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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Machiavelli said:
The code says, instead, that a reading of the letter in court would not imply a right to cross-question the witness about any content of the letter. The letter is a document, notsomething for which the witness has a right to remain silent; a document can be acquired in the file without askind the author and a witness can be questioned on the letter itself (like if he wrote it, when, why etc), but cannot be questioned (nor cross-questioned) about the things told narrated in the content of the letter, if it's topic about which he has a right to remain silent.
Click to expand...

If the system allows someone to write a letter that makes whatever accusations they want and then have it entered into the "file" and read in court but doesn't allow for the other side to put questions to that person is an unethical system.

If your characterizations of the Italian system are correct, the system is pathetic.

That blog Mary linked to seems very accurate about Italians. And I thought their pinching women was bad.
 
davefoc said:
The point here is that Guede's letter was read at the trial without the right to cross examine Guede. In Italy, would it have been allowed for Guede to testify and not be available for cross examination? It seems unlikely, so what possible justification is there for reading a statement by Guede at trial without making him available for cross examination?

I think a lot of what are obvious violations of normal trial protocols designed to protect the right of defendants in any western country would be obvious to you without the deeply embedded confirmation bias that clouds your view of every aspect of this trial. You not only have an unfalsifiable view that Sollecito and Knox are guilty, you have an unfalsifiable view that every thing done by the prosecution to secure a conviction was ethical and legal.
Click to expand...

It's called being a patsy.
 
halides1 said:
Exactly. If you want to individualize that stain, you need to perform DNA profiling. Here we have according to the CSC a sex game gone wrong involving multiple attackers, and somehow the nature and identity of a putative semen stain is unworthy of being studied.
Click to expand...

My guess is that the prosecution has already tested the stain and are keeping quiet about the results.
 
Machiavelli said:
...

You call my view "unfalsifiable", but actually the terms "ethical" and "any western country" are unfalsifiable concepts.
...
Click to expand...

My claim is falsifiable and if it was shown to be wrong I would concede the point.

Please find an example where testimony in the form of a letter was allowed to be read at a trial when the author of the letter was allowed to invoke his right against self incrimination to prevent his cross examination unless an obvious exception to the right to cross examine witnesses applies such as the death of the author.

And while we are on the subject of Guede's refusal to submit to a cross examination because it would have tended to incriminate him: Huh? Did the judge interrogate him as to how his testimony might lead to self incrimination? The right not to testify because of the possibility that it might lead to self incrimination is not some sort of rule that can be invoked at the prosecutor's discretion. There is supposed to be a legitimate possibility of self incrimination. How could Guede incriminate himself for a crime that he had been convicted of and was essentially confessing to in the letter read at the trial?

Here's a thought: Because Mignini realized that Mignini had concocted Guede's testimony and Mignini realized that if Guede was cross examined the truth about Guede's testimony might come out. Mignini manipulated the court so as to allow the introduction of perjured testimony into the trial without the possibility of cross examination that might have revealed Mignini's malfeasance.
 
davefoc said:
Here's a thought: Because Mignini realized that Mignini had concocted Guede's testimony and Mignini realized that if Guede was cross examined the truth about Guede's testimony might come out. Mignini manipulated the court so as to allow the introduction of perjured testimony into the trial without the possibility of cross examination that might have revealed Mignini's malfeasance.
Click to expand...

They could have asked him what " ataraxia" meant and it would have been game, set, match.

No, certainly he was not a co-defendant, however, when you are up against certain words I think and I repeat again any person would have had a reaction like mine, that’s what I mean, look my exact words I don’t remember them precisely.
...
Listen, you decided to confirm or refute these statements made by Alessi trough the press?
RG:
Look, when I heard those ludicrous rumors I felt compelled to write a letter, several letters which I sent to my lawyers, in which I told them that everything that this person was saying was all lies.
GM:
You wrote, through your lawyers, I do not know whether or not directly a letter to News Mediaset?
RG:
Me directly no.
GM:
But who wrote this letter?
RG:
Look, as I said before I decided to write to my lawyers then soon after I do not know how my letter came to arrive at News Mediaset.
GM:
So look, if I may… if it can be shown, this would be the text and this is the content of this letter, if you confirm to have, that this is the content of the letter.
CPH:
But is this produced?
GC:
It will be produced if is admitted.
GM:
I wanted to ask the question if…
CPH:
If he recognizes the signature?
GM:
If he recognizes and if the content…
GC:
If he recognizes the content, this is one letter…
GM:
The content is that one in bold on the sheet. If you will… from the second page, look.
RG:
However I must say that from here you cannot read anything.
GM:
No no no but that’s the text. I wanted to know…
RG:
Anyhow yes.
GM:
… the content, if the content ...
DCS:
Excuse me Court, can I see the content of the letter?
CPH:
Please.
GM:
Then at the side it is the reference text which was then enlarged, in case the handwritten one is hard to read, but in short the content would be this one? The second page also, here is the one in bold.
RG:
Yes, I wrote this letter, yes.
GM:
The production of the letter is requested.
CPH:
Right.
DCS:
There is opposition in order from by the defence into the production of the letter.
CPH:
He was warned that he couldn’t be compelled to make a statement, now I don’t know what is on this letter.
DCS:
If you allow me I wanted to make a clarification to this Court. In the main vain I just wanted to say that Rudy Guede today is a witness only for the facts concerning the statements already made by Mario Alessi at the last hearing, he cannot report on other facts, only on these. I think the letter refers, however, from what I read, to the culpability of some persons and therefore it should not be admitted just because Rudy Guede is a witness, I repeat, today only the facts relating to declarations made by Alessi, witness assisted under Article 197 bis this is why I am opposed to the production because Rudy Hermann Guede has the right to remain silent about the facts on which he was sentenced and I think the letter reproduces also these facts, it does not speak only about Alessi.
 
Antony said:
My guess is that the prosecution has already tested the stain and are keeping quiet about the results.
Click to expand...

davefoc said:
I hadn't thought about that possibility, but it seems like the most likely explanation right now. I guess you don't buy the "the disruption of fabric theory". :)
Click to expand...

That is impossible. If they had tested the stain and it was other that Rudy, Giacomo or Raf, the pillow case would have been stored wet in a plastic (American made) bag and would have been completely rotted by now.

I don't think even Mach would dispute that. :p
 
Antony said:
My guess is that the prosecution has already tested the stain and are keeping quiet about the results.
Click to expand...

Yer think?

There was some pretty blatant "protesting too much" going on a few years back.

I'm pretty sure I remember hearing that some-one in the employ of the Italian CJS stated that vaseline fluoresces under black-light the same way as semen does, therefore it might be vaseline.

Makes perfect sense - it looks like a semen stain, but it MIGHT not be, so let's ASSUME it isn't, and not bother finding out.

I reckon Stephony et al baulked at claiming they had tested it and then flat-out lying about the result, hence the "it's of no interest" or "it would have compromised the blood evidence" moo-poo.
 
Diocletus said:
...

The verdict will be "not guilty." Nencini will write an opinion that says that there are two possibilities: 1) Guede did it, or 2) all three did it. The evidence doesn't exclude either possibility, and there is evidence that makes either scenario reasonable. Based on two possibilities, there is reasonable doubt, but the defendants might have done it. End of story. The system looks thoughtful. Everyone else gets trashed.

But what Nencini needs, in order to write such an opinion, is for the record to be devoid of any evidence that could prove or disprove one of the possibilities. That means no computer/alibi analysis. And also, no analysis of the lab work, because that could shift the balance of probabilities, and also make the system look really, really bad.
Click to expand...

This seems like the most likely scenario right now to me as well. If I am even a little right about this case there are a lot of people in power that realize that RS and AK are innocent right now. But CYA is a driving force in all organizations and exactly how to CYA and not find two completely innocent people guilty of murder seems to be a difficult problem for the Italian court system right now.

The problem for the people completely dedicated to CYA is that even convicting AK and RS might not fully serve their CYA goal. If a guilty verdict is returned where such significant and obvious violations of the defendant's rights occurred a lot of uncomfortable scrutiny would not only fall on Mignini and his band of corrupt minions, but to every facet of the Italian justice system that has touched this case. If they are convicted it will be difficult for the Italian officials not to proceed with extradition request for Knox and maybe even Sollecito if he doesn't return to Italy. This will inevitably lead to shining a spotlight on the incredible malfeasance of Mignini and the system that he works in.
 
Machiavelli said:
The analysis of a semen stain requires the distruption of the fabric, or anyway the irreversible damaging of the item.
Click to expand...

No. It requires a swab which does not require a "distruption of the fabric". They can even swab a small portion of the stain that shows no shoe-print.

Piece of cake.
 
We're dealing with people [ETA > I'm referring to the players, the "officials"] who are quite skillful in obfuscation and prevarication - they will not risk telling bare-faced lies which could later be exposed as such.
 
Last edited:
It's funny that news reports as early as November 7, 2007 are talking about purported semen stains and that Rudy relays this in his recorded Skype call. But then there is no record of this purported stain being collected for testing.

Machiavelli jumps to the presumption that the sole purpose of testing the stain is the show Rudy's guilt and discredit his testimony. On the contrary. Rudy has already been proven guilty and cannot be found more guilty. And since Rudy has refused to testify there is nothing of him to discredit. Even his statements about Raffaele and Amanada written in the letter have been ruled untrustworthy.

No, it is not the discredit of Rudy that testing the semen stain would bring. It is the support of the statements of Mario Alessi. Wasn't one of the points brought by Mario about masterbating over Meredith's body? Since this stain had not already been tested, If Mario has correctly identified the source of the semen, his statement must be considered to have a factual basis.

Now where is Machiavelli getting the idea that I am personally attacking him. I attack his claims and call them lies when there is evidence contradicting them. I attacked the hidden "other person" that appears to be using Machiavelli to deflect the truth. Machiavelli wants to claim that this "other person" does not exist. He should not go there. If he collapses the conspiracy then there is just him.
 
Grinder said:
They wrote a letter asking the court to help them find the truth of what happened that night. I posted it earlier.

I don't know that Maresca opposed the testing.

ETA -We have talked a lot in our family in order to come to make the difficult decision not to come to Italy for the beginning of the trial. My mother is in dialysis three times a week and this has an enormous impact on her health. My father has had two strokes in the past. This period is particularly stressful for us all and we desperately want to discover the truth and find justice for Meredith, who was taken away from us so brutally and unnecessarily. We have thus decided to support each other in the family here in the UK and to follow the trial from here, keeping close contact with lawyer Francesco Maresca and his colleagues.

We are confident that the evidence will be re-examined and that all the other requests for tests will be allowed, so that all the unanswered questions may be clarified and that the Court may decide on the next actions in this tragic case. These have been the six most difficult years of our lives and we want to be able to find a conclusion and remember Meredith as the really marvellous girl who she was, rather than remembering the horror associated with her.

It is a continuous battle every single day, struggling with our emotions, happy memories and desperately sad ones, and the only way in which our pain and suffering can at least begin to to be alleviated is to come to a clearer understanding of the tragic events of November 1st, 2007. Nothing can bring back our beautiful Meredith, and we keep her in our hearts always and in our memory, but we need to know what happened and she deserves at least the dignity of the truth.

Thanking you in anticipation,

Yours sincerely,


Stephanie Kercher and Family."
Click to expand...

Do the Kercher's understand that their lawyer opposed the defense requests for new testing? It seems to me he disobeyed their wishes. Who is he representing?
 
Grinder said:
That is impossible. If they had tested the stain and it was other that Rudy, Giacomo or Raf, the pillow case would have been stored wet in a plastic (American made) bag and would have been completely rotted by now.

I don't think even Mach would dispute that. :p
Click to expand...


Has anyone seen the pillowcase since it was examined by Vinci?
 
How'd the Aussies handle it?

tsig said:
Apparently the entire Perugian police force decided to frame her then got the entire Italian Justice System to go along with it because they hate people doing cartwheels in their police stations.
Click to expand...

Tsig,
Didn't you used to be a cop in Australia for a few years?

Would your Aussie Police Department crime specialists have tested an apparent semen stain found in a sex crime on the pillow case of a pillow placed under the dead womens naked genitalia?

Simple question,
a yes or no answer would be cool...
 
Dan O. said:
Has anyone seen the pillowcase since it was examined by Vinci?
Click to expand...

Now that's possible. Could the defense find anyway to force the proof that it still exists?

I think that is a great thought. It isn't that they don't want to test it. It is that they destroyed it or lost it. Possibly it wasn't even on purpose.

I favorite fallback position - ILE incompetence.
 
Supernaut said:
Yer think?

There was some pretty blatant "protesting too much" going on a few years back.

I'm pretty sure I remember hearing that some-one in the employ of the Italian CJS stated that vaseline fluoresces under black-light the same way as semen does, therefore it might be vaseline.

Makes perfect sense - it looks like a semen stain, but it MIGHT not be, so let's ASSUME it isn't, and not bother finding out.

I reckon Stephony et al baulked at claiming they had tested it and then flat-out lying about the result, hence the "it's of no interest" or "it would have compromised the blood evidence" moo-poo.
Click to expand...

This is all about reading the minds of the prosecution. The way I see it, the only way the result could serve their agenda would be if it were to turn out to be from Raffaele. If it's either Rudy's or an unknown male, then it becomes very difficult for them to work into their narrative (such as it is) of a 3-on-1 attack involving Amanda and Raff. Indeed if it were (in an alternative universe) to be Raff's then they would have to change their entire narrative to implicate him in a different sort of crime.

So, one way or another it looks like they already know the result: either by having done the test, or because by the time it became an issue they already knew that it couldn't possibly be Raff, because he wasn't there. Either way, it suits them better to leave it up to speculation as to what particular fiend ejaculated onto a pillow found under the murder victim's hips.
 
This is one of the tweets from court...

La Nazione ‏@qn_lanazione 2m

Processo Meredith: tocca alle parti civili. Anche i legali della famiglia Kercher contrari alle richieste delle difese
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom