Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Dougm]

-

He didn't originally plan to kill her, but there was so much blood, he thought there was only one thing to do and that was to finish the job, and so he turned her over and drove the knife into her throat or maybe she fell on his knife wrong when they both fell to the floor during the struggle.

That's when he decided to rape her and put towels over her wounds at first so he wouldn't get sprayed as she desperately struggled to clear her lungs of blood. But then finally used the duvet so he wouldn't have to look at her or see her looking at him while silently pleading with him to help her...

But this is just my opinion.

The problem that nags me about any scenario where Rudy kills Meredith intentionally is his criminal history. Other then when he threatened someone with a knife after being discovered in the middle of a break-in, does he have any history at all of physical or violent behavior or battery of any kind?

I don't know, but from what I have read, the type of criminal acts that Guede was involved in tend to escalate. Few start out to become a rapist or killer, but once you get used to breaking into people's homes, and carrying a weapon to fend off anyone that might catch you in the act, you need to be ready to use that weapon if need be. I DO think that whatever happened was part of a perfect storm of sorts. As I meantioned earlier, something must have gone wrong, but it also must have been something that pushed some emotional buttons in Rudy that sent him over the edge. I mean, if he had planned to kill Meredith, there are ways that would have made much more sense than to leave her in a pool of blood with his own DNA and prints all over the place.

I think that one of two things happened:

1) She caught him there trying to escape, and she screamed and he realized she knew who he was and would tell the cops
OR
2) They had a confrontation, either from her finding him there or him trying to make a move on her, and she said something along the lines of "not until hell freezes over", which set him off.

My best guess is that he tried to get her to engage in some sexual activity, and had her from behind with the knife at her throat. But instead of submitting, she started screaming, and he stabbed her to stop the screaming. I agree with those here that have said that the scream being part of Guede's story is significant. She screamed all right, and it was so loud he had to make it stop. And he is afraid that others heard it, and will testify what time, so he had to make his story fit that.

I also agree with you that he put that Duvet over her because, after all the stress of the killing, he did not want to look at her anymore. I suspect she was already dead at that point, but if your idea is true that she was still gasping ... too disgusting to consider, and makes me have a worse opinion of Guede than I already do.

In her recently published book, Nina Burleigh describes how Rudy had some mental issues of some sort, possibly triggered by physical and emotional abuse as a child. The book talks about how he would wake up in the middle of the night, and act out strange scenarios as if he were awake, to the point where his friends did not want him to sleep over at their place anymore because it freaked them out. Rudy apparently went through some pretty harrowing stuff at an early age, like being locked in a bathroom all day while his dad was gone from the house, being abused, etc. Based on his behavior in the year or so before the murder, the results of this abuse may have started to show themselves as he reached adulthood. I don't know how much of the book is true, but it gives the impression that Rudy may have some serious issues that no one has properly diagnosed.

Unfortunately, it all resulted in the death of a young woman, and the incarceration of two innocent people.

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi DougM,
Many good posts tonight, glad you too are posting here!

Rudy's inside a beautiful womans apartment, at night. He wants to leave without being seen. He apparently did not just stab her to death when he could not leave. Did he hassle her, block her in her room? I don't know. Did she fight back? Did she kick him where it hurts? Wasn't she trained in martial arts? Didn't he have healed cuts on his hands when found? However it went down, an opportunity arose for Rudy. Whatever happened in that bedroom, we know that Rudy sexually assaulted Meredith.

My post earlier was simply meant to point out what I read yesterday, that Guede liked the drink and the coke...

I've always wondered if Rudy was high or drunk that night.
A friend of Rudy's says that he luved the stuff.

My personal opinion is that Rudy was not of a normal, sound mind that night. My gut feeling says that he was high on something other than THC that night and/or had some alcohol in his system. He had power runnin' thru his veins, the kind that made him kill a woman, the kind that made him rape a woman.

Add in that he apparently was unlucky with the ladies, and had not, from all that I have ever read, had a steady girlfriend recently, if ever, well...

You guys and gals are doin' great with the rest, have fun!
I gotta run, too long of a day to participate,
see ya, RW


PS-Some have mentioned that Rudy,
even though he was in possesion of a huuuge 16" kitchen knife at the nursery school when he was busted, was quite docile and did not harm anyone. IIRC, there was at least 1 male there, which changes their interaction considerably. It was also the morning hours when Rudy was found inside that little kids school.

But another thing to note is that often cops bust people in the early morning hours, when most are asleep, or if not, are usually not as intoxicated or as high as they were in the previous, early evening and nightime hours. They are more docile, much as Rudy was that morning in the nursery school.

Had he been busted that previous night, a Friday, by Maria del Prato only, well who knows how their interaction would have turned out, if Rudy was high on the coke or drunk as his buddy Momi said he liked to do.

I happen to think that Rudy was high or drunk to some degree the night he was inside Meredith Kercher's bedroom when she was murdered.
L8, RW

 

[AmyStrange]

I don't know, but from what I have read, the type of criminal acts that Guede was involved in tend to escalate. Few start out to become a rapist or killer, but once you get used to breaking into people's homes, and carrying a weapon to fend off anyone that might catch you in the act, you need to be ready to use that weapon if need be. I DO think that whatever happened was part of a perfect storm of sorts. As I meantioned earlier, something must have gone wrong, but it also must have been something that pushed some emotional buttons in Rudy that sent him over the edge. I mean, if he had planned to kill Meredith, there are ways that would have made much more sense than to leave her in a pool of blood with his own DNA and prints all over the place.

I think that one of two things happened:

1) She caught him there trying to escape, and she screamed and he realized she knew who he was and would tell the cops
OR
2) They had a confrontation, either from her finding him there or him trying to make a move on her, and she said something along the lines of "not until hell freezes over", which set him off.

My best guess is that he tried to get her to engage in some sexual activity, and had her from behind with the knife at her throat. But instead of submitting, she started screaming, and he stabbed her to stop the screaming. I agree with those here that have said that the scream being part of Guede's story is significant. She screamed all right, and it was so loud he had to make it stop. And he is afraid that others heard it, and will testify what time, so he had to make his story fit that.

I also agree with you that he put that Duvet over her because, after all the stress of the killing, he did not want to look at her anymore. I suspect she was already dead at that point, but if your idea is true that she was still gasping ... too disgusting to consider, and makes me have a worse opinion of Guede than I already do.

In her recently published book, Nina Burleigh describes how Rudy had some mental issues of some sort, possibly triggered by physical and emotional abuse as a child. The book talks about how he would wake up in the middle of the night, and act out strange scenarios as if he were awake, to the point where his friends did not want him to sleep over at their place anymore because it freaked them out. Rudy apparently went through some pretty harrowing stuff at an early age, like being locked in a bathroom all day while his dad was gone from the house, being abused, etc. Based on his behavior in the year or so before the murder, the results of this abuse may have started to show themselves as he reached adulthood. I don't know how much of the book is true, but it gives the impression that Rudy may have some serious issues that no one has properly diagnosed.

Unfortunately, it all resulted in the death of a young woman, and the incarceration of two innocent people.

-

All good points Doug,

and I too am disgusted by my scenario, but I can't take credit for coming up with it. The duvet scenario, I think , was originally a result of Hendry's analysis of the bloody crime scene, but I'm not absolutely for sure the bloody crime-scene analysis originated with him. Maybe it was Steve Moore?

As an aside, I am more saddened and depressed by this scenario than disgusted by it. It haunts me more than anything else about this case, even more so than Amanda and Raffaele's incarceration (can you imagine the horror she felt as she slowly drowned in her own blood).

Sorry, but it is just so depressingly horrible,

Dave

 

[JREF2010]

Interesting article in today's (Sunday's) Observer newspaper here in UK (the Observer is the Sunday sister title of The Guardian):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/18/amanda-knox-awaits-verdict

Contains an illuminating quote from Sollecito lawyer Luca Maori:




I couldn't agree more. Let's see if something like this actually happens after the acquittals.

I dont know what they call it in Italy, but there should be an investigation into the interrogation, and whether or not it was a lie about not recording it.

We know they recorded conversations in "bugged rooms the preceding days to the interrogation. And we know they tapped cell calls in the preceding days to the interrogation. Colantone did the work, per Dempseys book, in the very same questura.

So to have an orchestrated interrogation in a non-bugged room, with 12-15 officers present , and eventually a interpreter and prosecutor seems very suspicious, and likely they are lying.

Mignini said it was budget issues? To record something...the equipment was already installed and working. So maybe too expensive to press the record button....hmmm..


Is it perjury in Perugia?

 

[codyjuneau]

Wow, lots been happening here.

Re the Rudy appointment thing:

Like Grinder I think it is preferable to analyze all possible scenarios. If they don't fit the facts then they can be discarded. I think that is better than locking onto one scenario to the exclusion of all others. After all, is that not exactly what the Perugian Police did with their sex games gone wrong theory?

Personally I think it is almost certain that Rudy broke in through the window. But I think it is worth discussing the possibility that he had some kind of appointment with Meredith. For example while thinking about this I came up with another possible appointment scenario. Consider:

Rudy bumps into Meredith on her way to the English girl's place. Meredith mentions that everyone is away for the weekend and she is looking after the downstairs cat. Rudy being an opportunist says something like 'I think I left something in the flat downstairs, can I come over later to pick it up, or 'I have some left over food, how about later tonight I bring it over for the cat', or a thousand other possible lines. Meredith trusts him since he is a friend of her boyfriend. So she agrees. Rudy hangs around the cottage waiting for her, she comes back and lets him in, he comes on to her, she rebuffs and insults him, he goes into a rage, assaults, murders and robs her. Then realizing Meredith might have told her English friends about the meeting he stages a burglary in the only way he knows how ... his way.

I can see problems with this scenario. But maybe the problems I see can be explained by someone else. Or maybe thinking about this scenario will trigger someone else to think of an even more plausible theory. Or connect some fact that no one else has. The only way to find out is by discussion. And even with the problems in this secondary scenario it is a far more probable explanation than the prosecutions theory ... in my opinion.

I think discussing how Rudy came to murder Meredith is more useful than discussing whether Amanda was too wimpy to shower in a cool bathroom or whether she was having a bad hair day.


By The Way

I hope that if someone ever murders me the police and the arm chair jurors do not try to frame my friends. That would be very sad. And disrespectful to me. And I think that is what is happening to Meredith ... in my opinion.


And one other thing:

I noticed someone said that there are still people that believe the red dye on the bathroom walls was actually blood that Amanda would have seen while she was showering. I also remember that not long ago CD Host was surprised to find out that it was not blood but red dye the police sprayed everywhere. No wonder some people still believe Raffaele and Amanda are guilty. If I truly thought Amanda had showered in a bathroom that was covered in blood the way that dye makes it look I would believe she was guilty also. There has been so much misinformation and/or lies. Only a very honest and fair judge will be able to ensure they have a fair trial. And I think that is exactly what Justice Hellmann is. Too bad the trial is in Perugia though.

 

[JREF2010]

ETA: timeline for murder

• 20:45 Meredith leaves residence of Robyn Butterworth at Via Bontempi, 22 and walks with Sophie Purton.
  Time approximate, based on Sophie's statement that she arrived home in Via del Lupo at 20:55.
• 20:55 Sophie Purton arrives home in Via del Lupo.
  Source Micheli Report. "On 17 November, P[urton] made a new prosecuting magistrate deposition...correcting the time that she was back in Via del Lupo, recalling that it was still 20:55".
• 20:56 Phone call from Meredith's phone to mother, cut off almost immediately.
  "In evidence on Friday, Stefano Sisani, of the Perugia flying squad, revealed that a call to Kercher’s mother, Arline, in Coulsdon, Surrey, was made from her mobile at 8.56pm on the night of November 1. She used the phone daily to call her mother, who was ill. The call was cut off before she got through" (Times Online, March 22, 2009)
  Theory that call was cut off by attack is unlikely, as Meredith would still be near Sophie's flat at this time. More likely explanation is that call was dropped because of poor signal in tight medieval streets.
  Logged in phone memory (Massei Report pg 350)
• 21:04 Sighting of figure thought to be Meredith on the car park CCTV camera, CCTV time adjusted forward 12 minutes per the defense's theory.
  The figure is walking from left to right on the same side of the street as the cottage. CCTV time stamp was said to be 20:43 in early news reports (when the figure was thought to be Amanda); later reports of 20:41 are possibly a confusion with Guede's sighting at 19:41. Fits with Sophie's arrival home at
• 20:55, and the interrupted call at 20:56. (Telegraph 2007-11-12, Daily Mail 2009-03-14)
• 21:05 Kercher arrives at cottage
  Time approximate, based on walk since leaving Sophie. Also matches up with female figure seen walking towards cottage gate on car park video at
• 20:43. Prosecution claims clock is 10 minutes fast, see 13:34 on Nov. 2 for why it's probably 12 minutes slow. Video available on web is cropped and doesn't show camera timestamps. A still from te video has been discovered showing the timestamp of 20:51:36.17
• 21:10 Last human interaction with RS's computer during this night.
  Testimony of police expert Marco Trotta at trial
• 21:10:32 last access to the file Amelie.avi (Massei Report pg 325)
• 21:20-21:30 time of Meredith's scream as recounted in Rudy's Skype call
• 21:26 Last opening of file "Naruto ep 101.avi" recorded in spotlight metadata on Raffaele's computer. (from Raffaele's appeal)
  runtime is 20 minutes watch on hulu
  the last access time recorded in the filesystem is on Nov. 6th after Raffaele is in police custody.
• 21:58 Attempt to call voice mail (from phone memory)
  Massei Report pg 350
• 22:00 Kercher's phone attempts to call Abbey Bank.
  Source Micheli Report. Call fails because 44 prefix for UK not used.
• 22:00 (aprox) Hoax bomb threat call to Elisabetta (villa where phones were recovered)
  (Massei Report pg 13)
• 22:13:19 Kercher's mobile phone had received a picture message.
  Source Micheli Report. Connected via cell area of Ponte Rio - Montelaguardia.
  the phone connected to the 30064 Strada Vicinale Ponte Rio Monte La Guardia cell (Massei 337)
  (Massei Report pg 348) GPRS (internet) lasting 9 seconds to the IP address 10.205.46.41

Thats really becoming evolved in comparison to the earlier lists of 2007/08.

I noticed a similar list, on PMF representing Mignini's later ToD, but it leaves a huge hole in it, they leave out the 10:13pm call on Merediths cell connection to the different tower.

They leave this critical point out...

(inside the cottage)
14:31:43 2:31 PM MK, UK phone, Nov 1 GPRS G 25621 Piazza Lupattelli Via della Pergola 7
15:01:58 3:01 PM MK, UK phone, Nov 1 G 25621 Piazza Lupattelli Via della Pergola 7
15:48:56 3:48 PM MK, UK phone, Nov 1 G 25621 Piazza Lupattelli Via della Pergola 7
15:55:03 3:55 PM MK, UK phone, Nov 1 G 25621 Piazza Lupattelli Via della Pergola 7
15:55:57 3:55 PM MK, UK phone, Nov 1 G 25621 Piazza Lupattelli Via della Pergola 7

(unknown)
20:56:00 8:56 PM MK, UK phone, Nov 1 > Mom F No data (Phone memory only, no data on Wind Co. print out)
Neither section listed a tower and did not say no
data
21:58:00 9:58 PM MK, UK phone, Nov 1 > voicemail 901 F No data (Phone memory only, no data on Wind Co. print out) ?
22:00:00 10:00 PM MK, UK phone, Nov 1 > UK Bank, ABBEY F No data (Phone memory only, no data on Wind Co. print out) ?

(outside the cottage)
22:13:19 10:13 PM MK, UK phone, Nov 1 < GPRS, TEXT MESSAGE 9 G 30064 Strada Vicinale Ponte Rio Monte la Guardia
Park S. Angelo near garden where phones were
found
MEREDITH, Nov 2
0:10:31 12:10 AM MK, UK phone, Nov 2 A 25622, Piazza Luppatelli Road opposite to PergoIa 7.

 

[codyjuneau]

HumanityBlues posted a link to a media article quoting a guy by the name of Garafano. I don't have permission to post the link because I don't have enough posts under my belt. But the article contained the following paragraph (talking about Garafano):

He took a special interest in the case as it occurred on "his patch". Crucially, Garofano would have been head of the case had the Carabinieri received the emergency call, but the Polizia took it. Under Italian law, whichever force answers the initial call sees the case through.


Coincidentally I posted on this topic a couple of days ago (#5521)

The fact that Raffaele phoned the Carabinieri Police before the Postal Police arrived makes me think that the Carabinieri Police and this Garofano guy might have had dibs on this case if the Postal Police had not incorrectly stated their arrival time. So was the incorrectly stated arrival time accidental or deliberate? If deliberate could they be thick enough to not realize the consequences to the case until it was too late to backtrack? Food for thought.

 

[pilot padron]

Th Guardian Article also said this:

Interesting article in today's (Sunday's) Observer newspaper here in UK (the Observer is the Sunday sister title of The Guardian):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/18/amanda-knox-awaits-verdict

Contains an illuminating quote from Sollecito lawyer Luca Maori:




I couldn't agree more. Let's see if something like this actually happens after the acquittals.

Mignini claims he is "satisfied" with the disputed forensic work, finds the triumphalism of the Knox camp "questionable", and also has a new legal argument up his sleeve. "The legal code states that any review of evidence must be requested immediately, not two years later." If the couple are acquitted, he added, the verdict could yet be annulled if Italy's high court decides the recent DNA review was illegal.

Many others have found the premature "triumphalism of the Knox Camp" as well as the "highly confident near certainty" of an acquittal as "questionable".
In fact some have found the "triumphalism" as little more than more of the same clueless cheer leading from the same agenda blinded sources.

Many have opined that the triumphalism in addition to being questionable was premature.
Premature since were were hearing from "triumphant" FOA that "they will be released at any hour".
This was immediately after the C&V report was leaked by the Defense, months ago.

Yes, indeed, lets do see "if something like this does actually happen" if Knox and Sollecito are acquitted at the Judge Hellmann level of the process

As poster RWVBWL often says after he makes one of his particularly poignant points:
"Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm."

And as many non agenda blinded followers of the case have often simply stated in response to this premature "triumphalism".....
"It ain't over til its over"

 

[pilot padron]

More Food for Thought

HumanityBlues posted a link to a media article quoting a guy by the name of Garafano.
He took a special interest in the case as it occurred on "his patch". Crucially, Garofano would have been head of the case had the Carabinieri received the emergency call, but the Polizia took it. Under Italian law, whichever force answers the initial call sees the case through.


Coincidentally I posted on this topic a couple of days ago (#5521)

The fact that Raffaele phoned the Carabinieri Police before the Postal Police arrived makes me think that the Carabinieri Police and this Garofano guy might have had dibs on this case if the Postal Police had not incorrectly stated their arrival time. So was the incorrectly stated arrival time accidental or deliberate? If deliberate could they be thick enough to not realize the consequences to the case until it was too late to backtrack? Food for thought.

The only food I might nibble on is to mention to you that Raffaele Sollecito's sister, Vanessa, was an officer in the Carabinieri at this time.
I find it quite reasonable and not conspiratorial at all that Raffaele should call the Carabinieri.

May I proffer a few other facts of the case pertinent to your argument.
Vanessa Sollecito, the ex Carabinieri Lieutenant I mention:
1) was summarily fired for very blatantly inappropriate attempts to interfere in her brother's case.
2) was later indicted along with four other Sollecito family members for some additional, particularly distasteful, attempts at interference in the case.
Vanessa, along with her Father, Stepmother, Uncle and Aunt are all presently awaiting trial.

 

[Antony]

I can't keep but thinking that her scream is a key element. She either screamed when she saw him, or screamed when he attacked her, or both. Given that Rudy could not possibly have wanted to end up with a murdered girl with his prints in her blood, I suspect that she screamed, and in trying to subdue her and to silence that scream, he killed her.

It makes sense that it was a scream for help before the fatal blows, because the injuries were such that that her ability to scream would have been destroyed. My guess is that he confronted her with the knife with intent to rape her, and in his sexual frenzy he killed her, perhaps without intending to.

 

[Antony]

None of the pro-guilt stories I've seen adequately explains the unflushed toilet.

That is my reaction as well; but (playing devil's advocate) the only explanation that is at all likely is that Guede used the toilet immediately after someone else, and when he finished the cistern wasn't full, so he left it. Then other things started to happen and neither he nor anyone else returned to the toilet to complete the job.

But of course there are other problems with this, chiefly that the there is a second toilet in the flat, so he wouldn't have needed to wait to use the first one. It's overwhelmingly likely that he had some reason for not flushing, such as not wanting to make a noise.

 

[AmyStrange]

Mignini claims he is "satisfied" with the disputed forensic work, finds the triumphalism of the Knox camp "questionable", and also has a new legal argument up his sleeve. "The legal code states that any review of evidence must be requested immediately, not two years later." If the couple are acquitted, he added, the verdict could yet be annulled if Italy's high court decides the recent DNA review was illegal.

-

You realize of course Pilot,

that a review of the DNA evidence was requested by the defense during the first trial. So, are you now saying that the C&V report is now illegal because this court finally decided to honor the defense's original motion? What's the point of an appeal than if you can't review evidence?

Dave

 

[Katody Matrass]

Mignini claims he is "satisfied" with the disputed forensic work, finds the triumphalism of the Knox camp "questionable", and also has a new legal argument up his sleeve. "The legal code states that any review of evidence must be requested immediately, not two years later." If the couple are acquitted, he added, the verdict could yet be annulled if Italy's high court decides the recent DNA review was illegal.

Hi! It's interesting that what Mignini has "up his sleeve" pertains to the "next round". Isn't it quite ominous that he's already talking about appealing the verdict? It's quite pessimistic, just like Manuela's confidences about judges that are "against us".

I wonder if the fat guy has anything "up his sleeve" to win this one trial. And no, yet another mentally ill or drug addicted criminal "superwitness" won't impress the judges.

 

[AmyStrange]

The only food I might nibble on is to mention to you that Raffaele Sollecito's sister, Vanessa, was an officer in the Carabinieri at this time.
I find it quite reasonable and not conspiratorial at all that Raffaele should call the Carabinieri.

May I proffer a few other facts of the case pertinent to your argument.
Vanessa Sollecito, the ex Carabinieri Lieutenant I mention:
1) was summarily fired for very blatantly inappropriate attempts to interfere in her brother's case.
2) was later indicted along with four other Sollecito family members for some additional, particularly distasteful, attempts at interference in the case.
Vanessa, along with her Father, Stepmother, Uncle and Aunt are all presently awaiting trial.

-

I don't understand your point? How does any of that affect A&R's appeal? If by some miracle it does have some affect, than shouldn't Mignini's conviction affect the original trial somehow also?

By the way, have you been following Mignini's conviction? Has it already gone through the three stages (meaning he really is guilty), or is he still waiting for the appeal process to begin (which means he's still considered innocent in the eyes of the Italian legal system)?

Dave

 

[Paninaro]

Mignini claims he is "satisfied" with the disputed forensic work, finds the triumphalism of the Knox camp "questionable", and also has a new legal argument up his sleeve. "The legal code states that any review of evidence must be requested immediately, not two years later." If the couple are acquitted, he added, the verdict could yet be annulled if Italy's high court decides the recent DNA review was illegal.

Many others have found the premature "triumphalism of the Knox Camp" as well as the "highly confident near certainty" of an acquittal as "questionable".
In fact some have found the "triumphalism" as little more than more of the same clueless cheer leading from the same agenda blinded sources.

Many have opined that the triumphalism in addition to being questionable was premature.
Premature since were were hearing from "triumphant" FOA that "they will be released at any hour".
This was immediately after the C&V report was leaked by the Defense, months ago.

Yes, indeed, lets do see "if something like this does actually happen" if Knox and Sollecito are acquitted at the Judge Hellmann level of the process

As poster RWVBWL often says after he makes one of his particularly poignant points:
"Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm."

And as many non agenda blinded followers of the case have often simply stated in response to this premature "triumphalism".....
"It ain't over til its over"

So what Mignini is basically saying is that the independent review of the DNA evidence ordered by the judge of the appeal, Hellmann, should be thrown out, because of formal legal reasons and you consider this a good thing, because you like Mignini doesn't like the conclusions of the review. What about justice?

It's over and Knox and Sollecito will be acquitted because of reasonable doubt and the lack of conclusive evidence. I find it highly unlikely that the supreme court will overrule that verdict on grounds that have to do with the legal code. I understand that Mignini knows more about Italian law than me, but he really seems to be clutching at straws.

The whole process against Knox and Sollecito stinks to high heaven and Mignini is obviously more concerned with his own reputation and his own glory than with justice being done. All criticism of the case is criticism of himself in his mind and therefore it's "lllegal" and "against the legal code". It was the same thing when he faced charges regarding his work on The Monster of Florence case. He should really be put in jail, but that would be hoping to much. But maybe he'll get fired for budget reasons.

 

[AmyStrange]

You realize of course Pilot,

that a review of the DNA evidence was requested by the defense during the first trial. So, are you now saying that the C&V report is now illegal because this court finally decided to honor the defense's original motion? What's the point of an appeal than if you can't review evidence?

Dave

-

Personally, I think any good lawyer worth his or her salt can make a convincing arguement that the "current" motion for a review of the DNA evidence is actually a "renewed" motion, because of the refusal by the original court to approve said review, and that it is NOT an "original" or "new" motion in any way shape or form, which is probably what the legal code states. I'd certainly like to take a look at the actual code itself to see what it actually says.

Although this all seems so silly, because what's the point of an appeal if you can't legally review evidence? It's not like the Italian appeal process is the same as the U.S.'s where you can only review the legal process and not the evidence or facts, or something like that,

Dave

 

[pilot padron]

I "am saying" nothing of the sort

-

You realize of course Pilot,

that a review of the DNA evidence was requested by the defense during the first trial. So, are you now saying that the C&V report is now illegal because this court finally decided to honor the defense's original motion? What's the point of an appeal than if you can't review evidence?

Dave

Is it not quite evident that I merely quoted what Prosecutot Mignini said?

Your redundant statement about *who* requested review is irrelevant.
Your question about "can't review evidence" displays a complete lack of understanding of the Prosecutor's clearly quoted legal code's time limits on such review.

BTW:
As additional emphasis for Prosecutor Mignini's point that triumphalism of the Knox Camp is objectionable, and my point that their triumphalism is also premature, may I now quote Squires in today's Telegraph:
"Even if the convictions are overturned, the story does not end there – prosecutors will lodge an appeal of their own, bumping the case up to the Supreme Court in Rome, the highest in the land. It could be another year or more for it to be definitively resolved."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...0640/Will-Amanda-Knox-be-freed-this-week.html

Again may I repeat to aid "understanding"....It ain't over til its over.

 

[LondonJohn]

My understanding is that Hellmann was willing to jump right into closing arguments but neither the prosecution nor the defense was ready.

That's correct. And my feeling is that both the prosecution and defence teams needed the break for different reasons: I think the prosecution needed time to regroup in the light of Hellmann's ruling on the DNA report, to try to figure out just how they are going to try to present an argument for guilt beyond all doubt based in reason (hint: they can't). And I think that on the defence side, Bongiorno needed this time away in order to see to important parliamentary business in Rome. And there's no way she wants to miss the closing arguments and acquittals.

 

[AmyStrange]

Is it not quite evident that I merely quoted what Prosecutot Mignini said?

Your redundant statement about *who* requested review is irrelevant.
Your question about "can't review evidence" displays a complete lack of understanding of the Prosecutor's clearly quoted legal code's time limits on such review.

BTW:
As additional emphasis for Prosecutor Mignini's point that triumphalism of the Knox Camp is objectionable, and my point that their triumphalism is also premature, may I now quote Squires in today's Telegraph:
Even if the convictions are overturned, the story does not end there – prosecutors will lodge an appeal of their own, bumping the case up to the Supreme Court in Rome, the highest in the land. It could be another year or more for it to be definitively resolved.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...0640/Will-Amanda-Knox-be-freed-this-week.html

Again may I repeat to aid "understanding"....It ain't over til its over.

-

If you say so. No wait a minute, do you have a copy of (or link to) the specific legal code to which Mignini is referring? That would be the best evidence, because you are right. Neither one of us is qualified to argue (one way or the other) the validity of Mignini's assertions.

We'll both have to wait probably about a week or two (or three at the most) to see what really happens and until then have to agree to disagree.

So is Mignini taking over the case after this appeal is finished and taking up the case again to argue the validity of his (up his sleeve) legal interpretation of the legal code, or is he going sit on the sidelines some more?

Thank you again Pilot for sharing your alternative legal theories,

Dave

 

[LondonJohn]

AS LJ has pointed out the UK has much stricter libel laws and is the preferred venue for those parties litagating a libel case and seeking damages for said libel. I think AK and her family have some real possibilities to pursue post-acquittal provided they bring their libel case in a UK court.

Correct. Malice need not be proven in UK courts: all that must be shown (in simplified terms) is that the alleged libel was a) a lie or distortion of the truth, and b) it was injurious to the reputation or good standing of the plaintiff. The onus is on the defendant (i.e. the person/people accused of the libel) to prove the truth of the statement, otherwise it's considered to be a lie. And the onus is on the plaintiff to prove the injury to his/her reputation or good standing.

Incidentally, an alleged lawyer elsewhere pointed out helpfully that former LA prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi wrote a very highly publicised book on the OJ Simpson case following his acquittal, which essentially accused Simpson of the murder, and which stated that the criminal court had wrongly acquitted him of the crime (as well as a severe criticism of what he saw as a botched prosecution). The alleged lawyer correctly pointed out that Bugliosi never got sued for libel (so far as anyone can tell), and that this situation would be analogous to that of someone writing an article/book after Knox's/Sollecito's acquittals accusing them of being vicious sex murderers who got away with it.

Well yes...... but only up to a point. If this person is indeed a lawyer, he would know that Simpson very likely had grounds to sue Bugliosi and the publisher - if he and his lawyers had wished to follow that course of action. But there are some very important differences between this situation and that of Knox/Sollecito. Firstly, Simpson had been found liable in a civil court of the murders by the time Bugliosi's book was published. So it's arguable that a book accusing him of the murders was not injurious to his reputation or good standing - even though he'd been acquitted in a criminal court. Secondly, the civil damages award meant that Simpson would not have stood to benefit from any damages if he'd sued Bugliosi and won. And thirdly (and probably most importantly), Simpson and his lawyers both knew full well that the prevailing public opinion throughout the US (and the world) was that he was indeed the murderer. Therefore if he chose to bring a libel action against Bugliosi, he (or more accurately his lawyers) would have realised that such an action would be met with widespread public opprobrium and outrage. And even if Simpson had won such a case, it would have been a pyrrhic victory which would have been of little or no benefit to Simpson's longer-term reputation.

By contrast, Knox and Sollecito will walk out of Hellmann's courtroom without any stain on their characters in relation to the murder of Meredith Kercher. By the time they have completed their round of interviews, and after the intense media coverage that will accompany the acquittals, the vast majority of people who have an opinion about this case will be of the opinion that Knox and Sollecito had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder. Moreover, the civil judgements will be quashed at the same time as the acquittals, so there will be no court rulings remaining that tie Knox or Sollecito to the murder. In fact, my opinion is that the only people who will still be proposing that Knox/Sollecito are "vicious sex killers who got away with it" by this time next year will be a tiny pocket of irrational internet warriors who refuse to abandon their highly-cherished (and highly-invested) dogmatic beliefs in their guilt, and perhaps one or two journalists who are too stupid or over-invested to modify their beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (how's it going, Ms Vogt?!).