Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Katody Matrass]

That's all?

Rather poor performance of the prosecution. Where are the surprises? What happened to the motive?

Comfy Manuela's antics with bra, perv Mignini sweating and panting about condoms and vibrators... not impressive.

The blooper with ToD is interesting. Manuela sinked the prosecution case single-handedly, postulating a miracle of bilocation. So Amanda and Raffaele where already attacking Meredith, and at the same time hanging around the piazza, under heroin-addicted bum's super-watchful eye? What a ***************.

And I agree, the judge showing Comodi the finger with his final decision is ominous.

 

[snook1]

Wait a minute, people are saying that the request was by Della Vedova to deny Guede's Supreme Court ruling and Nadeau said the :request denied. So, are we getting this right?

Was there a request by the prosecution to include this or was it a request by the defense to exclude it?

 

[LondonJohn]

It might be because I am newer to the discussion than many of you, but I had not heard this particular speculation before, and it hit home with me, because it also solves one of the other mysteries about the phones. Although I have always thought that it was most likely that the two "mistake" calls must have been made by the killer, not Meredith, I had always wondered A) Why did the killer try to call the bank, and the voicemail (or why play with the buttons and do that by mistake)? and B) Why did the killer not turn the phones off, and just leave them in the bedroom with Meredith?

Of course! He tried, but realized he did not know how to turn them off, and if he kept trying, he might call someone by mistake. So he took the phones and tossed them.

Exactly. In his heightened state of anxiety and adrenaline, the killer (Guede) may also have either momentarily decided to steal the phones in order to sell them on later, but once outside the cottage, swiftly came to his senses that the risk of the phones of a murder victim being traced back to him were far greater than any financial upside he might have got by fencing them. And after trying and failing to turn off Meredith's UK phone (it appears he was able to turn off Meredith's Italain phone), he might have not wanted to leave it in Meredith's room in case someone worried about Meredith called the phone from within the cottage, heard it ringing behind Meredith's door, and therefore became sufficiently suspicious to break down the door. By taking the phones, he could potentially buy himself a little more time.

But whichever (if any) of all these possibilities is anywhere close to the truth, it's always worth remembering that the killer (Guede) would almost certainly have been acting impulsively and irrationally after the murder. He would have been in a high state of anxiety, nervousness and awareness. It's very likely that he made certain decisions that don't seem entirely logical in the cold light of day.

 

[LondonJohn]

Wait a minute, people are saying that the request was by Della Vedova to deny Guede's Supreme Court ruling and Nadeau said the :request denied. So, are we getting this right?

Was there a request by the prosecution to include this or was it a request by the defense to exclude it?

Haha no, this is yet more stupidity and incomprehension.

What happened was something like this:

1) Comodi made the reference to the Guede Supreme Court ruling.

2) Dalla Vedova jumped to his feet and said something along the lines of "Your honour, the prosecutor cannot bring this up: it is improper and inadmissible in front of this court".

3) Hellmann called a recess to consider Dalla Vedova's objection.

4) Hellmann returned and announced that the objection was upheld. He ruled - correctly - that the Guede Supreme Court ruling was not admissible in his court, and that Comodi should not therefore have brought it up.

 

[Dougm]

It's actually a fundamental tenet of modern democratic jurisprudence that people are judged only in their own courtrooms, and only upon evidence and testimony introducted and argued within their own courtrooms.

This concept is so obvious that anyone that argues with it shows their lack of critical thinking skills, in my view. It is also not even important (the Rudy SC ruling) to the PG point of view, and has little to do with any discussion of the guilt or innocence of Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, just to clarify things, the evidence and testimony from Guede's trial process was incorporated into Hellmann's court once Guede's trial process culminated and he was convicted. The arguments, rulings and verdicts were not incorporated.

 

[snook1]

Haha no, this is yet more stupidity and incomprehension.

What happened was something like this:

1) Comodi made the reference to the Guede Supreme Court ruling.

2) Dalla Vedova jumped to his feet and said something along the lines of "Your honour, the prosecutor cannot bring this up: it is improper and inadmissible in front of this court".

3) Hellmann called a recess to consider Dalla Vedova's objection.

4) Hellmann returned and announced that the objection was upheld. He ruled - correctly - that the Guede Supreme Court ruling was not admissible in his court, and that Comodi should not therefore have brought it up.

Thanks for clearing that up. As usual, they have no clue whatsoever what's going on.

 

[RoseMontague]

Wait a minute, people are saying that the request was by Della Vedova to deny Guede's Supreme Court ruling and Nadeau said the :request denied. So, are we getting this right?

Was there a request by the prosecution to include this or was it a request by the defense to exclude it?

My guess is that it was a request from the prosecution and Della Vedova did not have a copy of the motion (which was then likely provided). The court ruled against the request.

 

[Diocletus]

Any pro-guilt commentator saying that Hellmann's denial constitutes any sort of grounds for appeal to the Supreme Court is both ignorant and stupid. And it also shows, yet again, that such people simply don't understand the separation of Guede's rulings - at every level - from the trial process of Knox and Sollecito. It's actually a fundamental tenet of modern democratic jurisprudence that people are judged only in their own courtrooms, and only upon evidence and testimony introducted and argued within their own courtrooms. But at the same time, I'm not exactly surprised that many pro-guilt commentators don't seem to know the first thing about how the law actually works.

I already told those numnuts over there at PMF that you cannot criminally convict someone based on a decision reached in a case that the person was not a party to. IT. CANNOT. BE. DONE.

Imagine the "appeal" on this issue:

Prosecution: Dear Supreme Court--we thought Amanda should be convicted because of what you said in Rudy's case, regardless of the fact that Hellmann says that the evidence in Amanda's case says that she is innocent.

Supreme Court: That's the dumbest argument we've ever heard.

The Italian Supreme Court would be an international laughingstock if it said that it "convicted" Amanda in Rudy's trial. It's ridiculous.

 

[Dougm]

We know Meredith came home around 9:00, put her bag with the borrowed book in her bedroom, and after walking into the kitchen, probably had a bite of mushroom. How long would that have taken? A minute or 2, max? But she had not yet had enough time to relax and make that call to her Mom, nor even, it appears, turn on the heat.

But there still is a long time, 20 minutes, give or take, in the time frame before Rudy says that Meredith screamed. I'm sure that we all have wondered what specifically happened, the sequence of events, in the apartment that night, and recently I had made mention of Meredith possibly having to use the restroom after she came home, doing her business like Rudy Guede did in the larger bathroom. Heck, doesn't walking a few blocks, -(as Meredith, after zipping up her jacket against the chill, did when she left the Robin and Amy's flat), sometimes make a persons bowel need a movement? I know taking my ol' dog Tang for a walk often did.

In my search for more time to use up before Meredith emitted that loud scream that Rudy Guede mentioned, I recall reading something. Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall reading that Rudy said, where was it, in the skpe call?, that he and Meredith had oral sex, but that they stopped because of no condoms. Am I right, didn't he make mention of oral sex?

If so, that would erase some time before the scream was heard. Maybe the scream happened when Rudy decided to oral sex wasn't enough, Meredith finally fought back, and she was stabbed for the 1st time, with Rudy then stabbing her again until she stopped screaming.

You bring up some interesting points, as usual. However, I have a couple of thoughts that contradict just a bit:

1) Although I also think that Rudy mentioning the scream means it is likely that Meredith did scream, I don't think we can take Rudy's time that it happened too literally in making a timeline. He did not have a watch, and some of his other mentions of time are somewhat vague
2) To me, it seems much more logical that the part of his story where Meredith has concensual sex with him, oral or otherwise, is a lie designed to explain why his DNA would be found inside her. It is a classic lie of the rapist -- they claim the victim consented, because they can't deny the contact.

Have a good one!

 

[LondonJohn]

Ganong writes the following on .org:

It is also my personal opinion that a finding of not guilty in cases like these is a form of punishment. I don't know if it is just punishment, but it is punishment nonetheless. And there is a kind of justice in that.

What a deeply unpleasant sentiment, expressed by a deeply unpleasant and vindictive little woman. When Knox and Sollecito are found not guilty by Hellmann's court, and are then acquitted and released, they will do so without a stain on their characters related to the murder of Meredith Kercher. There are only two cases in recent memory where acquittals have been generally agreed as unsatisfactory: those of OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony. But both of these cases were unique in different and very specific ways. In Simpson's case, the politics and race aspect overtook the facts and evidence of the case, and the Rodney King case a couple of years previously had a clear and demonstrable effect on the way the (predominantly black) jury voted in Simpson's case. In the case of Casey Anthony, it now seems perfectly clear that prosecutors simply over-charged Anthony: they went for the maximum murder charges, when the available evidence and elapsed time actually warrated lesser (but still serious) charges that would very likely have resulted in conviction.

In contrast, Knox and Sollecito will be acquitted because not only is there insufficient evidence to prove their guilt, there's actually no real evidence that even shows that they were anywhere near the cottage at the time of Meredith's death. At the same time, all the available evidence points to just one man - Rudy Guede - as the lone killer. I hope that Ganong finds time to reflect upon her disgusting comment, and I hope for her sake that she doesn't continue spewing such bile once Knox and Sollecito are acquitted.

PS: Has anyone got any idea why Ganong maintains the ludicrous pretence that she doesn't read this thread? What does she think she stands to gain by pretending this? Very strange. I would have thought that anyone professing a strong interest in this case would want to read all the main resources discussing it. I know I do

 

[Grinder]

It seems to me that DNA contamination/transfer is like catching the flu. You don't know when, where or how you contacted the virus. But you know you did!

Excellent! The defense should use the analogy. Much better than Commodi's cooking stories.

 

[Minadin]

I have not been following this case as closely as many of you have.

Is there a general consensus among skeptics as to Knox's guilt / innocence?

 

[RoseMontague]

Just went through about 10 Italian news stories and none have mentioned this ruling yet although several mention the request for life sentences which came after. Interesting.

 

[AmyStrange]

Nice try

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.

[...]

Why, pray tell, not try and tell us all who the 'other two people' were if not Knox and Sollecito.

-

Rudy surprised Meredith while she was taking her coat off and her hands were still trapped in the sleeves, thus he didn't need other people to help him at all.

It's interesting that one of the things considered suspicious are Amanda's many changed stories, while Rudy's changed stories aren't,

Dave

 

[LondonJohn]

It seems to me that DNA contamination/transfer is like catching the flu. You don't know when, where or how you contacted the virus. But you know you did!

Well, at the risk of sounding pedantic, this isn't the best analogy. One could actually make a far closer analogy by using Comodi's favorite subject - food:

Imagine if you had lunch at your home but you went out for dinner at a very expensive restaurant. Imagine if you woke up the following morning feeling dreadful, and spent the whole day vomiting and sitting on the toilet. Imagine if your condition was definitely established to be a form of food poisoning.

Now, suppose that you decided to bring legal action against the expensive restaurant, since you thought that it was the restaurant that gave you the food poisoning. And suppose that we discount for a moment the very obvious factor that would come into consideration - how many of the restaurant's other customers that evening reported food poisoning - by imagining that you were the only person dining in the restaurant that evening. Now, if the restaurant could prove that it had followed all the proper and accepted food hygiene protocols related to the storage, preparation, cooking and serving of your food, then it's very unlikely that you would stand any chance of winning a case against the restaurant: a court would rule that it was just as likely (if not more likely) that you had contracted the food poisoning either within your own home or elsewhere.

But if the restaurant did not label its food with use-by dates, didn't maintain its refrigerators at the recommended temperatures, used the same boards to cut raw meat and salad vegetables, and did not cook food such as pork or chicken to recommended internal temperatures, then a court would very likely rule that the restaurant had failed to minimise the chances of spreading food poisoning, and that therefore you had a valid case. A court would very likely rule that it was most likely that you had contracted your food poisoning due to the procedural negligence of the restaurant, and would likely therefore find the restaurant liable. In such circumstances, therefore, you would not have to prove that it was the restaurant that gave you food poisoning in order to win the case.

This is as good an analogy as I can think of to the situation with the DNA evidence. Once the forensic process has deviated so very far from accepted processes and protocols, the defence no longer has to prove contamination (or worse).

 

[AmyStrange]

I have not been following this case as closely as many of you have.

Is there a general consensus among skeptics as to Knox's guilt / innocence?

-

It seems that more posters in this thread are arguing innocence, while some people argue guilt. I'd say it's about 10 to 1 in favor of innocence.

From what I understand, in the early days of the Meredith murder case it was the other way around in the totality of the forums,

Dave

 

[LondonJohn]

I have not been following this case as closely as many of you have.

Is there a general consensus among skeptics as to Knox's guilt / innocence?

I would say that the consensus among sceptics who have taken time to become well-enough informed on what is quite a complex case is that Knox and Sollecito should be found not guilty of the murder.

I am not sure whether there is a consensus among well-informed sceptics as to Knox's/Sollecito's actual factual innocence. Personally, I think that the most rational viewpoint to take on that issue is that the available evidence suggests that Knox and Sollecito are innocent, but that one cannot be entirely certain about that. However, in this regard it's worth bearing in mind that it should never be necessary for Knox, Sollecito, or anyone else, to prove their innocence, and often it's flat-out impossible to do so. If the state (or anyone else) accuses a person of a crime, then it's totally up to the accuser to prove that accusation - otherwise the accused person must be considered innocent. So I have no problem at all in not having 100% certainty in Knox's/Sollecito's innocence, and nor should anyone else.

 

[LondonJohn]

Do you think that someone should tell most of the pro-guilt commentators on .org (you know, the site that's devoted to seeking "justice for Meredith") that the past few hours they have spent lampooning what they think are two photos of Joseph Bishop have mainly in fact been spent lampooning not Joseph Bishop (who's in the right-hand photo) but the individual in the left hand photograph - who is not Joseph Bishop but a film character called Milton Waddams (played by the actor Stephen Root) from the film "Office Space"?

I'm sure Meredith would have been so very, very proud......

ETA: the person who originally posted the comparison photos has just pointed this out, presumably in order to prevent any more people embarrassing themselves in their attempt to lampoon somebody who supports Knox's acquittal. Oh dear.

 

[JREF2010]

LJ, Do you understand the reduced sentence possibility? How would that become possible, or for what imaginary reasons?

I dozed off like Mignini..... when I awoke todays closing was over!

What was the Hellman "denied" issue?

This has been so different than the Massei trial, due to Hellman....everything else seems to be the same accusations.