Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[bri1]

I fully agree.
A long time ago it was said that Meredith had only just started self-defence/karate lessons.

Magister, I'm a female, I used to do self-defence, and I have also been punched in the face on quite a few occaisions (the town where I grew up was pretty rough!). One time, in a situation where I was totally unprepared for an assault (not that you're ever that prepared) I had my nose and cheekbone broken, as well as 5 ot 6 chipped teeth.
I'm fully convinced that in a situation where I was completely unexpectedly attacked by a man with a knife, that I wouldn't have a hope. These things usually happen so quickly that not much of a response can be given. In the situation where a woman attacked me as described above, the whole thing lasted probably 5 minutes in total, and I managed to 'hit back' only once. Probably 1 minute of the time frame was me running away (before she caught up and struck me from behind).
The only was self-defense can work is either if luck is on your side, or if you've practised and practised over years to the point where should a violent situation occur, muscle-memory kicks in (because conscious thought is not a lot of help).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Attorney Steve Graham's view of the closing remarks

Graham wrote, "I noticed the prosecutor Giancarlo Costagliola also asked the jurors: 'As you make your decision, I wish that you jurors feel a little bit like the parents of Meredith Kercher…'. For what it is worth, in the U.S. these sort of put-yourself-in-the-victim’s-shoes type of arguments are considered prosecutorial misconduct, and are banned in courts."

This is similar to the situation in the trial of the first instance, where Mignini put words into Amanda's mouth and moved the TOD back.

 

[LondonJohn]

1) I don't find the 'Rudy couldn't have overpowered Meredith on his own, because she was trained in self-defense / karate' compelling at all. He surprised her. And being involved in a real-life violent situation is very, very different from sparring situations. Also, not convinced by the 'conclusiveness' of Meredith's wounds.
2) Rudy's statements are not reliable. He has every reason to lie and try and minimise his own involvement. He has made many statements (both before he was caught and afterwards) which are inconsistent or contradictory.
3) Why?
4) Do you think that the Supreme Court was making a finding of fact? (Even if it did- which isn't my understanding- it means nothing. In many miscarriages of justice you have many judges and juries making wrong decisions. Sometimes a lot of people are just wrong. Truth is not a democracy, Pilot).

It's long since time to nail this rubbish about Meredith's supposed karate training somehow proving that Guede couldn't have been a lone assailant. A 57kg medium-height woman against a probably 85kg above-average-height athletic male is a mismatch in any context. But when you add in the fact that the male in this scenario was brandishing a large knife, the mismatch is even larger.

And the other fundamental thing to remember is that we have the benefit (not that that's really the most appropriate word) of knowing that the confrontation ended with Meredith's death. But in a real-time situation, it's highly likely that Meredith didn't believe that Guede was going to harm her. This belief, coupled with raw fear, would naturally lead anyone in such a situation to be compliant, since it would be wholly logical for a victim to reason that compliance and theft (or even perhaps some form of sexual assault) would be preferable to resistance and murder.

There are countless examples of where single assailants have managed to control even groups of people by using this psychological methodology. For example, Dennis Rader, the so-called BTK Killer, persuaded households of up to five people to tie themselves up using nothing more than a knife and the threat of violence. Once everyone was tied up, he was then free to carry out his real intention of torture and murder. But if he had announced his intention to torture and murder from the very outset, he would obviously have been met with resistance, and would very possibly even have been overpowered. The sad truth is that none of Rader's victims really suspected his true intentions, so they were initially compliant instead of fighting for their lives.

In the same way, I strongly suspect that Guede probably indicated to Meredith that he wanted her to keep quiet and not try to escape, and used the knife as a threat. Perhaps Meredith thought that Guede intended to find her keys (so that he could exit via the front door), and perhaps also steal money and portable valuables from the cottage. If that is indeed what she thought the limit of Guede's intentions were, then it's entirely logical that she would have been passive and compliant. I think that when it becaome clear to Meredith that Guede also had the intention of sexually assaulting or raping her, she switched from compliance to resistance. I think that this sadly cost her her life.

Oh and by the way, disregard padron's argument totally. It has no basis in logic, and is unsupported by the known facts. And he has no comprehension of the implications of Guede's Supreme Court judgement either.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think you're being argumentative, LJ, both in this post and the previous one to Magister. You're saying essentially the same thing Magister is saying, but you're making it sound like you have contempt for his observations.

Need some coffee after your night out?

Yes, I didn't mean it to sound combative, let alone contemptuous. I had just come back from a veritable festival of red meat and red wine: Wolfgang Puck has just opened a branch of his Cut steakhouse on Park Lane, and its lure was too great to resist last night. I shared a Black Angus porterhouse that Matt Lauer and Curt Knox would have been proud of

I think it will be very interesting to see just how much (if any) further contribution Costagliola makes to proceedings. I suspect that he will conclude the closing argument in the same way as he introduced it. But I still strongly suspect that Costagliola's relative absence from the meat of closing arguments is very instructive in and of itself.

 

[bri1]

It's long since time to nail this rubbish about Meredith's supposed karate training somehow proving that Guede couldn't have been a lone assailant. A 57kg medium-height woman against a probably 85kg above-average-height athletic male is a mismatch in any context. But when you add in the fact that the male in this scenario was brandishing a large knife, the mismatch is even larger.

And the other fundamental thing to remember is that we have the benefit (not that that's really the most appropriate word) of knowing that the confrontation ended with Meredith's death. But in a real-time situation, it's highly likely that Meredith didn't believe that Guede was going to harm her. This belief, coupled with raw fear, would naturally lead anyone in such a situation to be compliant, since it would be wholly logical for a victim to reason that compliance and theft (or even perhaps some form of sexual assault) would be preferable to resistance and murder.

There are countless examples of where single assailants have managed to control even groups of people by using this psychological methodology. For example, Dennis Rader, the so-called BTK Killer, persuaded households of up to five people to tie themselves up using nothing more than a knife and the threat of violence. Once everyone was tied up, he was then free to carry out his real intention of torture and murder. But if he had announced his intention to torture and murder from the very outset, he would obviously have been met with resistance, and would very possibly even have been overpowered. The sad truth is that none of Rader's victims really suspected his true intentions, so they were initially compliant instead of fighting for their lives.

In the same way, I strongly suspect that Guede probably indicated to Meredith that he wanted her to keep quiet and not try to escape, and used the knife as a threat. Perhaps Meredith thought that Guede intended to find her keys (so that he could exit via the front door), and perhaps also steal money and portable valuables from the cottage. If that is indeed what she thought the limit of Guede's intentions were, then it's entirely logical that she would have been passive and compliant. I think that when it becaome clear to Meredith that Guede also had the intention of sexually assaulting or raping her, she switched from compliance to resistance. I think that this sadly cost her her life.

Oh and by the way, disregard padron's argument totally. It has no basis in logic, and is unsupported by the known facts. And he has no comprehension of the implications of Guede's Supreme Court judgement either.

To be fair to Pilot, Mignini (supposedly a legal professional) also has no comprehension of the role of the Supreme Court either! Or, more likely, he does, but chooses to misrepresent the role in order to (attempt to) mislead the jurors and the public.

You're absolutely right, Meredith wasn't in the epistemic situation that we are now, and her epistemic situation would have led her to compliance, until something happened to make it obvious to her that this wasn't going to be just a robbery.

 

[Grinder]

IMHO Rudy Guede in a 'Lone wolf' scenario is considered at best to be the least probable scenario for the senseless murder Of Meredith Kercher.

This was emphasized when:

1) Cursory examination of the multitude of wounds Meredith suffered, and her past self defense training obviously suggests Rudy had help.
2) Rudy in several statements said:
2a) not only that he was not a Lone Wolf
2b) but that Knox and Sollecito were also 'involved
3) Cursory consideration of *all* the evidence makes a Lone wolf scenario not only improbable, but ludicrous.
4) The Highest Court in the land (yes authority) with access to all the evidence as well as the decisions of 32 previous judges stated that two others helped Rudy Murder Meredith.

Pilot, Rudy was the very first person to have the lone wolf theory. He said that the left handed, blond Italian guy came in and killed Meredith while he pooped. Assuming that he was lying and he knew that it had taken three people to restrain her and kill he, why wouldn't his story have matched that fact? Why didn't he say two or three people came and killed and that's why he couldn't stop them?

It is curious that Rudy's Skype call to a friend isn't believed but Amanda's statement to police is believed except for the stuff that isn't. The oft repeated canard that she admitted being there comes only from that night.

I think Meredith being a student of a martial art wasn't the same as being a practitioner. You know sort of how C&V weren't on the street cops so they are only students of DNA not practitioners.

Btw, Rudy has never said that Amanda was in the room during the murder. Remember, Mignini recently told the evil press that she might just controlled it from the kitchen. I hope the defense brings in the press stories of his recent comments like he brought in the noise ticket story.

Maybe that's why he bashed the press yesterday.

 

[Magister]

bri1
Very sorry indeed to hear about your unfortunate experiences.
You are right that a sudden attack by a man with a knife would be a major challenge for even a woman black belt. If he attacked her from behind, pulling her jacket down thus pinning her arms in her sleeves then no chance.
As I believe what happened to poor Meredith.

Magister, I'm a female, I used to do self-defence, and I have also been punched in the face on quite a few occaisions (the town where I grew up was pretty rough!). One time, in a situation where I was totally unprepared for an assault (not that you're ever that prepared) I had my nose and cheekbone broken, as well as 5 ot 6 chipped teeth.
I'm fully convinced that in a situation where I was completely unexpectedly attacked by a man with a knife, that I wouldn't have a hope. These things usually happen so quickly that not much of a response can be given. In the situation where a woman attacked me as described above, the whole thing lasted probably 5 minutes in total, and I managed to 'hit back' only once. Probably 1 minute of the time frame was me running away (before she caught up and struck me from behind).
The only was self-defense can work is either if luck is on your side, or if you've practised and practised over years to the point where should a violent situation occur, muscle-memory kicks in (because conscious thought is not a lot of help).

 

[smkovalinksy]

Report:Mignini dozes off during his own summations/Comodi unfazed/reprters ignore

How does this happen? I mean the largest case, the most critical part of the trial and they fall asleep?

Maybe free coffee is needed, maybe stretching is to be suggested.... have some respect for the victim's family

Is there a link for this, i would love to post it on websleuths....

 

[LondonJohn]

Has Wikipedia got this wrong?
"The Court of Cassation cannot overrule the trial court's interpretation of the evidence; rather, it corrects a lower court's interpretation or application of the law. Appeals to the Court of Cassation generally come from the appeals court, but litigants may also appeal directly from the trial court.

Decisions of the supreme court are binding only in the case submitted. The essential roles of the Court of Cassation are to ensure that lower courts have correctly followed legal procedure and to harmonise the interpretation of laws by lower courts through its interpretation"

In other words, the role of the Supreme Court is to rule on the interpretation of law by the lower courts. It does not rule on evidence or fact. By the time Rudy's case got to the Supreme Courts, all they can rule on are:
a) the lower courts' interpretation of the law
b) the lower courts' application of the law

Thus, their judgement amounted to: In the case of Rudy Guede, the interpretation of law and the application of law was correct (in terms of whether certain types of evidence and testimony were allowed etc).
It does not have the power to make a judgement of the actual facts and evidence presented at lower courts, or even to say that these facts / evidence presented in lower courts should (or should not) have led to a conviction.

Therefore, if AK and RS were found guilty at appeal level, and they appeal to the Supreme Court, that court can't say 'the evidence presented was / was not strong enough for a conviction to be upheld'. They can only say 'the application of law in this case was / was not done correctly' or 'the interpretation of law in that case was / was not done correctly'.

That is all entirely correct and accurate. The appeal trial is the last chance for Knox and Sollecito to persuade a court that the available evidence does not indicate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If they were to be found guilty in this appeal (which they won't, but for the sake of argument), then any appeal to the Supreme Court will only be on points of law.

And of course the Supreme Court's ruling in Guede's case has absolutely zero implication for the judgement in Knox's/Sollecito's case. Massei's and Hellmann's courts have ultimate authority to arrive at a verdict as they see fit, based only on the evidence and testimony introduced into their courts and the arguments heard in their courts. Anyone people "arguing" that the Supreme Court has now issued a binding ruling (which, in this "argument", takes precedence over any lower court rulings) on the finding of fact that Knox/Solllecito - or even two unnamed individuals - were involved in the murder simply doesn't know what they are talking about. And likewise, any people "arguing" that Hellmann's court cannot contradict the Supreme Court also don't know what they are talking about.

The only thing that might happen is that Guede's defence might conceivably have a case for a post-conviction appeal when Hellmann's court acquits Knox and Sollecito. I suspect that it's unlikely that Hellmann will even mention Guede in his verdict or motivation, since his court's only function is to decide whether Knox or Sollecito are provably guilty of participation. But any acquittal of Knox and Sollecito tends to go against certain findings of fact in Guede's verdicts. However, I actually think it's highly unlikely that Guede would be granted any right of appeal: there's sufficient clear evidence connecting him to the murder, so who (if anyone) was also involved is only of minor importance in confirming Guede's personal guilt.

 

[Grinder]

But when you add in the fact that the male in this scenario was brandishing a large knife, the mismatch is even larger.

The police originally described the weapon as a pen knife and the bloody outline is not of a large knife.

This just adds to the issues with the large kitchen knife.

Btw, Commodi's remark about convictions without DNA is interesting in relationship to Raf's kitchen knife in that without DNA it would never have thought of as the potential weapon in this case. The one and only reason anybody would believe it was used is the DNA.

 

[RoseMontague]

Report:Mignini dozes off during his own summations/Comodi unfazed/reprters ignore

How does this happen? I mean the largest case, the most critical part of the trial and they fall asleep?

Maybe free coffee is needed, maybe stretching is to be suggested.... have some respect for the victim's family

Is there a link for this, i would love to post it on websleuths....

The "reporters ignore" part could be why you have not seen this. Yet, anyway.

 

[bri1]

bri1
Very sorry indeed to hear about your unfortunate experiences.
You are right that a sudden attack by a man with a knife would be a major challenge for even a woman black belt. If he attacked her from behind, pulling her jacket down thus pinning her arms in her sleeves then no chance.
As I believe what happened to poor Meredith.

Magister, thanks, but it was a long time ago, and I'm fine . The woman was 'cautioned' for ABH.
FWIW, I think the jacket scenario is probably quite likely (in the absence of any evidence which would contradict).

 

[LondonJohn]

Hooper's latest dispatch for The Guardian, covering today's proceedings so far:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/24/amanda-knox-prosecution-attack-experts?CMP=twt_fd

Hooper quotes Comodi as essentially accusing Conti and Vecchiotti of being incompetent and out of their depth:

But, said Comodi, the experts had put up an "embarrassing performance". She told the two judges and the jurors (technically, lay judges) that the two Rome University professors had been given an assignment "that they did not know how to fulfil, betraying your trust".

I find this a frankly astonishing thing for Comodi to be saying, if it's been reported accurately. Comodi is essentially telling the court that the court's own selected independent experts not only turned in an "embarrassing" report, but that they were actually incapable of doing the task required in the first place! Now, I'm no fortune teller, but I can't help thinking that these sentiments aren't exactly going to go down all that well with Hellmann and Zanetti, who appointed the experts and who have already accepted the findings of their report.

 

[Grinder]

Will the defenses be given as much time as all the prosecution lawyers put together?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Comodi and mixed blood

CNN reported, "She told jurors that the original court had concluded 'beyond any reasonable doubt' that blood from both Knox and Kercher found in the bathroom sink had been left there when Knox washed herself after the killing."

Massei did not conclude any such thing.

 

[LondonJohn]

Will the defenses be given as much time as all the prosecution lawyers put together?

Yes. The prosecution gets two days. Maresca/Pacelli get one day between them. Sollecito's defence gets one day. Knox's defence gets one day.

 

[RoseMontague]

4) The Highest Court in the land (yes authority) with access to all the evidence as well as the decisions of 32 previous judges stated that two others helped Rudy Murder Meredith.

Here is what I see in the SC report.

In the meantime it is now necessary to escape the attempt, pursued by the overall setting of the defence, but out of place in the context of this decision, to involve the Court in supporting the thesis of the responsibility of others, namely Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, for the murder aggravated by the sexual assault of Meredith Kercher. The decision to which this court is called concerns uniquely the responsibility of Guede regarding the deed with which he is charged, and the possible participation of others in the crime should be taken into account only to the extent to which such a circumstance would have an impact on the exclusive commitment of the Court to either modifying or confirming the verdict of guilt of the defendant, which was entirely shared by the courts of first and second instance

Doesn't appear a very strong "statement". Maybe I am missing something because I see the words possible and thesis (my bolding).

 

[Grinder]

Yes. The prosecution gets two days. Maresca/Pacelli get one day between them. Sollecito's defence gets one day. Knox's defence gets one day.

Then the defenses get 2 days and the prosecutors get 3. I consider Maresca/Pacelli part of the prosecution side.

I would consider this unfair except that they may from needing to put it together in less time and perhaps boring people less.

 

[Grinder]

Guede's defense never made a case for a lone wolf for obvious reasons. Amanda and Raffaele's defense had no standing in Guede's trial. No one made the case in that trial that Rudy may have killed alone.

 

[Antony]

Hooper's latest dispatch for The Guardian, covering today's proceedings so far:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/24/amanda-knox-prosecution-attack-experts?CMP=twt_fd

Oddly, the headline of the article is "Amanda Knox prosecutors pour scorn on forensic experts", but in the body of the article it refers to "court-appointed experts who have poured scorn on the forensic evidence used".

Even more oddly, it's the headline that is nearer the truth. The court-appointed experts' report, far from "pouring scorn", was measured, specific, and backed up with facts. It's the prosecution who have resorted to scorn in reply, challenging the credentials of Conti and Vecchiotti, and relying on bald assertions about their "evidence".

I can only see this trial going one way once the defence teams have had their reply. Of course, with the prosecution going first the tone of the court sessions can make their case seem stronger than it is, but that isn't a reason for the innocentisti to be pessimistic. The reception accorded to the defence case will be a much clearer indication of the views of the judges' panel.