Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Bill Williams]

Can the defense introduce any evidence at all?

They should be able to, if it is a fair trial. It seems in Italian law, though, there are limits.... please correct me if I am mistaken, but because the prosecution is part of the judiciary in Italy, the prosecution seems to have a right to introduce as much evidence as they want.

In the pure inquisitorial system, when working properly, the prosecution will also introduce evidence which is exculpatory of the accused, because the prosecution in that system is after the truth, it is not one side of an adversarial process.

But then they seem to be half-way transitioned.... but no matter, most surely the defence had requests turned down by Massei and the prosecution had requests turned down by Hellmann - to do with independent DNA analysis.

But I cannot imagine that the defence is not permitted to introduce evidence at all! The kicker in this is that the defence can be charged with a crime for evidence they enter. AngloLawyer explained that one, that it is fundamental to the nature of being able to mount a defence that this not be allowed to happen in adversarial systems.....

.... then again, the accused in Italy cannot be charged with lying which makes it seem like the whole system assumes any accused will lie at all times. What happens if they come upon an accused who tells the truth?

You know where I'm taking this..... if they tell the truth they get charged. Like Amanda, and then her parents for repeating it in a newspaper.

 

[RWVBWL]

Rd panties with cows on 'em? Or a red g-string?...

<snip>
Knox ,
<snip>buying a G-string with her "boyfriend"
<snip>

buying G-strings at a sex shop
<snip>

doc,
It is my personal expert opinion,
that women on their monthly, bloody menstrual cycle,
ya know, doc, what we dudes usually call women on their "period"
DO NOT buy G-Strings to wear when bleeding...

doc,
you claim to be learned,
right?

If you have really read "Waiting to be Heard",
You would have learned that Miss Knox bought
red granny panties at Bubbles...

I quote Miss Amanda Knox:
"It was red,
but it's a pair of bikini briefs with a cartoon cow on it," she writes.

Or do ya believe this crap, found on the WWW:
"Knox bought a G-string and talked about having "hot sex" once the couple – who had been dating just a week – got home.


doc,
you are a daddy, no?
If true, as a male,
ya gotsta luv sex, as much as I do, no?

Do ya really think that Amanda told Raf,
when she bought some red panties at Bubbles,
that tonight was the night he was gonna earn his "red wings"???


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Earning Red Wings


Just wonderin'...
RW

 

[Bill Williams]

Hopefully the defense will take a more proactive stance this time. Not with these same guys though...or at least bring in someone not afraid to question the irregularities and strange circumstances. Make a case of how this case went wrong...no lawyers at arrest, no recording of interrogation, 3 witness who claim either the threat or actual physical violence by the police. On and on and on and on....so many wrongs...too many to remember.

As an aside, Cyndy Vanier was released from a Mexican prison in April after the Mexican Supreme Court ruled her rights had been violated at arrest.

She was the Canadian mediator charged in Mexico and held for 18 months in a Chetumal prison for allegedly trying to smuggle Moamar Gadhafi's son into the country after their fall in Libya.

When Vanier was arrested on Nov 10, 2011, she was beaten by the police and urinated blood for the next few days while held incommunicado in solitary. Added to this the Canadian embassy/consulate was not informed in a timely manner of her arrest. Mexican courts have these weird "Amparo" hearings which apparently are like side-bar trials to sort out bits of evidence or process, and she had no Spanish/English translator for some.

She appealed directly to the Mexican Supreme Court who eventually ordered her release, perhaps days before the lower court was going to actually rule on the criminal charges she faced - and she could have spent decades in a dengue-fever infested prison as a result.

Mexico, though, ruled that people have rights and if the cops violate them, open the cell and let them go. It is worse to have bad cops.

My completely uninformed guess is that if Knox and Sollecito had been in Mexico, they too would have been released in 18 months, and told to go back home and stay out of trouble.

Italy needs to take a look in the mirror and face things. Mexico is.

 

[Grinder]

Why wouldn't they be able to, it's another trial di novo, right?

They were able to in Hellmann's court.

Well, if it is a trial de novo they would have to be able to introduce evidence.

If not, one would think there must be a mechanism for appeal when new information is brought out.

 

[Bill Williams]

Apparently in Mexico cops are not allowed to beat the crap out of people who are arrested, or deny them lawyers. The top court in Mexico is now going to hold cops accountable for bad behaviour.

Rather than charge the accused with defamation when they claim they were hit at interrogation - they will actually investigate.... unlike Manuela Comodi did who claimed she DID investigate: "I asked Ficarra if she hit Knox, and Ficarra assured me she did not. Sounded good to me!"

Viva México

 

[RWVBWL]

Come on over...

Heya Grinder,
you don't really still believe that Meredith had a 'date' with Rudy,
the night Rudy raped+murdered her,
do ya???

I believe that it is possible that he either had or thought he had a date with her. The first reports said that the sex was consensual and that they thought that it might have been someone she met the night before.

The british girls were known to imbibe to excess and their testimony that Meredith didn't talk to Rudi has no weight for me.

Many here, myself included, think that the Skype call means something. He said Amanda wasn't there and most here believe he was telling the truth. He said that the murder occurred around 9:15 and most here believe that.

He said he went to meet Meredith. The PGP disdain that because Meredith wouldn't make a date with such a low life and the PIP disdain it because they believe that it was a burglary gone bad.

There are aspects of the break-in that make it look possible to be a staged one, but I believe that Rudi definitely was involved with it.

Therefore, his thinking he a had a date or actually had one, then things went haywire and the broken window could be accounted for by Rudi stupidly using his MO to make it look like someone that didn't know her or had a date had done it. He would have believed that she would have shared with her girlfriends but as we know she didn't.
<snip>

All right,
so you believe that Miss Kercher had "a date" with Guede-o...

She woke up on Thursday morning,
probably hungover, knew that her "boyfriend" Giacomo,
that anal sex luvin' dude, was outta town, watered his plants downstairs, (hey, maybe she even pet the bloody kitty?!?),
saw Amanda+Raf at the house, and then bailed to a have a booring dinner+desert with the English gals before she musta, excitedly* came home that night to have a private evening with the Guede-o...

Intersting theory...
RW


*-PS:
Every close chick friend that I know,
that I ain't sleeping with,
is always kinda excited when hookin' up with a new dude...
"RW, I met this dude!!!!" Yada, yada, yada...

So I guess that ya believe that Meredith was cheatin' on Giacomo...
And willing to have sex with him
while her "boyfriend" was outta town...

Rudy claims, per the Skype call,
that he only had oral sex with Meredith, correct?

But how come Meredith never mentioned to Rudy,
before he penetrated her, that Amanda has condoms in their bathroom?
She had borrowed a coupla of them before...

Do ya think that Meredith gave oral pleasure with Rudy,
on her own free will,
and then decide that was it?
That was all she was game for?

Is that why she did not tell guede-o that Amanda always had condoms in that clear bag of hers in their bathroom which held the lil' rabbit vibrator?


Another 1 for ya:
If Meredith invited Guede-o over,
how come Rudy took a crap,
not adjacent, next door in Meredith+Amanda's bathroom,
where Meredith woulda directed him if his tummy was upset and he had diarea from a kabob,
but to go to the front of the flat. to Filomena+Laura's bathroom?
I wonder...


Grinder,
It is in my humble opinion,
Miss Meredith Kercher did not cheat on her boyfriend Giacomo.
Nor did she ever invite Rudy Guede to come over for some luving,
+ so I believe, my friend, that this parta your your theory is *******...

 

[Dan O.]

The text suggests the money was there but she did not check it because she forgot. This is actually more interesting as I think about it. Since the cops didn't accompany her they couldn't know whether she checked her money or not.

The only reason the cops would send her into her room unaccompanied would be as a test to see how she reacts when she either finds her money of finds that it is now missing. Unless she was much better than average at hiding this rent money, thereis no way the cops would not have already found it. They also would not likely have a plan for what to do if Amanda totally spaces the money. That has no meaning for either innocence or guilt.

What the cops would not have known about at this time was that Meredith's money was missing. This information comes from Rudy much later. They may be able to piece some facts together from her banking records. But the only evidence that there had been money in Meredith's sock drawer is Rudy's statements.

 

[yimyammer]

We'll have to wait for the SC decision on this, but I would think it would be rather hard now to ignore the C&V report because it is out there. It appears that the Defence can introduce new evidence in a second trial, so even if the SC threw out the C&V report, the Defence now has it, they can use it to build their own report, and introduce that. If the SC were to completely ban the conclusions of the C&V report and prevent the defence from introducing anything of it into the new trial than that would be a complete travesty of justice.

that would infuriate me

 

[Grinder]

Grinder,
It is in my humble opinion,
Miss Meredith Kercher did not cheat on her boyfriend Giacomo.
Nor did she ever invite Rudy Guede to come over for some luving,
+ so I believe, my friend, that this parta your your theory is *******...

Fine. Giacomo made the point that their relationship was not a serious one, in my humble opinion meaning not exclusive.

I clearly have always said he may have thought he had an arrangement to meet up with her.

She was not the angel she is now made out to be and was partying hardy. People here, perhaps yourself included, argued that the alcohol found in her system could be a residual from the night before which would mean she had like 10 drinks in her when she crashed at 5 am.

You don't believe it is possible and I'm sure it will never come up in the trial as even if there were more evidence the press would excoriate the defense for saying anything of that nature about Meredith.

Nov. 4, 2007 - A British student murdered in Italy may have invited the killer into her home, police investigating her death now believe.
Officers think Meredith Kercher, 21, left three flatmates to go home alone after watching a film on the night she was murdered because she had arranged to see a man she had met the previous night at a Hallowe'en party.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Can the defense introduce any evidence at all?

What's the point of a trial if the defence is not allowed to introduce evidence?

 

[yimyammer]

Finally I now recall an odd occurrence... two loads of Perugia police made a trip to Rome to shake down C and V at their places of work. C&V immediately called Hellamnn and basically said WTH? Hellmann questioned Mignini or the police ...cant recall which now.. but they gave the excuse they were looking for the DVD that was presented during C and V testimony. Hellmann rather glibly replied that the DVD in question was and always has been in the Perugia courthouse...so he couldn't understand two car loads of police going all the way to Rome and knocking on the Experts doors.

Sure he knew what was going on...they were trying to shake down the experts...nothing else explains it. And yet he took no sanctions against or ordered any investigation into the matter.

that's news to me, does anyone have a reliable source for this?

 

[RandyN]

Apparently in Mexico cops are not allowed to beat the crap out of people who are arrested, or deny them lawyers. The top court in Mexico is now going to hold cops accountable for bad behaviour.

Rather than charge the accused with defamation when they claim they were hit at interrogation - they will actually investigate.... unlike Manuela Comodi did who claimed she DID investigate: "I asked Ficarra if she hit Knox, and Ficarra assured me she did not. Sounded good to me!"

Viva México

Got cite for this? This is the first time I have heard that one. Frank OTOH did interview Comodi and she claimed she did not need to do an investigation. "Knox said it in court, whats to investigate?" Frank presses her...you know check to see if the police hit her...run an investigation. She said no she would not be doing that.

So I find it in contrast to Franks report made right at the time it happened. I doubt Frank would make up this story. So who claims that Comodi spoke to Slappy Ficarra?

 

[RandyN]

doc,
It is my personal expert opinion,
that women on their monthly, bloody menstrual cycle,
ya know, doc, what we dudes usually call women on their "period"
DO NOT buy G-Strings to wear when bleeding...

doc,
you claim to be learned,
right?

If you have really read "Waiting to be Heard",
You would have learned that Miss Knox bought
red granny panties at Bubbles...

I quote Miss Amanda Knox:
"It was red,
but it's a pair of bikini briefs with a cartoon cow on it," she writes.

Or do ya believe this crap, found on the WWW:
"Knox bought a G-string and talked about having "hot sex" once the couple – who had been dating just a week – got home.


doc,
you are a daddy, no?
If true, as a male,
ya gotsta luv sex, as much as I do, no?

Do ya really think that Amanda told Raf,
when she bought some red panties at Bubbles,
that tonight was the night he was gonna earn his "red wings"???


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Earning Red Wings


Just wonderin'...
RW

OK now your just grossing me right out the door!

 

[GWCarver]

I checked Amanda's book, and it was 200 euros she found in her prison account; the money came from the purse/bookbag she had with her when she checked into prison. So, there is no connection to the rent money in her drawer.

 

[DrTesla]

The Quennell issues are in the past and are off topic here but there is no disconnect. I am honestly surprised that Quennell's site continues to mention anything about Quennell's stalkerish behavior.

bruce, or bryan

thanks for the information.

The Quennell issue is on topic because he hosts the only pro-guilt Knox trial website containing comprehensive summary of the evidence against Knox and Raffe as well as developments in the ongoing trial.

it's difficult to say it is in the past because I've seen Friends on comment boards routinely refer to Quennel at Pervert Pete.

It also sets up a moral dilemna for people who rely on Quennel for information about the Knox trial, especially pro-guilt people, because do we want to just ignore the fact, if it is a fact, that Quennel was stalking at least one woman and maybe more, while trying to do what we can to be as informed as possible about a murder trial in our quest to seek justice for another woman who was killed?

In other words, by being reliant on Quennel for information, Guilters (and even lone wolf guilters like me) run this risk of also being discredited, even if is unfair, in a sort of guilt by association, in that if the most famous Guilter is some kind of nutjob who stalks women and thus isn't to be believed in his analysis of Knox's guilt.

This is why we must get to the bottom of this, one way or another. Who is telling the truth? Who isn't? Maybe there is a grey area, but it appears to me more probable that one side is lying more than another.

I do find it curious Kermit brought it up as you mentioned on that website because in a way it publicizes it to people new to the case who probably don't even know about it. But he also doesn't give much detail, to include even Quennell's name which seems like a basic detail, and no specifics about the accusation against Quennel. i thought this was the weakest part of his discussion in that post.

It is interesting to me that Preston, who I consider the top Friend, in terms of publicity that the media stenographers afford and clout due to his being a well know writer (at least I think he's fairly well known but not sure about that), has been exposed in several ways as deceitful. But also Peter Quennel, who could be seen as the most prominent Guilter, has also been damaged by these serious accusations. It appears to me that both camps have been able to claim a scalp, so to speak, and amazingly it is the person most important to their PR efforts in Preston and Quennell.

I am somewhat surprised Preston gets so much more attention in our media than you and maybe Steve Moore as well because you run the top pro-Knox website and you and Steve both seem to have looked at the evidence against Knox in a much more detailed way than I suspect Preston has, who strikes me an aging frat boy more interested in the conflict aspects than the actual case. One suspects Preston really doesn't care much about Knox, Knox is a proxy or a prop for him to use in waging war on Mignini, Guitarri, and the MOF occult theory. It's somewhat surprising Preston, as a writer, would hate the occult theory so much because it is more interesting than his own theory because a theory about a cabal of people murdering people for body parts is much more interesting than a theory about a lone wolf serial killer. Maybe Preston gets around that by also attackiing the occult theory in his book, while promoting his theory which isn't even his theory, so that he gets the best of both worlds.

I take objection at your statement that Quennell's diehard supporters don't mind his behavoir at all because I suspect that I was being included a diehard, but I neither support or oppose Quennelll, I merely take a look at his website from time to time, which also features other players.

I do mind Quennells behavoir, if it is a fact that he stalked a woman or several women, but obviously it is being disputed by the accused and I cannot know for certain who is telling the truth and who isn't not.

This, of course, is why we must get to the bottom of this whole sordid matter. Knox's innocence, or guilt, might just hang in the balance.

To respond to your last question which I found to be a good one, I suspect that Kermit wanted to bring up the accusation of Quennell's stalker behavoir as way of going on offense against you and other Friends, to label you as a liar prone to mean and false accusations of sexual harrassment of those with whom you disagree. They don't seem to have as much on you as they do Preston, Spezi, and also the Perugian blogger (Mignii seems to have been able to shut down the Perugian bloggers website which goes to show Mignini plays for keeps and some will claim he abuses his power), so maybe they are somewhat desparate to discredit you and going on offense about Quennell's stalker behavoir as has been alleged by you is their only way to acheive their goal of removing you as an influential player. it was interesting to me that your website was not mentioned by Kermit and it did seem to be somewhat dishonest to give his readers the impression that the accusations against Quennell had been removed from all Guilt websites even if it was removed from the one that you mentioned due to it being a small business unable to take the risk of fending off a lawsuit.

 

[Grinder]

I checked Amanda's book, and it was 200 euros she found in her prison account; the money came from the purse/bookbag she had with her when she checked into prison. So, there is no connection to the rent money in her drawer.

It would certainly indicate that the money was accounted for and didn't come from Meredith. It would show that she most likely had the rent money and then spent around 100 Euro over the 4 days.

If they gave money from her book bag one would think that they would have given her the money from the drawer, if there was any.

 

[Bill Williams]

bruce, or bryan

thanks for the information.

The Quennell issue is on topic because he hosts the only pro-guilt Knox trial website containing comprehensive summary of the evidence against Knox and Raffe as well as developments in the ongoing trial.

it's difficult to say it is in the past because I've seen Friends on comment boards routinely refer to Quennel at Pervert Pete.

It also sets up a moral dilemna for people who rely on Quennel for information about the Knox trial, especially pro-guilt people,

< ........... sinister deletia ............>​

This, of course, is why we must get to the bottom of this whole sordid matter. Knox's innocence, or guilt, might just hang in the balance.

To respond to your last question which I found to be a good one, I suspect that Kermit wanted to bring up the accusation of Quennell's stalker behavoir as way of going on offense against you and other Friends, to label you as a liar prone to mean and false accusations of sexual harrassment of those with whom you disagree. They don't seem to have as much on you as they do Preston, Spezi, and also the Perugian blogger (Mignii seems to have been able to shut down the Perugian bloggers website which goes to show Mignini plays for keeps and some will claim he abuses his power), so maybe they are somewhat desparate to discredit you and going on offense about Quennell's stalker behavoir as has been alleged by you is their only way to acheive their goal of removing you as an influential player. it was interesting to me that your website was not mentioned by Kermit and it did seem to be somewhat dishonest to give his readers the impression that the accusations against Quennell had been removed from all Guilt websites even if it was removed from the one that you mentioned due to it being a small business unable to take the risk of fending off a lawsuit.

Is this a Dr. Tesla post? Wow. I can't say I agree with it, I can't say I disagree with it..... I'm just saying.....

...... is this a Dr. Tesla post? I read it all and found myself..... dare I say it..... thinking.

Where's the old Dr. Tesla!? He was more fun!

 

[RandyN]

Can the defense introduce any evidence at all?

This is actually a good question. I don't think the appeal is actually a trial de Novo (from the beginning).

Sure Zanetti opened with "All we know is that Meredith Kercher is dead" but then came the day when the judge reviewed the defense appeal points and in fact rejected almost every single point. It looked like it would be a repeat of trial one. Save for a few approved issues raised at the very end. One was independent review of certain items of DNA (perhaps this is what the SC had issues with...why look at just the two items?) There would be a review of disco buses, Toto, and maybe Quintinvale (?) Nara (?) and finally the prisoners who were in two layers...one group claiming Guede confided that he alone killed Kercher...another that claimed his brother did it and he knew where items (keys, etc) were stashed...buried near some wall IIRC.

A trial from the beginning would have to allow the defense appeal points to all be investigated...but that did not seem to happen.

It seems to me that Hellmann could have denied a review of every appeal issue filed in the appeal documents. It seems unclear to me.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What's the point of a trial if the defence is not allowed to introduce evidence?

I was thinking it probably would be the same as the last one, where both the defense and the prosecution submitted their appeals and the court decided what they will look at, it probably would be the same appeals, I doubt they would write up new ones.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

bruce, or bryan

thanks for the information.

The Quennell issue is on topic because he hosts the only pro-guilt Knox trial website containing comprehensive summary of the evidence against Knox and Raffe as well as developments in the ongoing trial.

it's difficult to say it is in the past because I've seen Friends on comment boards routinely refer to Quennel at Pervert Pete.

It also sets up a moral dilemna for people who rely on Quennel for information about the Knox trial, especially pro-guilt people, because do we want to just ignore the fact, if it is a fact, that Quennel was stalking at least one woman and maybe more, while trying to do what we can to be as informed as possible about a murder trial in our quest to seek justice for another woman who was killed?

In other words, by being reliant on Quennel for information, Guilters (and even lone wolf guilters like me) run this risk of also being discredited, even if is unfair, in a sort of guilt by association, in that if the most famous Guilter is some kind of nutjob who stalks women and thus isn't to be believed in his analysis of Knox's guilt.

This is why we must get to the bottom of this, one way or another. Who is telling the truth? Who isn't? Maybe there is a grey area, but it appears to me more probable that one side is lying more than another.

I do find it curious Kermit brought it up as you mentioned on that website because in a way it publicizes it to people new to the case who probably don't even know about it. But he also doesn't give much detail, to include even Quennell's name which seems like a basic detail, and no specifics about the accusation against Quennel. i thought this was the weakest part of his discussion in that post.

It is interesting to me that Preston, who I consider the top Friend, in terms of publicity that the media stenographers afford and clout due to his being a well know writer (at least I think he's fairly well known but not sure about that), has been exposed in several ways as deceitful. But also Peter Quennel, who could be seen as the most prominent Guilter, has also been damaged by these serious accusations. It appears to me that both camps have been able to claim a scalp, so to speak, and amazingly it is the person most important to their PR efforts in Preston and Quennell.

I am somewhat surprised Preston gets so much more attention in our media than you and maybe Steve Moore as well because you run the top pro-Knox website and you and Steve both seem to have looked at the evidence against Knox in a much more detailed way than I suspect Preston has, who strikes me an aging frat boy more interested in the conflict aspects than the actual case. One suspects Preston really doesn't care much about Knox, Knox is a proxy or a prop for him to use in waging war on Mignini, Guitarri, and the MOF occult theory. It's somewhat surprising Preston, as a writer, would hate the occult theory so much because it is more interesting than his own theory because a theory about a cabal of people murdering people for body parts is much more interesting than a theory about a lone wolf serial killer. Maybe Preston gets around that by also attackiing the occult theory in his book, while promoting his theory which isn't even his theory, so that he gets the best of both worlds.

I take objection at your statement that Quennell's diehard supporters don't mind his behavoir at all because I suspect that I was being included a diehard, but I neither support or oppose Quennelll, I merely take a look at his website from time to time, which also features other players.

I do mind Quennells behavoir, if it is a fact that he stalked a woman or several women, but obviously it is being disputed by the accused and I cannot know for certain who is telling the truth and who isn't not.

This, of course, is why we must get to the bottom of this whole sordid matter. Knox's innocence, or guilt, might just hang in the balance.

To respond to your last question which I found to be a good one, I suspect that Kermit wanted to bring up the accusation of Quennell's stalker behavoir as way of going on offense against you and other Friends, to label you as a liar prone to mean and false accusations of sexual harrassment of those with whom you disagree. They don't seem to have as much on you as they do Preston, Spezi, and also the Perugian blogger (Mignii seems to have been able to shut down the Perugian bloggers website which goes to show Mignini plays for keeps and some will claim he abuses his power), so maybe they are somewhat desparate to discredit you and going on offense about Quennell's stalker behavoir as has been alleged by you is their only way to acheive their goal of removing you as an influential player. it was interesting to me that your website was not mentioned by Kermit and it did seem to be somewhat dishonest to give his readers the impression that the accusations against Quennell had been removed from all Guilt websites even if it was removed from the one that you mentioned due to it being a small business unable to take the risk of fending off a lawsuit.

bryan?

The attention given to Douglas Preston is well deserved. He is a best selling author with personal experience with the prosecutor in the Knox case. Steve Moore received a great deal of attention during the trial. His voice was heard on every major network in America and many media outlets worldwide. I forwarded all requests for interviews to Steve because he is an expert and better suited to discuss the case with the media than I am.

The Quennell discussion is in the past as far as I am concerned. I have nothing more to offer on that.