth (West London, fairly near to Heathrow) for Sky TV).

I'm surprised you didn't know this, seeing as you've been loudly trumpeting your close associations with the "Sky Corporation". But I'd be interested to see what The Sun staff think of your emails, and the fact that you think they have any association with Sky News. Please report back!

 

[HumanityBlues]

Katody Matrass,

Indeed. "That he was doing that because he needed the money to change sex… That even the hon Luxuria (a famous transexual) came to the prison to visit him so to organize the transplant… That Bongiorno and Luxuria had signed a kind of contract with him to make sure both parties would respect the agreement…" Will someone please explain how Mr. Maresca can say that this is "extremely credible?"

This

 

[Fine]

Bruce Fisher has explained why Rudy couldn't read his own letter in court: GroundReport. Somewhat sad.

///

 

[Chris_Halkides]

false dichotomy

Halides1

A paragraph from the link you provided, admittedly taken out of context.

CoulsdonUK,

Everyone knows that Meredith was a flower "picked too soon". Yet implicit in your comment today and more manifest in some of your other remarks is a false dichotomy: Either one supports Amanda and Raffaele or one supports Meredith; therefore, attacks on Amanda and Raffaele are a defense of Meredith's memory. This approach is especially problematic when taken to extremes (some commenters on PMF have made some mind-boggling statements with respect to Rudy). I note in passing that no one has tried to answer RWVBWL's question, for example. Even you have avoided defending Mr. Maresca's specific actions, and I can understand why. My conclusion is that Amanda would never hurt anyone while sober and had no time to get so high as to be not aware of her actions (not that there is any evidence of the latter anyway).

My point with respect to Madison's comments about Amanda is simple. Her friends' descriptions of her give zero indication that she would harm anyone physically (exactly the contrary). One might argue that she was so high on alcohol/drugs that she did not know what she was doing (Barbie Nadeau seemed to believe something along these lines at one point). However, given Ms. Popovic's testimony and Meredith's TOD of no later than about 9:30, a Nadeau-inspired scenario would have Ms. Knox leaving Raffaele's flat and getting high and bumping into Rudy in an absurdly short period of time.

 

[pilot padron]

ToD always and forever, and what does highest mean

You don't understand the role of the Italian Supreme Court in the normal appeals process, and/or you have subverted its ruling to suit your own agenda.

The Supreme Court's role in the the three-court process for serious criminal trials is to affirm the conviction and to ensure that the law has been correctly applied and followed. It does not investigate findings of fact. Do you not understand that?

So, when the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Guede's case, what it actually said (amongst everything else) was that the two lower courts were applying the law correctly in finding Guede guilty of murder as part of a group act. In other words, it affirmed that the two lower courts made lawful deductions on the findings of fact (including the number of participants) based on the evidence and arguments placed before them*. The Supreme Court did not, however, make its own finding of fact as to the dynamics of the crime. There's a huge difference.

And here's a thing: the Supreme Court also ruled that the two lower courts in Guede's case were applying the law correctly in determining the ToD. So, by your argument, do you think that the appeal court in Knox's/Sollecito's case also has to defer to the higher court on ToD, because the Supreme Court has affirmed a verdict with a ToD prior to 10.30pm?

The sad truth is that you can't answer the above question, because it defeats your logic. The actual answer to the question is no: the appeal court in Knox's/Sollecito's case can find for any time of death it likes, provided that it follows the evidence and arguments presented in that court. It does not have to defer to the Supreme Court ruling, any more than it has to defer to the Supreme Court ruling on the number of participants found in Guede's two prior trials.

PS: Spare us the knee-jerk alliterative adjective-laden (but apostrophe-light) hyperbole about the "highest court in the land" nonsense, and focus on the actual question.

* If, for example, the appeal court in Guede's trial had been presented with a load of evidence, testimony and argument that the murder occurred at (say) 10.00-10.30pm, but had then ruled that the ToD was at 11.40pm, the Supreme Court could question how the lower court arrived at this finding of fact. But the Supreme Court would not itself be debating the finding of fact or even ruling on it as a finding of fact. It would merely be questioning the lower court's application of the law in making that particular finding of fact. There's a massive difference.

1) Your statement that the highest Court in the land can perform the Constitutional function demanded of it *without* being aware of *all* findings of fact about the case:
a) requires a HUGE suspension of disbelief.
b) In fact calls *your* understanding of the highest Court in the land, the Italian Court of Cessation's function into question.
c) Suggests a founded by Google only, a feeble familiarity with realities of Italian legal procedures as well as common sense actualities

2) Would any person capable of rudimentary common sense join you in accepting/arguing that if the highest Court in the land absolutely knew and unequivocally accepted that the defendant *had to be innocent* because of a fact of evidence that they were obviously aware of (see above 1)...they still would just quietly affirm the lower Court and send an innocent person to prison, possibly for the rest of their living days ??? Really ??

3) Of course everything about the case always comes back to your favorite fetish 'argument' about ToD

4) Oh Dear yes, you state the Italian Court of Cessation is per haps something other than the "highest Court in the land" ?
Oh Dear yes, lets *divert ourselves and everyone's attention* from this argument and concentrate another 50,000 to now argue that terribly crucial terminology ad nauseam

ETA: Surely you have noticed with all the jubilation here over what Rolling Stone says, that these authors also (shame, shame) refer to "the highest Court in the land" that you pontificate as "nonsense"

 

[Danceme]

I was out for most of the day yesterday but the headlines remained what they were when I left.

1. Guede says Raffaele and Knox are guilty.
2. The sex change thing and one of Raffaele's lawyers accused of bribery.
3. Knox not allowed to confront Guede and Guede allowed to refuse to
answer questions.
4. Raffaele's lawyers had no idea about the existence of this letter that has
been in the public domain since last year and is now part of the record.

http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/cronaca/articoli/articolo476174.shtml

What in the world was the defense team thinking with all of this and what is the net result?

The prosecution and that independent searching for the truth lawyer Maresca had no problem predicting what was going to happen. I have to seriously question the defense strategy (and competence). This is ridiculous.

Agree, ridiculous.

________________________

Rose,

Can you provide a source for this information? Did the lawyers say that this was the first time they had heard of Rudy's letter?

///

I read this as well. Utterly unbelievable they were unaware of Rudy's letter.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

Everyone knows that Meredith was a flower "picked too soon". Yet implicit in your comment today and more manifest in some of your other remarks is a false dichotomy: Either one supports Amanda and Raffaele or one supports Meredith; therefore, attacks on Amanda and Raffaele are a defense of Meredith's memory. This approach is especially problematic when taken to extremes (some commenters on PMF have made some mind-boggling statements with respect to Rudy). I note in passing that no one has tried to answer RWVBWL's question, for example. Even you have avoided defending Mr. Maresca's specific actions, and I can understand why. My conclusion is that Amanda would never hurt anyone while sober and had no time to get so high as to be not aware of her actions (not that there is any evidence of the latter anyway).

My point with respect to Madison's comments about Amanda is simple. Her friends' descriptions of her give zero indication that she would harm anyone physically (exactly the contrary). One might argue that she was so high on alcohol/drugs that she did not know what she was doing (Barbie Nadeau seemed to believe something along these lines at one point). However, given Ms. Popovic's testimony and Meredith's TOD of no later than about 9:30, a Nadeau-inspired scenario would have Ms. Knox leaving Raffaele's flat and getting high and bumping into Rudy in an absurdly short period of time.

Halides1

I am not aware of the “false dichotomy” you describe, you read that article and were naturally drawn to the description of Amanda as key, whilst I read the same article and was drawn to the paragraph about Meredith. I have no issue with yours or indeed others perception of Amanda.

I am not aware of avoiding anything, I do have a life outside of posting here, I also do not read through every single page and post mainly because of time constraints, so sometimes I just miss posts.

I tend to avoid commenting about what is being said on other forums, to be honest I find the whole thing rather tedious, if someone has something to say about a post on another forum join it and post your views there.