Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Rolfe]

The entire investigation is extraordinary. What were they thinking of? Didn't they want to catch whoever did it, at any stage? Securing the evidence just doesn't seem to be on their radar.

Rolfe.

 

[Grinder]

LJ

The rulings from Guede's trial process have absolutely no impact whatsoever upon the trial process of Knox and Sollecito. The only way in which the trial processes are linked are that evidence and testimony from Guede's trials can now be admitted into Knox's/Sollecito's trials, since Guede's trial process is now over and the trials concern the same offence.

Therefore, Hellmann's court has absolutely no obligation to pay heed to any judgement rendered in the Guede trial process. Hellmann's court has the specific job of determining whether Knox or Sollecito have been proven beyond all doubt based in reason of the murder of Meredith Kercher. And Hellmann's court must reach that judgement based purely upon the evidence/testimony and arguments heard in Hellmann's court. It is perfectly legally acceptable for two courts to reach diametrically different judgements related to the same case (although sometimes this may constitute grounds for appeal for one or more convicted parties).

As I and many others have grown weary of reminding people, Guede's trial process - as ratified by the Supreme Court, no less! - has determined that Meredith's time of death was some time before 10.30pm. "But what's that?!", I hear people cry. "Massei's court ruled that the ToD of the same person was around 11.45pm! There's a contradiction! Surely the Supreme Court trumps Massei's court!" But of course there's no contradiction. The courts in Guede's trials ruled that the ToD was a certain time, and the first court in Knox's/Sollecito's trial process ruled that the ToD was a significantly different time. And there's no problem in that disparity (other than that in this particular instance both courts are wrong and the ToD is almost certainly before 9.30pm!).{/quote]

The two bolded phrases seem to contradict.

Just as all the media has affected the trial the SC ruling will have some impact, properly or not.

 

[HumanityBlues]

On PMF they're in a hizzy because apparently someone here might have mentioned that Rudy and Meredith had some sort of romantic relationship. Personally, I as well find the insinuation ridiculous as there is no evidence for it.

But the irony is, they love quoting this Garafano guy, who, lo and behold, has said the same thing:

Link to Full Article.

Will guilters repudiate Garafano for this? No of course not. Because he thinks Amanda and Raffaele are guilty.

 

[katy_did]

If the prosecution did collect all the CCTV camera footage of that night, they were required by law to make it available to the defense. We do have evidence that the defense asked for camera footage and were refused.

What evidence was that? (ETA: if you mean the article Dan O. mentioned, then assuming that it's accurate I agree, the defence should definitely have been given access to whatever footage the police had. Even if they thought it wasn't significant!).

 

[Kaosium]

The entire investigation is extraordinary. What were they thinking of? Didn't they want to catch whoever did it, at any stage? Securing the evidence just doesn't seem to be on their radar.

Rolfe.

I suppose that's a deleterious side-effect of arresting three people without the forensics being completed. However once they had that information and realized that someone else was involved, they did track down Rudy with the aid of his friend, and have him extradited and face the charges that led to his sentence. The problem was they tried to pretend their bizarre theory they'd made their first arrests under without evidence and had gotten so much attention over was still correct.

 

[Rolfe]

Yes, but before then? Why not secure the CCTV footage as a matter of routine? It won't matter enormously if it's not needed in the end. Why yomp all over the crime scene and behave generally like the Teddy Bears' Picnic when doing the forensics?

It's bizarre.

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

LJ

The rulings from Guede's trial process have absolutely no impact whatsoever upon the trial process of Knox and Sollecito. The only way in which the trial processes are linked are that evidence and testimony from Guede's trials can now be admitted into Knox's/Sollecito's trials, since Guede's trial process is now over and the trials concern the same offence.

Therefore, Hellmann's court has absolutely no obligation to pay heed to any judgement rendered in the Guede trial process. Hellmann's court has the specific job of determining whether Knox or Sollecito have been proven beyond all doubt based in reason of the murder of Meredith Kercher. And Hellmann's court must reach that judgement based purely upon the evidence/testimony and arguments heard in Hellmann's court. It is perfectly legally acceptable for two courts to reach diametrically different judgements related to the same case (although sometimes this may constitute grounds for appeal for one or more convicted parties).

As I and many others have grown weary of reminding people, Guede's trial process - as ratified by the Supreme Court, no less! - has determined that Meredith's time of death was some time before 10.30pm. "But what's that?!", I hear people cry. "Massei's court ruled that the ToD of the same person was around 11.45pm! There's a contradiction! Surely the Supreme Court trumps Massei's court!" But of course there's no contradiction. The courts in Guede's trials ruled that the ToD was a certain time, and the first court in Knox's/Sollecito's trial process ruled that the ToD was a significantly different time. And there's no problem in that disparity (other than that in this particular instance both courts are wrong and the ToD is almost certainly before 9.30pm!).{/quote]

The two bolded phrases seem to contradict.

Just as all the media has affected the trial the SC ruling will have some impact, properly or not.

Ah no, sorry if it looked a little unclear. The evidence/testimony from Guede's trials processes will be introduced into Hellmann's court. But there's a big difference between evidence/testimony and legal argument or verdict. Neither the legal argument or verdict from Guede's trial processes will be heard in Hellmann's court.

Therefore what it boils down to is this: The various parties (prosecution, defence, victim's representative, court judges) will have a large amount of evidence/testimony available to them: all the evidence/testimony from the Massei trial, all the evidence/testimony from Guede's trials, and all the new evidence/testimony granted by Hellmann over the past nine months. The closing arguments will be based upon this body of evidence/testimony. In reality, the evidence/testimony from Guede's trials will very likely form very little of the basis of any legal arguments - these will likely be almost exclusively based upon a combination of Massei evidence/testimony and the new Hellmann evidence/testimony.

So when I wrote that Hellmann's court will base its verdict entirely upon evidence/testimony and arguments heard in Hellmann's court, I was meaning to convey the idea that the arguments and verdicts from any other courts (i.e. Massei or the various courts hearing Guede's case) play no part in Hellmann's court's deliberations. Sorry if it was a little confusing though.

 

[Kaosium]

LJ

The rulings from Guede's trial process have absolutely no impact whatsoever upon the trial process of Knox and Sollecito. The only way in which the trial processes are linked are that evidence and testimony from Guede's trials can now be admitted into Knox's/Sollecito's trials, since Guede's trial process is now over and the trials concern the same offence.

Therefore, Hellmann's court has absolutely no obligation to pay heed to any judgement rendered in the Guede trial process. Hellmann's court has the specific job of determining whether Knox or Sollecito have been proven beyond all doubt based in reason of the murder of Meredith Kercher. And Hellmann's court must reach that judgement based purely upon the evidence/testimony and arguments heard in Hellmann's court. It is perfectly legally acceptable for two courts to reach diametrically different judgements related to the same case (although sometimes this may constitute grounds for appeal for one or more convicted parties).

As I and many others have grown weary of reminding people, Guede's trial process - as ratified by the Supreme Court, no less! - has determined that Meredith's time of death was some time before 10.30pm. "But what's that?!", I hear people cry. "Massei's court ruled that the ToD of the same person was around 11.45pm! There's a contradiction! Surely the Supreme Court trumps Massei's court!" But of course there's no contradiction. The courts in Guede's trials ruled that the ToD was a certain time, and the first court in Knox's/Sollecito's trial process ruled that the ToD was a significantly different time. And there's no problem in that disparity (other than that in this particular instance both courts are wrong and the ToD is almost certainly before 9.30pm!).{/quote]

The two bolded phrases seem to contradict.

Just as all the media has affected the trial the SC ruling will have some impact, properly or not.

The difference is what gets admitted are the facts and evidence from those trials, not the 'conclusions' drawn from them, otherwise there would be no point in Amanda and Raffaele's appeal, after all they were found guilty in the trial of the first instance, weren't they?

This is a similar situation, it would have been strange for the court in Rudy's trial to reach a conclusion he did it alone being as there were two other people on trial for it, which is not something the Supreme Court would even address as that's not its purview anyway and the trial was ongoing still. What is exceedingly strange is that Mignini and Maresca would tell reporters that somehow Rudy's trial would affect the resolution of Amanda and Raffaele's, that makes absolutely no sense for reasons previously posted. I suspect it might have had something to do with trying to get press attention suggesting they're sure to be found guilty, otherwise it's inexplicable.

 

[tsig]

Ahh: you also don't understand the mechanism whereby the inmates were called to testify in Hellmann's court. Plus you don't appear to understand that it's not even the job of Knox's/Sollecito's defence teams to propose any alternative version of the murder - whether that version is that Guede was the lone killer (which, incidentally, the defence most definitely hasn't abandoned, as per many pro-guilt commentators' erroneous assertions) or that it was a group crime that didn't involve Knox or Sollecito. The job of the defence teams is strictly and exclusively limited to convincing Hellmann's court that there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond all doubt (based in human reason) that Knox or Sollecito were involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher. And it's now abundantly clear that they will easily be able to go far, far beyond the threshold of reasonable doubt in Hellmann's court. Ergo, Knox and Sollecito will be correctly acquitted.

And you still appear unwilling or unable to answer the fundamental paradox related to your belief in the apparent omniscience of the Supreme Court regarding findings of fact: if your opinion is correct, why is Hellmann's court even bothering to conduct the appeal trial?

Anyway, it now appears to be 2am. I've nudged up my solitaire win percentage to the 19% mark, so I think on that point of victory I will call it a night. Regardless of the fact that I completely disagree with most of what you argue (and think that I have strong grounds for a logical and reasonable disagreement), it's still good to see you actually turning up to debate - especially since the reciprocal arrangement isn't possible owing to the partisan nature of moderation of other forums. I sincerely hope that you will be able to come to understand that Knox and Sollecito are about to be acquitted by Hellmann's court, and that this will be the correct and just outcome. Meredith Kercher was almost certainly killed by one person - Rudy Guede - who had planned to burgle the cottage but who was surprised by the return of Meredith at 9pm. It's likely that he then confronted her - probably initially over his inability to open the locked front door - and things soon tragically escalated into a sexual assault and murder. Meredith was dead before 9.30pm, and Guede probably left the cottage shortly after 10pm.

The murder of Meredith Kercher is a horrible event that has cost an apparently kind-hearted and ambitions young lady her life, and has horrifically scarred her family and close friends. But in my opinion it will not be an insult to Meredith's family (or to her memory) when Knox and Sollecito are acquitted and released. My personal view is that the Kercher family might want to more closely examine the behaviour and actions of police, prosecutors and their own lawyer if they want to get to the truth of this sad case.

The cops did it?

 

[LondonJohn]

On PMF they're in a hizzy because apparently someone here might have mentioned that Rudy and Meredith had some sort of romantic relationship. Personally, I as well find the insinuation ridiculous as there is no evidence for it.

But the irony is, they love quoting this Garafano guy, who, lo and behold, has said the same thing:
[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/fYmJJ.png[/qimg]
Link to Full Article.

Will guilters repudiate Garafano for this? No of course not. Because he thinks Amanda and Raffaele are guilty.

Well, the funny (peculiar and haha) thing about this latest piece of twisted propaganda groupthink on .org is that it's all based on a misleading post from stint7. Here's what stint7's post said - clearly designed to provoke a certain reaction from the usual suspects on .org:

From the Trenches

Learned some "new" things about the case from a quick scan of JLOL this morning:

1) M... had a romantic interest in Rudy
2) This romantic interest was not as strong as Rudy wanted.
3) That is why "things went bad"
4) One of the guys downstairs set up an appointment between Rudy and M... for an illegal drug deal
5) Rudy was the one who staged the break in after he murdered Meredith

And here is the actual post on JREF that was seemingly the source of stint7's misleading post. It was posted by codyjuneau yesterday:

My opinion is that Rudy broke in through Filomena's window before Meredith got home.

However I will play devil's advocate and propose an alternate scenario where Rudy could have had an 'appointment' with Meredith.

Meredith's boyfriend Giacomo Silenzi lived downstairs and he was friends with Rudy. He also grew pot and Rudy was a drug dealer.

Meredith was tending Giacomo's pot plants and cat while he and the other boys that lived downstairs were away for the weekend. It is conceivable some body downstairs set up an appointment between Rudy and Meredith for some illegal transaction. I think it would necessarily have to be illegal otherwise the person who set up the appointment would not have kept quiet about it. Perhaps the person would be worried he is an accomplice to murder or something.

In this scenario Rudy would come on to Meredith. She would reject him. He would get insulted and angry and then attack her. Then afraid Meredith might have told someone about the 'appointment' or worried his friend will rat him out Rudy stages a burglary so it will look like someone broke in and murdered her.

Let me restate: My own opinion is that Rudy broke in through Filomena's window before Meredith got home. But I don't think it hurts to explore all possibilities.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7579849#post7579849


Can anyone see the difference between Codyjuneau's post (in which (s)he plays devil's advocate to propose an alternative scenario where Guede does indeed have some sort of date with Meredith, but it all goes wrong and after killing her he stages the burglary in an attempt to misdirect investigators) and stint7's post (in which he misleadingly claims that these ideas are being put forward as some sort of "new paradigm" on JREF)?

 

[Kaosium]

The cops did it?

They're ones that botched the investigation and turned her death into part pornographic fantasy, part Greek tragedy.

 

[Rolfe]

Can anyone see the difference between Codyjuneau's post (in which (s)he plays devil's advocate to propose an alternative scenario where Guede does indeed have some sort of date with Meredith, but it all goes wrong and after killing her he stages the burglary in an attempt to misdirect investigators) and stint7's post (in which he misleadingly claims that these ideas are being put forward as some sort of "new paradigm" on JREF)?

Yeah, I thought I mentioned that upthread. The heavy suspicion that stint7 is actually someone who posts here under a different name, and has been playing the victim as regards moderator bias when he's really only intent on incisive commentary on the case, doesn't play well I have to say.

If stint7 really is a JREF member who runs to another forum not simply to repost material honestly for discussion but to post deliberate and malicious distortions, then this really is not good.

Rolfe.

 

[Dan O.]

What is exceedingly strange is that Mignini and Maresca would tell reporters that somehow Rudy's trial would affect the resolution of Amanda and Raffaele's, that makes absolutely no sense for reasons previously posted. I suspect it might have had something to do with trying to get press attention suggesting they're sure to be found guilty, otherwise it's inexplicable.

It's not strange at all. This is the way Mignini twists the rules to push bogus evidence into the case file without it being subject to cross examination.

 

[LondonJohn]

The cops did it?

No, the cops bungled it.

They arrested the wrong people initially, based upon erroneous interpretation of evidence, an improperly coercive couple of interrogations, and a rabid desire to announce "case closed" to a worried public and media who were likely to regard the Perugia police as incapable of solving major murder investigations if they didn't figure this one out quick smart (the Perugia police had dismally failed to solve a similar murder almost exactly a year earlier).

All of this resulted in a thoroughly messed up investigation and prosecution, in which a pigheaded prosecutor refused to see the truth - that one man alone committed the murder, and that Knox and Sollecito almost certainly had nothing whatsoever to do with it - and pressed ahead regardless. In this endeavour, he was ably aided and abetted by the Kerchers' own lawyer.

The Kerchers would have by far been best served by a competent investigating police force, an objective and rational prosecuting magistrate, and a family lawyer who was able to see the wood for the trees. Unfortunately for the Kerchers, they got none of these things. Had things gone as they should have gone, Guede would have been correctly convicted a year ago and the Kerchers could have gained what's now fashionably termed "closure" at that point. Instead, they've had to endure the whole circus around the Knox/Sollecito trials, and the painful process of seeing two people whom they were convinced (not least by Mignini and Maresca) were responsible for the murder of Meredith being acquitted. It may take them some time to come to terms with the fact that Knox and Sollecito should never have been charged or tried in the first place. All of this is extra heartbreak and pain that the Kerchers should not have had to deal with. And I think they deserved better.

 

[Rolfe]

I didn't know about the earlier murder. Did Rudy have an alibi?

Rolfe.

 

[Poppy1016]

Can someone help me out with this nagging question I have? If the Supreme Court only rules on points of law, why can they rule that others besides Rudy had to have been involved in the murder. Hellman stated that all we know is that Meredith was murdered. Doesn't the Supreme Court's statement influence the appeals jury? It seems they should have only ruled on Rudy's verdict.

 

[Dan O.]

Can anyone see the difference between Codyjuneau's post (in which (s)he plays devil's advocate to propose an alternative scenario where Guede does indeed have some sort of date with Meredith, but it all goes wrong and after killing her he stages the burglary in an attempt to misdirect investigators) and stint7's post (in which he misleadingly claims that these ideas are being put forward as some sort of "new paradigm" on JREF)?

As far as the case related argument part goes, there is no difference. But Codyjuneau apparently knows that this is just exploring the alternatives which is a valid form of analysis to bolster or weaken the primary scenario. Trolls may be useful to this end initially but when they keep repeating the same defeated arguments they inhibit progress towards uncovering the truth and the goal shifts to vanquishing the troll. If only there were a button one could press to make trolls go away so the ultimate task of finding the truth would not be interrupted.

 

[LondonJohn]

I didn't know about the earlier murder. Did Rudy have an alibi?

Rolfe.

The victim's name was Sonia Marra. She was an Italian student in Perugia. She disappeared without trace a year before Meredith's murder, and was almost certainly murdered herself. It seems likely that her boyfriend, Umberto Bindella, was the perpetrator. And it's now apparent that the police missed a number of opportunities to collect important evidence or witness statements shortly after Sonia's disappearance.

The prevailing feeling among the local media is that Bindella very likely killed his girlfriend (there's a fair amount of evidence pointing in his direction, but probably not enough to secure a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt), but that police/prosecution incompetence in investigating the case allowed vital incriminating evidence to be lost or destroyed.

There seems little doubt that the Marra case (and the way in which the authorities were criticised for their handling of it) played a significant part in police/prosecutor actions in the days after Meredith's murder. Furthermore, there appeared to be a growing feeling among the female student population of Perugia that they were at risk and that the police were unable to properly protect them. As a result, it's been reported that female students were leaving Perugia in increasingly large numbers in the week following Meredith's murder. There appears little doubt that the police and prosecutors felt under considerable pressure to demonstrate speed and competence in "solving" Meredith's murder. And in my opinion, that's the root of all the subsequent problems.

 

[Rolfe]

a button one could press

Cool!

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

Can someone help me out with this nagging question I have? If the Supreme Court only rules on points of law, why can they rule that others besides Rudy had to have been involved in the murder. Hellman stated that all we know is that Meredith was murdered. Doesn't the Supreme Court's statement influence the appeals jury? It seems they should have only ruled on Rudy's verdict.

Ah, this is the important part. the Supreme Court didn't rule that Guede plus two others grouped up to murder Meredith. The Supreme Court actually ruled that the lower two courts (in Guede's first trial and appeal trial) both correctly applied the law in coming to this finding of fact. In other words, the Supreme Court was in effect saying that the lower courts had correctly reached their verdicts and the related findings of fact based upon the evidence and arguments in the court.

Of course, this won't stop certain ignorant or mendacious pro-guilt commentators from claiming that the Supreme Court has made findings of fact. The role of the Supreme Court in these instances is purely to ensure that the lower courts have correctly followed and applied the law in reaching their verdicts (and the findings of fact that underpin those verdicts).