Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[CDHost]

But isn't the judgment the result of the criminal proceeding? Isn't it more like court ordered restitution than a civil judgment? And in that case can't someone in defiance of such a judgment be jailed for contempt or something similar?

Maybe but I don't know that. Assuming no, it is just a judgement. The whole reason that Marasca was at the trial though was because judgements (civil) are handled at the same time as criminal proceedings.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I am at a loss to understand why anybody is so interested in the minutiae of what two people did one evening several years ago, when it's already been proved in court that what they didn't do was murder someone. Now that's out of the way, what does it matter?

Those capable of updating their beliefs based on new evidence, or those whose professed commitment to blindly accepting whatever a court told them was honest, have already stopped being guilters.

The leftovers now have the awkward job of justifying their continued belief in Knox and Sollecito's guilt, and it's awkward precisely because so much of the prosecution case is now smoking rubble. There's nothing left of substance and little that's even a convincing illusion, which is why we're back to "but they lied!" and "OMG a text arrived late!" and "I don't know anything at all about internalised false statements but I'm sure Amanda didn't make one because I imagine that I wouldn't!".

 

[Mairanse]

Does anyone know what the differences will be between Massei's and Hellman's report? Will Hellman discuss all the evidence and what he made of the defense arguments submitted in writing before the appeal? Will he discuss the break-in, time of death, the luminol prints, etc in his motivations?

Thanks, enjoying the discussion.

 

[smkovalinksy]

It is interesting they are still pursuing this case despite Maresca's showing those pictures to the guests and reporters in court. It must have something to do with justification. They feel they were justified and not the Sollecito's. I don't get it, maybe there is another explanation.

I agree - more of the murky and paradoxical business - even hypocritical - which has dogged this case.

 

[Dan O.]

Kaosium --

I think this is the post you were looking for from Frank Sfarzo when he talked to Lumumba about the Daily Mail interview. It was from March 3, 2008.

(sorry, attachment did not work, fixing)

Text quoted in it's entirety since it is no longer accessible on the web. Visit Frank's new site at http://perugiashock.com/
(PS: Could someone put me in touch with Frank? I think he would like to get his old site back)

MONDAY, MARCH 3, 2008
When the Truth Comes Out


While waiting for Supreme Court ruling, I thought about fixing some old problems that I had totally left behind. Such as the position of Patrick, since he was exonerated.
His case has been instructive for us. It shows, for instance, how a PM can influence a GIP.
Indeed, Dr. Mignini reported that the message Amanda sent to Patrick was ".... See you later." He forgot to include the last sentence of the sms, which was "Good night." Obviously, that "Good night" changes the meaning of the "see you later" completely.
The GIP did not verify directly, so a second element apparently against Patrick was packaged. At least until the lawyers got ahold of that evidence and the truth came out.
So we shouldn't be worried when we are accused. If we are innocent, we have to know that even if the PM and the police play in their usual way, and even if a GIP trusts them blindly, in the end the truth will emerge.

I waited for a long time before going to see to Patrick. I wanted to talk to him long after the stressful days had passed. In my head, it was my way of celebrating his innocence and clarifying some remaining elements. Something I already knew but that I wanted to hear directly from him. But even four months later, even after normal life has resumed, it wasn't easy. I've found a very different person from the one I new before and the one who appears publicly.
He agreed to be interviewed for this website, but after just a few words he got madder and madder for --I believe-- no reason. After five minutes he was yelling at the top of his voice and hitting the table over and over with all his strength.
He must be very anxious because of the questions journalists still ask him, and he probably reacted to me the way he cannot react with perfect strangers.

By the way, taking out all the insults (from one side) and all the apologies (from the other side) I can try to isolate a few things he told me in the rage of that totally out-of-control conversation.

"I have a Vodafone SIM. It doesn't "work" in the bar and I always leave it here, you see, just here. It's the only place where it "works" a little bit. That evening my cellphone was here. I don't know how it could have hooked the cell of via S.Antonio. Now that you ask me, I have to remember to ask my lawyers because it's really a mystery for me.

"It's not true what the Sunday Mirror reported about what I said about the police, I already explained that on Matrix.

"Sunday Mirror ... Mail on Sunday, I don't know... What you read in the newspapers is always fake. If they reported my own words they reported them wrongly. Unless you play me a tape. With Gente it happened the same about what a journalist wrote. We had to tell Gente to change what the journalist had reported that I had said and they didn't have a record. They had to apologize.

"The police did not treat me badly. They just did their job. And the police are the police. They're not supposed to be kind or sweet--otherwise, what kind of police are they?

"Amanda accused me because it's normal in the States accusing a "negro". If you take all the "negros" who are in jail in the States... out of 20, 19 are inside unjustly. They just put the blame on them. And Amanda did the same... The way she learned.

"They couldn't have come to ask for my suggestions after having made the trouble, because we weren't friends.
Yes, she was working for me but that doesn't mean we were friends. You remember, for instance, those girls we were meeting in the past? Those were friends. And they weren't working with us. But Amanda absolutely wasn't. It's normal. Rarely people who work together are friends. This is not a joke. I have a son, even if they had asked me a suggestion, even when everything was already done, I would have immediately called the police because I have a wife and a son, I understand what that means losing a son. It's not a joke. It's not like... "What should I do, I broke the bathroom or the kitchen". She really ruined my life.

"There's not a price for what I'm going through. No, it's not over. People still point at me as a murderer. Still now, yes, and they will always do it. Why don't you ask my wife what she's going through. Yes, still now. The little bit of money is nothing for me. I've always been rich by family. People take a mortgage to buy a house, I paid in cash. Why don't you go to check? And I've taken this place as a "business lease". I pay rent here. And it has even been closed for a long time.You should ask me if I've really taken those money.

"Of course it's not true that I sold the re-opening of the bar! And who should I have sold it to? Not even to S.M., what do you know of S.M? I just didn't want the journalists inside that evening! Because I just wanted to stay quiet, without journalists. Out of respect for Meredith.

"How can you ask me if I've really taken this money after the fifteen years that you know me? I had to pay the lawyers, you know this? And the bar was closed!"

A technical explanation of his sim hooking the cell of via S.Antonio is kindly provided to me by his lawyer. Patrick and Amanda exchanged their sms while he was at the bar and she in Corso Garibaldi. In the middle there's via S.Antonio, and that's why it appeared that Patrick's cellphone was in via S.Antonio instead of the bar.
The lawyer uses the occasion to remind me that even the presumed change of cellphone never occurred, whatever importance it may have had. If you ask, just to know, why Patrick admitted it, even the lawyer gets mad...
Things that are not that difficult to explain, it seems. No reason to overreact. But... It's up to your personal taste.

I've already apologized to Patrick if my questions were so uncomfortable, so terrible. But it was just in order to have his answers. The answer, that's what counts. If someone reports the wrong answer, that's when you have to get mad.

By the way, I had always defined Patrick as the mildest and most innocuous person in Perugia. Especially when everyone thought he was the murderer. Now, of course, I've changed my mind. I've seen a different Patrick, and I hope that while talking to me he didn't break his hand. Or his table. It's in these critical moments that you really come to know how someone truly is. And this time I found a person who is innocent, yes, but not nice to talk to. And a "heavy" atmosphere, a sad pub where you don't have fun anymore.

Better leave him alone for the next couple of years and, especially, never tell him "See you later".

FRANK SFARZO AT 8:31 PM

 

[RoseMontague]

Does anyone know what the differences will be between Massei's and Hellman's report? Will Hellman discuss all the evidence and what he made of the defense arguments submitted in writing before the appeal? Will he discuss the break-in, time of death, the luminol prints, etc in his motivations?

Thanks, enjoying the discussion.

Massei's report is mostly just quotes of testimony with very few pages devoted to the court's reasoning. I think you will see a completely different type of report from Hellmann.

 

[Freddy]

Maybe but I don't know that. Assuming no, it is just a judgement. The whole reason that Marasca was at the trial though was because judgements (civil) are handled at the same time as criminal proceedings.

Yeah, it's a very strange way of doing things. Maresca's antics in the closing argument the appeal show that it is a very bad way of doing things. A civil lawyer who's there to demand money should not be able to inflame the jury like that while they are still deciding guilt or innocence under a reasonable doubt standard.

 

[Dougm]

Thanks. I have it too (Sfarzo post), but my computer did not want to upload the attachment! I should have just pasted it in like you did!

 

[Machiavelli]

It is interesting they are still pursuing this case despite Maresca's showing those pictures to the guests and reporters in court. It must have something to do with justification. They feel they were justified and not the Sollecito's. I don't get it, maybe there is another explanation.

I think this comment is shameful and I m surprised by you writing this.
I am susprised you don't see what are the two differences.
First, the venue and the audience and the kind of show is different. Maresca is showing pictures in court, during a trial. Only to the people in court, warning them about the content, with no one recording and keeping the picures or diffusing them, and this happens in the trial when the investigation is over.
The Sollecitos televised the pictures, did that outside a legitimate venue, and while a trial had not been opened.

Second, the Kerchers are entitled to decide about the memory of her daughet, they are the victim's party are legitimately committed to defend her interest in the way they decide to do. They don't need a justification, because they have a right. I cannot forcibly strip naked a girl, but she can do it, beceuse she is the owner of her body. The Kerchers throught their representatives can dispose of the memory, honor and interest of their deceased daughter and sister.
The problem with the Sollecitos is that they have no right to. They are not only using something illicitely, they are also using soething that doesn't belong to them.

 

[Freddy]

I think this comment is shameful and I m surprised by you writing this.
I am susprised you don't see what are the two differences.
First, the venue and the audience and the kind of show is different. Maresca is showing pictures in court, during a trial. Only to the people in court, warning them about the content, with no one recording and keeping the picures or diffusing them, and this happens in the trial when the investigation is over.
The Sollecitos televised the pictures, did that outside a legitimate venue, and while a trial had not been opened.

Second, the Kerchers are entitled to decide about the memory of her daughet, they are the victim's party are legitimately committed to defend her interest in the way they decide to do. They don't need a justification, because they have a right. I cannot forcibly strip naked a girl, but she can do it, beceuse she is the owner of her body. The Kerchers throught their representatives can dispose of the memory, honor and interest of their deceased daughter and sister.
The problem with the Sollecitos is that they have no right to. They are not only using something illicitely, they are also using soething that doesn't belong to them.

With all due respect, the context in which Maresca showed the pictures is far more outrageous, because he was trying to use them to get a jury to convict in a criminal trial, even though they are 100% irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused. He did this because he doesn't get his payday if Rudy Guede acted alone, since Guede has no money. If he gave a crap about Meredith or her family, he would not have shown the bloody dead pictures. A picture of her when she was alive would have been a much better way of remembering Meredith, and it would have been far less inflammatory (although still irrelevant to whether the accused were guilty). Now her parents get to remember her like that, bloody and dead. He showed the pictures not for the sake of justice, but for the sake of money. I hope the Kerchers dump him, because he does not have their best interests at heart.

 

[Poppy1016]

With all due respect, the context in which Maresca showed the pictures is far more outrageous, because he was trying to use them to get a jury to convict in a criminal trial, even though they are 100% irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused. He did this because he doesn't get his payday if Rudy Guede acted alone, since Guede has no money. If he gave a crap about Meredith or her family, he would not have shown the bloody dead pictures. A picture of her when she was alive would have been a much better way of remembering Meredith, and it would have been far less inflammatory (although still irrelevant to whether the accused were guilty). Now her parents get to remember her like that, bloody and dead. He showed the pictures not for the sake of justice, but for the sake of money. I hope the Kerchers dump him, because he does not have their best interests at heart.

Perfectly said Freddy

 

[Machiavelli]

With all due respect, the context in which Maresca showed the pictures is far more outrageous, because he was trying to use them to get a jury to convict in a criminal trial, even though they are 100% irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused. He did this because he doesn't get his payday if Rudy Guede acted alone, since Guede has no money. If he gave a crap about Meredith or her family, he would not have shown the bloody dead pictures. A picture of her when she was alive would have been a much better way of remembering Meredith, and it would have been far less inflammatory (although still irrelevant to whether the accused were guilty). Now her parents get to remember her like that, bloody and dead.

Oh no, let's not bend things to hypocritical judgemental attempts.
First, Maresca has the right to show pictures, as legal representative of the victim, and his action fully represent the will of her family;

Second, the statement that they are 100% irrelevant is false. In my opinion they were very relevant; and I think the autopsy report, the visual documentation, and the explanation of them in court is an important point in the evidence.

Third, it's you who are insulting the Kercher; as their legal representative, Maresca has to be identified with the will of the family, and he had also declared - during the rebuttals - that he had an explicit authorization and approval to showing the pictures from the Kerchers; and the Kerchers never criticized him for doing that. Hence, you are insulting the Kercher family, since you are stating that the Kerchers don't care ("don't give a crap") about Meredith.

 

[Grinder]

Why do you think that the Sollecitos would have wanted these horrible depictions shown? I see no reason why they would have believed they would help their case. Were they trying to show the ineptitude of the PLE?

As a matter of clarification, have they been convicted of this or have they admitted they did it?

I personally don't see why Maresca showed the pictures and believe that if anything they hurt his case.

I'm really curious if the Italian perspective is very different from mine.

I'm impressed with the Italian attitude about lying. At least in theory they seem to regard lying as much bigger crime and issue than we do here in the US. I like the idea of making lying a crime outside of perjury and civil cases.

I think this comment is shameful and I m surprised by you writing this.
I am susprised you don't see what are the two differences.
First, the venue and the audience and the kind of show is different. Maresca is showing pictures in court, during a trial. Only to the people in court, warning them about the content, with no one recording and keeping the picures or diffusing them, and this happens in the trial when the investigation is over.
The Sollecitos televised the pictures, did that outside a legitimate venue, and while a trial had not been opened.

Second, the Kerchers are entitled to decide about the memory of her daughet, they are the victim's party are legitimately committed to defend her interest in the way they decide to do. They don't need a justification, because they have a right. I cannot forcibly strip naked a girl, but she can do it, beceuse she is the owner of her body. The Kerchers throught their representatives can dispose of the memory, honor and interest of their deceased daughter and sister.
The problem with the Sollecitos is that they have no right to. They are not only using something illicitely, they are also using soething that doesn't belong to them.

 

[Grinder]

Perfectly said Freddy

Poppy, pithy rejoinder.

See I'm paying attention.

 

[Freddy]

Oh no, let's not bend things to hypocritical judgemental attempts.
First, Maresca has the right to show pictures, as legal representative of the victim, and his action fully represent the will of her family;

Second, the statement that they are 100% irrelevant is false. In my opinion they were very relevant; and I think the autopsy report, the visual documentation, and the explanation of them in court is an important point in the evidence.

Third, it's you who are insulting the Kercher; as their legal representative, Maresca has to be identified with the will of the family, and he had also declared - during the rebuttals - that he had an explicit authorization and approval to showing the pictures from the Kerchers; and the Kerchers never criticized him for doing that. Hence, you are insulting the Kercher family, since you are stating that the Kerchers don't care ("don't give a crap") about Meredith.

1) I am not commenting on whether he had a legal right to do it. I was pointing out that it was a shameful thing to do, legal or not.


2) It is clear you have no concept of legal relevance. The autopsy reveals what was done, not who did it. It is not disputed that Meredith was brutally raped and murdered. If that were in dispute, the picture would be relevant. Showing the pictures was an attempt to get the jury to decide based on the horrific nature of the crime, rather than the evidence that the accused were the ones who did it.

Riddle me this, Batman: if the evidence tended to show the accused were guilty, why resort to naked appeals to emotion without even making reference to the evidence? Why spend your entire closing insulting the experts and calling the accused a "she-devil" and a "witch," instead of explaining how the evidence shows the defendant committed the crime?

Also, please explain to me how that picture has any tendency to show that it was Knox and Rafaele rather than Guede who did it.


3) Go to hell with your holier-than-thou nonsense. The people pissing on Meredith's grave are the ones insisting that demonstrably innocent people go to prison when the real killer is already behind bars, simply because the crime was horrible. That would be you. Evidence be damned, the crime was horrible, therefore these two are guilty. And it's totally just to cut the real killer's sentence in half in exchange for self-serving (and contradictory) testimony that these two innocent people were involved. You think that's reliable testimony, because you have shut off your critical thinking faculties. And you have the nerve to assert that this attitude is required in order for Meredith to get justice. Justice is obviously another concept entirely foreign to you.

 

[Machiavelli]

1) I am not commenting on whether he had a legal right to do it. I was pointing out that it was a shameful thing to do, legal or not.

2) It is clear you have no concept of legal relevance. The autopsy reveals what was done, not who did it. It is not disputed that Meredith was brutally raped and murdered. If that were in dispute, the picture would be relevant. Showing the pictures was an attempt to get the jury to decide based on the horrific nature of the crime, rather than the evidence that the accused were the ones who did it. Explain to me how that picture has any tendency to show that it was Knox and Rafaele rather than Guede who did it.

3) Go to hell with your holier-than-thou nonsense. The people pissing on Meredith's grave are the ones insisting that demonstrably innocent people go to prison when the real killer is already behind bars, simply because the crime was horrible. That would be you. Evidence be damned, the crime was horrible, therefore these two are guilty. And it's totally just to cut the real killer's sentence in half in exchange for self-serving (and contradictory) testimony that these two innocent people were involved. You think that's reliable testimony, because you have shut off your critical thinking faculties. And you have the nerve to assert that this attitude is required in order for Meredith to get justice. Justice is obviously another concept entirely foreign to you.

You are repeatedly insulting the Kerchers; their judgement about what is right to do and about what is relevant and useful in a trial, and directly offending their feelings and values toward their siblings. Your statements are offensive and unacceptable. You demonstrate to be incapable of having basic respect and knowledge of others rights, you are exposing and embarassing yourself showing your true contept of the victim.

 

[Poppy1016]

I see the Mignini clone is back. It took him a while but his Mignini obsession continues. I think he works for Mignini's PR Super Railroad.

 

[Fine]

Maresca is now defending another Stefanoni, Pietro Stefanoni, driver in an alleged hit-and-run mishap in which an American woman was killed. Anybody believe Stefanoni's far-fetched story in his defense? HERE. Does Maresca believe him?

///

 

[Freddy]

You are repeatedly insulting the Kerchers; their judgement about what is right to do and about what is relevant and useful in a trial, and directly offending their feelings and values toward their siblings. Your statements are offensive and unacceptable. You demonstrate to be incapable of having basic respect and knowledge of others rights, you are exposing and embarassing yourself showing your true contept of the victim.

Again, you have no clue. Respecting the Kerchers would mean following the evidence and finding out the truth of what happened to Meredith. Ignoring the evidence is what disrespects Meredith's memory. I feel bad that the Kerchers believed what Mignini told them about Knox and Rafaele. There was never any evidence it was true, but of course they believed that snake. Any family would believe the prosecutor. It is not their fault they have been tricked into believing Knox is guilty, but that doesn't make the prosecution's theory any more true.

If the Kerchers hadn't been lied to by ass-covering police and prosecutors who didn't want to admit a mistake, they would have had closure years ago. If the authorities had simply followed the evidence and convicted Guede, and only Guede, much suffering would have been avoided. It is those who have irrationally insisted that Knox had something to do with this who have magnified the Kerchers' pain a thousandfold.

How dare you accuse me of insulting the Kerchers when it is people like you who are responsible for magnifying their anguish.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

http://perugiashock.com/

Frank really is intuitive and shows great insight.

In his latest offering, he also says:

''....It looks like to work as a journalist in Mignini’s town, and to be not arrested, not only you have tell facts in the right way, you even have to praise him and the police, you even have to explicitly state that you are on his side!''


and he quotes from a piece in Umbria24 related to the immediate aftermath of the acquittals:


“…We can only stand with the side of Perugia who was screaming shame tonight… They called crazy a magistrate as courageous as Mignini. They won, but they will not convince us. We stand with Mignini, with Comodi, with the police…”


Ya know that reminds me of somebody, who appears to be hell-bent on defending the slimy Mignini at all costs - one of his 'disciples' who posts deluded rants on forums, aimed at misleading people. I just can't seem to think who, damn it! I wonder...