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

[Bill Williams]

.
Perhaps the Kerchers should fire Maresca and hire the lawyer from the TV show that demonstrated the climb through the window. Then they could get him to sue Maresca for representing Mignini, instead of themselves. Also, they could get their new lawyer to petition for a re-investigation of the case by independent investigators.
.

I truly wonder what Machiavelli and Andrea Vogt think of this suggestion.

 

[davefoc]

I truly wonder what Machiavelli and Andrea Vogt think of this suggestion.

I don't know, but assuming an individual that had a deeply held belief in the guilt of RS and AK based on group and confirmation biases I would expect the suggestion to have little effect on their thinking. The view of an individual like that is that it is knowable that AK and RS are guilty to a level of near certainty and any advocate that works to sustain that view even if that advocate works to prevent the full investigation of evidence is doing a good thing. There is also the issue of group bias. If the true believers have come to identify strongly with Mignini it is unlikely that they would take a position opposite of his. Group bias is a powerful driver for all of us. In ways that we don't notice, our opinions can be gradually modified to give us comfort in our relationship with a group that we identify with. I think true believers in the guilt of RS and AK almost certainly would have come to hold a high opinion of Mignini and they would be expected to by default see his actions and views as correct.

 

[billyryan]

.
Perhaps the Kerchers should fire Maresca and hire the lawyer from the TV show that demonstrated the climb through the window. Then they could get him to sue Maresca for representing Mignini, instead of themselves. Also, they could get their new lawyer to petition for a re-investigation of the case by independent investigators.
.

Just when you think you have read all there is to read on this case,some other poster manages to hit the nail on the head more clearly than anybody else.
I just can't believe that the Kercher's don't know that while they are writing to the judge to test everything to help them to discover what exactly happened to Meredith,their lawyer is fighting tooth and nail to make sure nothing is being tested and is unashamedly trying to prevent as much as possible any clearing up of what happened to Meredith

 

[Mary_H]

The prosecution and its lackeys in this dismal case are up against an obvious scenario: Guede broke into the place, and when Meredith came home, he attacked her, cut her throat, and sexually assaulted her as she lay dying. The stain in question, if indeed it was shown to be Guede's semen, would further reinforce this. It would cast further doubt on the forensic artifacts used to prop up the belief that something else happened, and somehow it involved Amanda and Raffaele. It would shift the focus away from the realm of mythology, and direct public attention to the truth of what really happened.

And it demolishes Rudy's claims that he tried to help Meredith.

 

[billyryan]

The prosecution and its lackeys in this dismal case are up against an obvious scenario: Guede broke into the place, and when Meredith came home, he attacked her, cut her throat, and sexually assaulted her as she lay dying. The stain in question, if indeed it was shown to be Guede's semen, would further reinforce this. It would cast further doubt on the forensic artifacts used to prop up the belief that something else happened, and somehow it involved Amanda and Raffaele. It would shift the focus away from the realm of mythology, and direct public attention to the truth of what really happened.

Something along the lines,the straw that finally breaks the camel's back,Rudy's footprint, his palm print in blood, his DNA is on Meredith's purse his DNA is on Meredith's bra and he admits being there if you add to that his semen with no trace of Amanda Knox and no real trace of Raffaele how do you even go to court let alone get a judge willing to convict

Mateini Micheli and Massei had absolutely no intension of trying the case on its merits,can anybody remind me of why Hellmann did not order the possible semen stain to be tested

 

[Dan O.]

can anybody remind me of why Hellmann did not order the possible semen stain to be tested

It wasn't needed as there was no case for the prosecution so no defense was necessary.

 

[Mary_H]

Well, I disagree, what can we do. I think you are a criminal if you offend people. I do not "belong" to the JREF laws. I may well follow other codes and violete JREF laws, since I think other laws are more important.<snip>

<snip>When people say that a rule or a procedure is idiotic you come back with the Italian system says this or that. You refuse to understand that a big part of people's frustration here is with the system that doesn't seek truth but rather is mostly about form, pomp and circumstance. <snip>You tell us how the law works in Italy and act as if you approve of the system and the other side here says if that is the case the system makes no sense.

Well said, amigo!<snip>This constant appeal to the law and various codes and procedures vs seeking the truth is bewildering to me, I'm actually stunned to see it consistently put into words. Thankfully this forum is not bound by them.

I, too, was absolutely taken aback by what Mach wrote. I really did this:

 

[Grinder]

I, too, was absolutely taken aback by what Mach wrote. I really did this:

I think that he framed the dispute quite well. He believes in Italian law over common law and insignificantly JREF law.

This is at the heart of much of the debate with him in particular. I think he has fulfilled a role of giving us his interpretation of Italian law and why the rulings have been made correctly.

Clearly I can't know if he is correct or not but certainly far more informed than any other commentator I know here or at PIP sites. Before I'm run over for that statement, please note that I said that "I know of".

I would like Mach to engage a little in why or whether he thinks the Italian system works better at freeing the innocent and giving defendants a fair trial or trials.

Does he believe that person, co-defendant or not, should be able to state that others are guilty of murder without being cross-examined. Does it really matter that this person says it or writes it in a letter to his lawyers or others?
I hope Mach, if he chooses to engage, will not try to skew the words of Rudy's letter into something that with knowledge of the crime since he admitted being there stated that Amanda and Raffaele murdered Meredith and he had done nothing.

With regards to myself, I have the serenity and the tranquility of the full ataraxia mind of those who in fairness does not boast this unjust suffering but because in fairness I trust the justice system and the good sense of the Italian people and finally I hope that sooner or later the Judges become aware of my complete innocence in what was a horrible murder of a splendid beautiful girl that was Meredith by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. Guede Rudy​

Note he not only accuses them of murder but denies being a party to it.

Not testing the stain may be by the book in Italy but why logically and ethically not do it. Certainly destruction of a print that the court won't open to new analysis isn't a reason. Mach limited the stain to three people, Raf, Rudy or Giacomo. If it's Rudy"s then he did more that make-out and pet. If it's Raf"s game over and if it's Giacomo's no change, but if it's none of them there is some explaining to do.

If Mach would explain what it would mean if it was a fourth man, that could be interesting. It would be enlightening for Mach to tell us one good reason at this time not to test it.

The dating aspect is bogus because the circumstantial evidence of the footprints isn't dated but a big part of the prosecution case. Those are the footprints with no blood found in them.

 

[RandyN]

I think that he framed the dispute quite well. He believes in Italian law over common law and insignificantly JREF law.

This is at the heart of much of the debate with him in particular. I think he has fulfilled a role of giving us his interpretation of Italian law and why the rulings have been made correctly.

Clearly I can't know if he is correct or not but certainly far more informed than any other commentator I know here or at PIP sites. Before I'm run over for that statement, please note that I said that "I know of".

I would like Mach to engage a little in why or whether he thinks the Italian system works better at freeing the innocent and giving defendants a fair trial or trials.

Does he believe that person, co-defendant or not, should be able to state that others are guilty of murder without being cross-examined. Does it really matter that this person says it or writes it in a letter to his lawyers or others?
I hope Mach, if he chooses to engage, will not try to skew the words of Rudy's letter into something that with knowledge of the crime since he admitted being there stated that Amanda and Raffaele murdered Meredith and he had done nothing.

With regards to myself, I have the serenity and the tranquility of the full ataraxia mind of those who in fairness does not boast this unjust suffering but because in fairness I trust the justice system and the good sense of the Italian people and finally I hope that sooner or later the Judges become aware of my complete innocence in what was a horrible murder of a splendid beautiful girl that was Meredith by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. Guede Rudy​

Note he not only accuses them of murder but denies being a party to it.

Not testing the stain may be by the book in Italy but why logically and ethically not do it. Certainly destruction of a print that the court won't open to new analysis isn't a reason. Mach limited the stain to three people, Raf, Rudy or Giacomo. If it's Rudy"s then he did more that make-out and pet. If it's Raf"s game over and if it's Giacomo's no change, but if it's none of them there is some explaining to do.

If Mach would explain what it would mean if it was a fourth man, that could be interesting. It would be enlightening for Mach to tell us one good reason at this time not to test it.

The dating aspect is bogus because the circumstantial evidence of the footprints isn't dated but a big part of the prosecution case. Those are the footprints with no blood found in them.

You may have missed it...in fact Yummi has already done this. He called the unknown stainer a needless added confusion to the case or words similar to that...if I come across it I will edit a link into this post later.

ETA...here it is on post 349 by Randy from Calli

"Irrelevant to the case? A Useless Complication?
About that possible semen stain I posted photo's of above:
From a website that supposedly is Placing Meredith First,
A poster named Yummi wrote this:

1. I think that whose semen it is, it is actually irrelevant to the case against Sollecito and Knox. Its irrelevance is actually a key point to the decision, in my opinion. If the stain is Guede's, that would certainly not be exculpatory to the other two, as long as there is evidence against them. If it's Sollecito, that would just convict him; but he is already convicted; he is appealing, and the previous judge thought the evidence was sufficient, the prosecution must be sure about their case with no need of further searches, while from an exculpatory or defence point of view relevance must be discussed within in the existing evidence or within what discredits them.
And if the stain is a third person's, that would be a useless complication. If it's not semen, it's a waste of time.
A search on the stain is basically useless to the case for whoever is looking for exculpatory evidence, if it's Guede's it's irrelevant, if it's Sollecito it's unnecessary, or it should be tested only if judges or prosecutors feel not confident about the evidence. Moreover, a secondary point: we also need to bear in mind that his is the Knox-Sollecito trial, not a trial against Rudy Guede, and must not become a trial of Rudy Guede; this means that you should not investigate something if you consider it just most likely to be evidence against Guede or if it would tend to turn the trial into a trial against Guede (the likely defence purpose).
I agree with you that the stain seems relevant from a human point of view. I would like to have it tested to better understand what happened, you say it is hard to understand why a putative semen stain in a fatal sexual-assault case should not be tested and this is true from the point of view of our feeling. But on a purely logical level, we can reckon how the stain is inherently irrelevant to the decision.
I don't know if the Kercher family preferred to oppose the search for sensitivity reasons, I am agnostic about this, only say that this doesn't change the irrelevance which is intrinsic.
<snip>

If you wanna read more, here's the link:
http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/vie...021d&start=400


Irrelevant to the case? A Useless Complication?"


Here is a link to post 345 where Randy shows us the pics of the semen stain w/shoe print.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9527361&postcount=345

 

[RandyN]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA......

Confirmation bias, ignorance and poor reasoning rear their ugly heads once again.

Maybe someone could explain to me the difference between these two scenarios:

1. Guede stands up in court, makes an oral statement accusing Knox and Sollecito of being involved in the murder, then is allowed not to be cross-examined on his testimony and accusations.

2. Guede writes a letter in which he accuses Knox and Sollecito of being involved in the murder, confirms in court that it was he who wrote the letter, then is allowed not to be cross-examined on his testimony and accusations. Well, apparently the difference - in Italy - is that the first example is (obviously) unlawful and non-judicial, whereas the second example IS lawful, judicially-acceptable and fair...

So, if that's true, then any witness in a criminal trial in Italy can use the same tactic. For example, if I witnessed a murder in Italy, it appears that rather than go on the stand and testify that I saw the Person A shoot the victim - and then be examined and cross-examined on my testimony - I could instead choose to write a "letter" in which I stated that I saw Person A shoot the victim. I could then be called to court merely to confirm that I had written the letter, and refuse to be examined/cross-examined on the contents of the letter. In that way, the court would learn that I had accused Person A of shooting the victim, but would have had no opportunity to test or validate that accusation. Perfect!

I would have to add that, on the basis of these remote observations of the workings of Italian courts, there are serious institutionalised problems inherent in the system, in both the structure and the application of justice.

Hummm, wouldn't this be like, oh say... Knox writing a letter perhaps? And in that letter she confusedly remembers something about Lumumba although she seems very confused and doubtful about this?

So how does this work exactly? Why no cross exam for Guede but for Knox yes... even after the SC rules her statements to have been illegally obtained and yet after 6 years the courts STILL ALLOW Liar eerrr Diya Lumumba to be in court and represented even after his case is apparently finished or so says the SC? I see no way to separate these two directly opposed results from a hugely similar situation. This has to be judicial error and or abuse.

And while on that point if Lumumba wins his case does that mean he is forever more entitled to come to court and presume things about Knox? In short to slander her endlessly without any proof of the things he contends. Wasn't it Lumumbas lawyer who claimed in court that Knox was Luciferina or a witch...all without the required proof that she was a witch or the devils wife? I think they should have at least put her in water to see if she floats.

Did I hear someone tonight claim that maybe this court will be reasonable and logical? Am I just dreaming that stupid stuff like this is actually happening once more...or is it a long continuation of a 6 year game? A...what is the Italian word... casino?

 

[Mary_H]

You may have missed it...in fact Yummi has already done this. He called the unknown stainer a needless added confusion to the case or words similar to that...if I come across it I will edit a link into this post later.

Nigel Scott has quoted Mach in a new article: http://groundreport.com/amanda-knox-raffaele-sollecito-and-the-mystery-of-the-untested-semen-stain/

Rose posted Mach's PMF comments here a couple of days ago.

 

[RandyN]

Well, I disagree, what can we do. I think you are a criminal if you offend people. I do not "belong" to the JREF laws. I may well follow other codes and violete JREF laws, since I think other laws are more important.
The fact is that you asserted that you don't offend persons, but in fact you actually offend individuals (and communities) to the point of not even considerig them persons (you do not grant them the minimal respect that you ar required to apply to posters).

You just dont get it do you? Individuals and communities who are not members here at JREF are fair game. If you do not belong to JREF laws then why do you post here? Part of the membership agreement has you agree to abide by the rules of this site. You are free to break the rules but here at JREF your behavior will be adjusted or else you will be banned. It happens occasionally...ask Fukinelli aka Michael.

When you come here to argue that Mignini is fair and just rather than what overwhelming evidence suggests... that he is corrupt and a liar then you can always expect to be challenged for your poor argument. Perhaps you can argue with the moderators about the "codes" of JREF. Thats all you ever do anyway...play the game....the casino. Miss Mary posted a link about Italians written by someone who has a great deal of experience dealing with Italians in Italy. Did you read it? Do you agree? I think the guy is spot on. At least as far as this case has shown...they holler and make noise and talk about codes all while ignoring the evidence...or lack thereof... They admit to solving the case by intuition and close the case before any evidence is reviewed. In fact they forgot to secure the killer Lumumbas home while he was questioned and jailed. Did his wife have time to hide the bloody clothes and the real knife? How would they know? How would you know? Or did they post a police man and seal his flat as a crime scene? Did they test his clothes, shoes, knife drawer? You have to say yes...or else you have to admit they prove failure or corruption one more time. Which is it? What samples of Lumumbas were run by Stefanoni... besides Lumumbas reference sample? Go ahead Yummi...please explain this Italian murder investigation technique. I cant wait to hear this one.

 

[RandyN]

No.

Randy I believe this answer to be untrue. Perhaps the OZ cops are corrupt or morons too.

 

[RandyN]

Exactly. From the point of view of judges, the second example follows the law.
While the first example is obviously unlawful because witnesses are not allowed to make statements in court.But an extra-judicial declaration is considered not only legitimate, but valid as a legal document.



Yes. They can. But only if they enjoy also the additional status of "co-defendant", of "defendant in connected proceedings" or "ex co-defendant/ in connected proceedings", and only about the topic on which they were co-defendants.
In fact, if yout think about it, it's what Sollecito and Knox did when they wrote their book. They made extra judicial-declarations on which they avoided cross questionings.

This is allowed. However there are also provisions regarding the credibility of a witness when such things happens, and the witness refuses to confirm accusations in court.

Perfectly logical and clear....it is unlawful because witnesses are not allowed to make statements in court. Thats insane. Nara is a witness and she made a stupid statement in court...so did Toto...in fact both proved themselves to be liars in court. Nara lied when she said she read about the murder the morning of the 2 Nov 2007 when the body was not even discovered yet...and she had a year to be prepared by the prosecutor...and Toto even after two or three tries never gets the date correct...and even gives the two wrongly accused perfect alibis by stating they were in the plaza from 9:30 to midnight. We could discuss Quintinvales statements in court as more lies but I think that is over-killing the point.

Guede OTOH was not a witness in the AK and RS case at all. He came into court on his own accord to defend against what his pals were saying that he told them. Doing so opened him to broad cross exam when he stopped defending himself against the pals and he started accusing AK and RS of a crime. At that point the rules were violated and both Mignini and Hellmann made judicial errors. Mignini for trying to deceive the court with this letter and Hellman for allowing him to even read it. Both are proof that Italian courts simply don't care about respect for the law or at how foolish its own administrators are allowing it to look.

And yet you can not even understand that the fact that Biondo acting as a consultant of the prosecution while also in charge of the lab doing the scientific work would be an illegal conflict of interest in any civilized court of the world. Your system is a casino!

 

[snook1]

I've seen people at IIP reporting that the item 36I is male DNA. Its getting interesting. I bet the prosecution thinks the DNA belongs to Guede.

BTW, anyone knows where I can watch live feed from the court today?

 

[snook1]

Tweets: (not sure if I'm helpful, both my English and Italian aren't the best, so be gentle)
-Carabinieri will start their testing on OCT 10th and the results will be presented in court on NOV 6th;
- it is important to test the sample to make sure who's DNA is it, says Judge;
- Luciano Aviello is dressed as a woman and says he's during the process of sex change
(personal note - A MESS!)
- Aviello confirms that his brother killed Meredith
- asked by the proseuction - Aviello says Knox and Sollecito are innocent
- denies taking money from Sollecito
- Aviello's story sounds surreal, the hearing is over, next one on NOV 6th

 

[Supernaut]

To this day, most reporting of the case has little to say about Guede, he usually gets a 'mention', along the lines of " .... another man, Rudy Guede, is currently serving a 16 year sentence for his part in the murder".

The very fact that his sentence is so short, as compared to the 25/26 year sentences that still provisionally hangs over Amanda and Raffaele, leaves it implicit in peoples' minds that he was a merely "an accomplice".

Mignini and cronies set out to minimise (of necessity) Guede's profile, and the Italian CJS contrived to make sure his trial [ETA >> and most importantly, his testimony] wasn't reported by arranging the laughable "fast track", guilty plea.

It worked - first in the Italian media, and subsquently everywhere else.

Had it been revealed that Guede had left semen at the scene (and, perhaps, blood and hair?), in fact, not only at the scene but right next to Meredith's half-stripped body, don't you think the reporting would have been, and WOULD be rather different?

 

[RoseMontague]

Tweets: (not sure if I'm helpful, both my English and Italian aren't the best, so be gentle)
-Carabinieri will start their testing on OCT 10th and the results will be presented in court on NOV 6th;
- it is important to test the sample to make sure who's DNA is it, says Judge;
- Luciano Aviello is dressed as a woman and says he's during the process of sex change
(personal note - A MESS!)
- Aviello confirms that his brother killed Meredith
- asked by the proseuction - Aviello says Knox and Sollecito are innocent
- denies taking money from Sollecito
- Aviello's story sounds surreal, the hearing is over, next one on NOV 6th

Nice summary, Machiavelli stopped tweeting before Aviello started, waiting to see if he gives his view.

 

[snook1]

Same here. Mach will definitely try to do what he can in order to assure people it was a good hearing for the prosecution. Was it, though? It was a mess, a waste of time and hopefully it will be even worse for them on NOV 6th (hoping for some early leaks).

From what it looks like at the moment, it seems that they will check if the item 36I is attributable to Meredith or Guede and not to anyone else. I hate the fact that people are saying it will be a crucial hearing if it turnes out to be Meredith's or Guede's and not so crucial if not.

 

[billyryan]

One thing is certain after this morning's hearing that despite whatever bribe Aviello has being offered by the lying squad and the other prisoner Alessi despite being shunned by society and considered the dregs of society and are confined to prison for the safety of society they still have more honour than the Perugia police Mignini Stefanoni and Comodi and the liars they put on the stand.The two convicted prisoners came to court took the oath and told the truth something that none of the former did,it sure does say something about calibar of people in power in Perugia