Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

I agree. Rudy Guede said she screamed about 9:20 p.m. That would have MK screaming 10-15 minutes after arriving home. Rudy Guede may have stayed on the toilet for a time listening for the best time to try and leave.

I think that the type of scream Guede describes is more consistent with assault than mere discovery/confrontation. Moreover, Guede himself ascribes the scream to the attack itself - but of course pretends that it was someone else doing the attacking.

I think that the most likely scenario is that Guede and Meredith had a confrontation in the hallway or entrance to the kitchen/lounge, that Meredith ran to her bedroom (maybe to try to grab her phone to call for help), and Guede pursued her into the room. At this point, I think that there would have been no more than raised voices. I think that Guede produced his knife, and threatened Meredith with harm if she didn't shut up and comply (even if he couldn't speak sufficient English, this is not a difficult message to convey through simple gestures and actions).

I think that at this point Meredith probably became compliant, through a mixture of fear and shock. In fact, this would be by far the most logical and rational thing for her to have done if confronted by a much more powerful man with a knife. I think that Guede forced her onto all fours with his knife held to her throat. I think that Guede then started to remove Meredith's jeans with his free hand. I think that at this point Meredith became cognisant of the fact that Guede was about to assault or rape her, and she decided to resist. I think she started struggling, and that Guede made the first, smaller throat wound with the knife in an attempt to force Meredith back into compliance. I think it was the terror induced by this first stab that caused Meredith to emit a loud scream, and I think it was at this point that Guede inflicted the deeper, fatal stab wound.

Incidentally, with regard to what might have happened before the initial confrontation, it's also possible that Meredith came through the front door, walked directly through to her bedroom, dumped her bag and placed the book on the bed in preparation for reading it, then went through to the kitchen to get a drink and a piece of mushroom from the fridge. Having got her snack, she could either have heard or seen Guede directly (the fridge was close to the passageway leading to the large bathroom), or she could have been walking back to her bedroom (this time with more lights on) and glanced through Filomena's door and seen the broken window.

In the final analysis, the confrontation between Guede and Meredith might have been initiated in one of a number of different ways. The single important thing tying everything together is that a confrontation was more-or-less inevitable once Meredith had locked the front door behind her.

 

[LondonJohn]

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"

The defence teams requested a review of the DNA evidence back in 2009. Massei refused the request. Mignini doesn't have a leg to stand on. And why is he still deigning to talk to the press? Hasn't he (along with all the other prosecutors) been told to stop talking to the media?

Mignini is hopelessly sunk, both professionally and personally. He will probably be sacked after this case, when he is convicted for the abuse of office offences and following a likely investigation into his conduct in the Knox/Sollecito case. His opinion is now worthless: the last desperate flailings of a drowning man.

Knox and Sollecito are going to be acquitted within the next few weeks, and rightly so. There will be no grounds for any prosecution appeal to the Supreme Court (barring anything extraordinary happening between now and the acquittals). You'd better start reconciling yourself to that.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

So what are the grounds upon which the prosecutors will be making this alleged appeal to the Supreme Court? In what way has Hellmann's court misapplied Italian law or the Italian Code of Criminal Procedures so far? Can you highlight any breaches? If you (or Squires) can't find any points of law (not findings of fact, remember) that form potential grounds for appeal, then neither you nor he has any justification for believing that such an appeal will ever take place - let alone that it will have any chance of success.

 

[Matthew Best]

Well, I'm off on holiday on Tuesday and I probably won't have internet access, nor will I be reading any English-language newspapers so I most likely won't know the result of the case until I return in October. I look forward to reading (no doubt) hundreds of pages of anticipatory verbiage and then analysis of the closing arguments and discussion over the verdicts.

I'd like to thank the few pro-guilt posters here for their focus on the really important matters, like whether a photograph of two people in America was photo-shopped or not, or whether it might be possible to convict Sollecito and Knox on a technicality; and I'd also like to thank the many pro-justice posters like LoonyJohn, Dr Library Card, Rose, Kaosium, Phantom Wolf, and the numerous other employees of the Gogarty Marriott Supertanker of Doom for remaining focused on the relatively trivial question of whether or not they actually committed the crime (they didn't).

See you all in October!

 

[Mary_H]

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.

I find the Guardian article by Tom Kington to be a little iffy. He reports on what Mignini allegedly said, but he doesn't actually claim to have interviewed Mignini. So, when and to whom did Mignini say he finds the triumphalism of the Knox camp "questionable?"

Kington assumes triumphalism as a given, without defining it or giving any examples of it. What triumphalism, specifically, is he talking about?

 

[Fine]

Originally Posted by pilot padron View Post
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.

____________________

Katody + Mary,

It's hard to believe that Mignini would say anything so stupid. If a review of the evidence had to be requested immediately, why was Mignini himself ---at the last court hearing---requesting appointment of new experts to review the DNA evidence???????????

///

 

[RoseMontague]

Well, I'm off on holiday on Tuesday and I probably won't have internet access, nor will I be reading any English-language newspapers so I most likely won't know the result of the case until I return in October. I look forward to reading (no doubt) hundreds of pages of anticipatory verbiage and then analysis of the closing arguments and discussion over the verdicts.

I'd like to thank the few pro-guilt posters here for their focus on the really important matters, like whether a photograph of two people in America was photo-shopped or not, or whether it might be possible to convict Sollecito and Knox on a technicality; and I'd also like to thank the many pro-justice posters like LoonyJohn, Dr Library Card, Rose, Kaosium, Phantom Wolf, and the numerous other employees of the Gogarty Marriott Supertanker of Doom for remaining focused on the relatively trivial question of whether or not they actually committed the crime (they didn't).

See you all in October!

LOL. Have fun Matthew.

 

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by pilot padron View Post
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._____________________________________


____________________

Katody + Mary,

It's hard to believe that Mignini would say anything so stupid. If a review of the evidence had to be requested immediately, why was Mignini himself ---at the last court hearing---requesting appointment of new experts to review the DNA evidence???????????

///

The defense also requested the expert review in the first trial. Were they supposed to ask for it before the murder?

 

[Mary_H]

Originally Posted by pilot padron View Post
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._____________________________________

____________________

Katody + Mary,

It's hard to believe that Mignini would say anything so stupid. If a review of the evidence had to be requested immediately, why was Mignini himself ---at the last court hearing---requesting appointment of new experts to review the DNA evidence???????????

///

Kington also writes about Mignini preparing his closing arguments. Mignini doesn't get to speak in court this time around, does he?

 

[katy_did]

I think that the type of scream Guede describes is more consistent with assault than mere discovery/confrontation. Moreover, Guede himself ascribes the scream to the attack itself - but of course pretends that it was someone else doing the attacking.

TBH, I think it's very difficult to say what type of situation this particular scream was associated with based on Guede's description (in terms of assault or discovery, I mean). There's certainly an argument that a woman would be most likely to scream when first noticing a strange man in the house, rather than while being threatened by him, when screaming might only make him more aggressive. One indication that it may have happened when Meredith first saw Guede is his certainty that it could be heard from the street: this might suggest they were both in the main living area, right outside Filomena's room with its broken window. A scream from Meredith's room would be less likely to be heard. But even this is obviously very speculative (Guede is the only witness to a scream between 9 and 10pm, so of course it's possible it never happened at all).

 

[RoseMontague]

Kington also writes about Mignini preparing his closing arguments. Mignini doesn't get to speak in court this time around, does he?

I hope he does.

 

[RoseMontague]

I see Yummi has stated that the expert report should have been requested at the preliminary hearing when Stefanoni deposited her report. The problem as I see it is that the defense had no idea at the time how bad her report was, simply because the prosecution had not turned over what they needed to properly review the report. A lot of the really questionable stuff was not known until 30 July 2009, and the raw data was only obtained by the experts at the appeal trial.

 

[LondonJohn]

I find the Guardian article by Tom Kington to be a little iffy. He reports on what Mignini allegedly said, but he doesn't actually claim to have interviewed Mignini. So, when and to whom did Mignini say he finds the triumphalism of the Knox camp "questionable?"

The context of the quote - and the fact that this quote from Mignini was first reported in this article - would tend to suggest that Kington did indeed speak directly with Mignini. I suspect that Kington has a good direct number for Mignini (who, after all, has never been shy in offering his opinions to journalists). Although I wonder how Mignini's latest desperate offerings to the press square with the apparent directive that none of the prosecutors was to speak with the media?

Kington assumes triumphalism as a given, without defining it or giving any examples of it. What triumphalism, specifically, is he talking about?

Indeed. The word "triumphalism" by definition implies exaggerated celebration of a victory. I haven't seen anyone on the pro-acquittal side jumping up and down screaming anything like "Yess! We won! Up yours, prosecutors!" Apart from being distasteful and utterly inappropriate, it woule also be incorrect. Nobody will have "won" when Knox and Sollecito are acquitted. This is a vitally important point to keep remembering. Meredith will still be dead, and her poor family and close friends will still be grieving her loss. Knox and Sollecito will have spent almost four of their most formative years in prison, at least three-and-a-half of which will have been totally unjustified and unjust. The Knox/Mellas and Sollecito families will have spent very large amounts of money supporting their children and campaigning for their acquittals - money that the Knox/Mellas families in particular can't afford. There are no winners from this sorry story. Only losers.

 

[katy_did]

If you're not allowed to request an expert report at this stage, then I wonder why Mignini and co requested a second one when they didn't like the results of the first one.

I think he's clutching at straws, just as he was when he talked about the Supreme Court judgment on Rudy and its implications for this trial. As Katody says though, it's certainly ominous for the prosecution case, indicating not only that Mignini feels they've lost the argument on the DNA evidence but that he thinks Hellmann will acquit.

 

[LondonJohn]

TBH, I think it's very difficult to say what type of situation this particular scream was associated with based on Guede's description (in terms of assault or discovery, I mean). There's certainly an argument that a woman would be most likely to scream when first noticing a strange man in the house, rather than while being threatened by him, when screaming might only make him more aggressive. One indication that it may have happened when Meredith first saw Guede is his certainty that it could be heard from the street: this might suggest they were both in the main living area, right outside Filomena's room with its broken window. A scream from Meredith's room would be less likely to be heard. But even this is obviously very speculative (Guede is the only witness to a scream between 9 and 10pm, so of course it's possible it never happened at all).

But a crucial point to bear in mind is that Guede was highly conscious of the possibility that the scream could have been heard from outside the cottage. My opinion therefore is that he felt he had to include the scream (and an accurate representation of its timing) in his bogus account of the murder, so that his version wouldn't later be contradicted by any potential earwitnesses who might have heard and timed the scream. My conclusion thus has to be that this scream really did occur, at around the time that Guede specified in his account ("9.20-9.30 or thereabouts").

And I still believe that it's far more likely that this scream was issued by Meredith during the attack, rather than at the point where Meredith first discovered Guede's presence. I don't think that anyone would let out such a loud non-verbal scream if they discovered a stranger in their house: I think it's far more likely that there would be a very short scream of surprise, followed possibly by verbalised interjections such as "Who are you?!" "Get out of my house!" "What do you want?!" etc.

I think that the scream as described by Guede was the scream of a woman who realised her life was now in real danger. I therefore have to conclude that it was issued by Meredith as she was being held by Guede, and most likely after Guede made the first non-fatal knife wound in her neck. I think that the scream was most likely the catalyst for Guede to inflict the brutal fatal stab wound in Meredith's neck.

But, as you say, there are various ways in which one can speculate in this area. I happen to think that my scenario is the most likely, all things considered; but I'm not wedded to it, and ultimately it's of only limited value. The important thing is that all the available evidence indicates that it was Guede alone who confronted, attacked and killed Meredith Kercher.

 

[RoseMontague]

If you're not allowed to request an expert report at this stage, then I wonder why Mignini and co requested a second one when they didn't like the results of the first one.

I think he's clutching at straws, just as he was when he talked about the Supreme Court judgment on Rudy and its implications for this trial. As Katody says though, it's certainly ominous for the prosecution case, indicating not only that Mignini feels they've lost the argument on the DNA evidence but that he thinks Hellmann will acquit.

That is the way I read this as well.

 

[LondonJohn]

If you're not allowed to request an expert report at this stage, then I wonder why Mignini and co requested a second one when they didn't like the results of the first one.

I think he's clutching at straws, just as he was when he talked about the Supreme Court judgment on Rudy and its implications for this trial. As Katody says though, it's certainly ominous for the prosecution case, indicating not only that Mignini feels they've lost the argument on the DNA evidence but that he thinks Hellmann will acquit.

Oh he's totally clutching at straws. There are simply no proper grounds for an appeal to the Supreme Court on this issue: the Supreme Court would only have to look at the the way in which Comodi and Stefanoni prevented important discovery information from reaching the defence (and in fact actively campaigned to prevent the information from being passed across), and look at the way in which Massei dismissed all defence efforts to get the DNA evidence re-examined. Not only would the Supreme Court dismiss an appeal immediately if it were brought on these grounds, I also reckon that the judges might have some very strong words aimed at prosecutors for even trying to bring an appeal on such grounds in the first place.

My prediction is that by this time next year, Mignini will no longer be practising law in Perugia (or anywhere else). I predict that he will be disbarred and sacked following his ultimate conviction for the abuse of office charges, and that he will also probably be subjected to an official inquiry (and possible criminal charges) relating to his conduct in the Knox/Sollecito case. And my personal opinion is that if/when some or all of this actually happens, it will be entirely warranted and right. Mignini deserves to be called fully to account for what he's done in this case and others.

 

[Antony]

From the Observer, today (a UK Sunday newspaper):

Paxton said Knox had asked her to bring into jail articles about false confessions and wrongful imprisonments as she considers a future career helping other inmates if – and Paxton carefully stresses the "if'" – she were released.

It says a lot about Amanda (contrary to all the personal attacks), that she wants to devote her life to helping the many, many people who have suffered what she is now suffering. If she can put her notoriety to use in this way, then maybe some good can come out of this travesty.

 

[katy_did]

But a crucial point to bear in mind is that Guede was highly conscious of the possibility that the scream could have been heard from outside the cottage. My opinion therefore is that he felt he had to include the scream (and an accurate representation of its timing) in his bogus account of the murder, so that his version wouldn't later be contradicted by any potential earwitnesses who might have heard and timed the scream. My conclusion thus has to be that this scream really did occur, at around the time that Guede specified in his account ("9.20-9.30 or thereabouts").

Yes I agree, it's quite possible that's why he mentioned it.

The only thing I'd take issue with is relying too much on the timing of it. I believe Guede didn't have a watch, so I'm not sure he'd be able to narrow down the time at which things happened with any real accuracy, though of course he'd have had a general idea. For example, he estimated he left the house at 10:30, but this was based on the time he claimed he arrived at his friend's house (11:30pm) not on anything more precise. Of course, even if his estimate wasn't exact, it still indicates 'the scream' happened much earlier than Massei says.

And I still believe that it's far more likely that this scream was issued by Meredith during the attack, rather than at the point where Meredith first discovered Guede's presence. I don't think that anyone would let out such a loud non-verbal scream if they discovered a stranger in their house: I think it's far more likely that there would be a very short scream of surprise, followed possibly by verbalised interjections such as "Who are you?!" "Get out of my house!" "What do you want?!" etc.

I think that the scream as described by Guede was the scream of a woman who realised her life was now in real danger. I therefore have to conclude that it was issued by Meredith as she was being held by Guede, and most likely after Guede made the first non-fatal knife wound in her neck. I think that the scream was most likely the catalyst for Guede to inflict the brutal fatal stab wound in Meredith's neck.

But, as you say, there are various ways in which one can speculate in this area. I happen to think that my scenario is the most likely, all things considered; but I'm not wedded to it, and ultimately it's of only limited value. The important thing is that all the available evidence indicates that it was Guede alone who confronted, attacked and killed Meredith Kercher.

LOL. Maybe you wouldn't emit an ear-piercing scream if you found an intruder in your house LJ, but I can say with confidence there's a decent chance I would. In fact, growing up with a younger brother who thought it was fun to hide around corners and stand there looking ominous, I have been known to emit ear-piercing screams in far less threatening situations.

As I said, I think there is probably a stronger case to be made that the scream happened when Meredith discovered Guede, assuming it happened at all: I think she would be more likely to scream before she was under Guede's control, rather than when he was threatening her and in a position to respond aggressively/cut off any scream as soon as it happened anyway. And again, there's the location issue - Guede thought it could be heard, suggesting it may have happened near Filomena's window overlooking the street, rather than in Meredith's more secluded room.

But as you say, all speculative (even down to the existence or otherwise of the scream).

 

[Fine]

During the Massei trial, the defense asked for independent expert witnesses to re-evaluate various types of the evidence. Massei rejected all the requests, but never because the requests were made too late and so honoring the requests would be illegal.

Massei Report, English Translation, page 21: "The Court disallowed all the requests, on the grounds that the additional expert reports requested did not appear necessary, since the very ample dialectic contribution from the expert witnesses of the private parties offered sufficient material to take a position without additional expertise."

///