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

[Poppy1016]

Thank you for your answers.

 

[Diocletus]

Why should it not?
It's the consequence of the fact that the defences called the convicted murderer Alessi to testify about alleged Guede's statements.
Therefore, what Guede stated about the object of Alessi's allegations was a topic brought into the trial.

Only in Italy can you testify via a letter, while you're actually sitting there in court. And then the defendant can't cross-examine.

Who has ever heard of such silliness.

 

[acbytesla]

I haven't followed the conversation enough as to why Rudy Guede's attractiveness is relevant (I'm not saying it isn't, but I have only been skimming the thread as of late), but I would say, if I didn't know anything about the case and just saw his picture, I would describe him as a pretty good looking man.

Let me catch you up Humanity. Machiavelli claims that Amanda was talking about Rudy when she had met in a cafe in Perugia the most beautiful black man she had ever seen. That this person had to be Rudy, She wrote this in an email a month before she actually moved in to the cottage in Perugia. This is before she went back to Germany.

In his mind, Amanda later went on to have sex with Rudy.

 

[Bill Williams]

I mean that Knox and Sollecito lied in their books, if they reported the episode as you quoted it.



I heard him speaking at the appeal trial. For an Italian mother-speaker it is obvious that Guede expresses himself properly; while Sollecito does not.
Guede spoke a perfect Italian, sometimes rather sophisticated, making no mistake when talking; he did make a few mistakes in his letter though. This is the consequence of the fact he chose to write it in a very sophisticated style. He also wrote some things revealing that he is not a 100% mother tongue but he is a bilingual with French as a background language: the adjective "blasfemico" for example is French not Italian. The Italian language lacks this adjective and requires nominalization, whereas French has it; Guede "creates" an adjective with Italian declination out of the French grammar and synthax.

What is astonishing is that these documents which make it into Mignini's hands - which Mignini claims were written by the person in question - have this "very sophisticated style".

The basis for Knox's conviction for calunnia is principally her ability to write "confessions" in perfect Italian, and Italian-legalese to boot; it not just shows sophisticated writing style (in a language foreign to her) .....

..... but also knowledge of key legal concepts. She seems keen to help out Mignini in specifically writing "I spontaneously declare," when the whole issue of spontaneity in a 7 hour interrogation will be how these are accepted, or not, in court. Amanda, acc. to Mignini, wrote that without prompting because, of course, if he'd prompted the comments would not have been spontaneous.

Mignini was tremendously fortunate that Knox had, as part of being an honours student, sophisticated knowledge of the Italian legal system like this.

Now it's Rudy's turn. A basketball player, a botherer of women, who adopt s sophisticated style just for court - Mignini got lucky twice.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

 

[katy_did]

What I can't imagine is Amanda not letting everybody know that Rudy was that guy when she met him the first time with the boys downstairs. That's where Mach's idea falls flat. She wasn't with Raf at the time (unless you want to change when they met for your convenience) and would have taken advantage of the meeting to get to know him better as she has made clear in interviews - you know maximizing experiences.

Yes, or Rudy would've mentioned it to the guys downstairs, especially as they gossiped about Amanda anyway. Or more likely both Rudy and Amanda would've mentioned it when they were first introduced. I can only see two possibilities: either Rudy wasn't that guy, or else their meeting was so brief and forgettable neither of them even remembered it...

 

[Machiavelli]

Right. As it should have been, since the letter is hearsay. And, for the same reason, Mignini should have been prohibited from using it.

The reason why the request would be inadmissible is not because the letter is hersay. It's because 1. Guede invoked his right to silence, and 2. witnesses can be asked questions, or can release declarations in some conditions, but cannot requested to release declarations.

As for legal status, a letter is a document not hersay.
Documents can be admitted and may be read by the party who enters them, in this case it was the prosecution.

That said, the real problem with this letter is that the defendants were denied the opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

They could cross-examine the witness, but not on the topic of what he did on the night of the murder.
They could question him about what he told to Alessi, why or when he did things like writing the letter, and about other topics that about which Alessi was questioned about not directly related to the Kercher murder.

So, what we have is a hearsay accusation against defendants, as to which they are denied the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant even though he was brought to court by the prosecutor for purposes of authenticating the hearsay letter.

Alessi, and hence Guede's letter about that as a consequence, were dragged into court by the defence not by the prosecution.
Moreover, what Guede stated in court about the night of murder, it was just a consequence of the insistent defence questions on the topic. Hadn't it been for Dalla Vedova's stupidity, Guede would not have said anything about the night of the murder.

 

[Bill Williams]

Let me catch you up Humanity. Machiavelli claims that Amanda was talking about Rudy when she had met in a cafe in Perugia the most beautiful black man she had ever seen. That this person had to be Rudy, She wrote this in an email a month before she actually moved in to the cottage in Perugia. This is before she went back to Germany.

In his mind, Amanda later went on to have sex with Rudy.

.... which at one time was part of a "sex for drugs" relationship Machiavelli claims the two had... one of the reasons why M. once called Rudy Amanda's pimp. The ferocity now of his denial is intriguing... as he essentially admits to everything else but now draws the line at the "pimp", thing, even though that is still in essence what he's claiming.

 

[Machiavelli]

So his accusation of RK and RS is admissible without the possibility of cross examination?

The letter itself is admissible as a document, if the letter is about a topic that the defence decided to discuss or to bring in themselves.
Whatever is written in the letter can be assessed by the judge, whether it's reliable or unreliable as evidence this is another question.
Technicaly it's not Guede who "accuses" them, it's the document what "accuses" them; you cannot cross-examine a document, but you can find it irrelevant or false or unreliable.

 

[Diocletus]

As for legal status, a letter is a document not hersay.
Documents can be admitted and may be read by the party who enters them, in this case it was the prosecution.

Just because you put your hearsay in writing doesn't make it not hearsay. It's still an out of court statement offered for its truth.

They could cross-examine the witness, but not on the topic of what he did on the night of the murder.
They could question him about what he told to Alessi, why or when he did things like writing the letter, and about other topics that about which Alessi was questioned about not directly related to the Kercher murder.

Yes, well, there is an elephant in the room, and that is the fact that the letter contains the murderer's a direct accusation of the defendants.

Alessi, and hence Guede's letter about that as a consequence, were dragged into court by the defence not by the prosecution.

LOL. So why didn't Bongiorno read the letter.

Moreover, what Guede stated in court about the night of murder, it was just a consequence of the insistent defence questions on the topic. Hadn't it been for Dalla Vedova's stupidity, Guede would not have said anything about the night of the murder.

One thing that I do agree with is that the accusation contained in the letter cannot be used as a basis for a conviction of Knox and Sollecito.

 

[davefoc]

I suggest that anybody that wishes to paraphrase Machiavelli link to the direct quotes of Marchiavelli that are being paraphrased. Machiavelli often objects to the paraphrases and I think in fairness to him that his exact words should be available when he is being paraphrased in a way that he may object to.

 

[Bill Williams]

The letter itself is admissible as a document, if the letter is about a topic that the defence decided to discuss or to bring in themselves.
Whatever is written in the letter can be assessed by the judge, whether it's reliable or unreliable as evidence this is another question.
Technicaly it's not Guede who "accuses" them, it's the document what "accuses" them; you cannot cross-examine a document, but you can find it irrelevant or false or unreliable.

You're kidding, right?

You mean the author of the letter is right there in court, and cannot be cross examined on it?

Do you defend this system, or do you just lie about it?

 

[Samson]

The reason why the request would be inadmissible is not because the letter is hersay. It's because 1. Guede invoked his right to silence, and 2. witnesses can be asked questions, or can release declarations in some conditions, but cannot requested to release declarations.

As for legal status, a letter is a document not hersay.
Documents can be admitted and may be read by the party who enters them, in this case it was the prosecution.



They could cross-examine the witness, but not on the topic of what he did on the night of the murder. They could question him about what he told to Alessi, why or when he did things like writing the letter, and about other topics that about which Alessi was questioned about not directly related to the Kercher murder.



Alessi, and hence Guede's letter about that as a consequence, were dragged into court by the defence not by the prosecution.
Moreover, what Guede stated in court about the night of murder, it was just a consequence of the insistent defence questions on the topic. Hadn't it been for Dalla Vedova's stupidity, Guede would not have said anything about the night of the murder.[/QUOTE]

Once again we have a triumph of form over substance. Guede can be convicted of murder, and subsequently proclaim non involvement, accuse two other people of being solely responsible for the crime of which he is convicted, and for eternity refuse to say one word about what happened, despite indisputably being there. If he was required to answer questions verbally in court, the jury would have an excellent chance of deducing the accuracy of his testimony. Elapsed time would never erase his vivid recollection of the events as he saw them.
Would you like him to answer questions in court Mach, to clarify the exact sequence?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Just because you put your hearsay in writing doesn't make it not hearsay. It's still an out of court statement offered for its truth.

Let's keep in mind that this trial has demonstrated that hearsay rules in Italy are obviously pretty lax compared to the U.S. or England. The most obvious example is Maresca's use of a Daily Mail article (the about the rock throwing party) as evidence in the first trial.

 

[Diocletus]

The reason why the request would be inadmissible is not because the letter is hersay. It's because 1. Guede invoked his right to silence,

He wrote a letter. That's not silence.

 

[Diocletus]

Let's keep in mind that this trial has demonstrated that hearsay rules in Italy are obviously pretty lax compared to the U.S. or England. The most obvious example is Maresca's use of a Daily Mail article (the about the rock throwing party) as evidence in the first trial.

That's true. But it's hard to believe that even the Italians would have a hearsay rule that says that hearsay isn't really hearsay if you just write the hearsay down.

 

[davefoc]

You're kidding, right?

You mean the author of the letter is right there in court, and cannot be cross examined on it?

Do you defend this system, or do you just lie about it?

I just read through the testimony surrounding the reading of the letter in the Hellman court.

One interesting thing was the way it was entered. Knox's attorney objected to it and Hellman asked what was in the letter. Mignini volunteered to read it out loud and then after it had been read Hellman said let's admit it. It doesn't sound like unringing bells is much of a concern in Italian courts.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Rudy_Guede's_Testimony_(English)

On the ataraxia thing and whether Guede would have used that word: Knox's attorney asked him what it meant and he said: "I think that the word ataraxia means state of calm." I was surprised that Knox's attorney didn't follow up a bit on that but maybe the term is more common in Italian than English or perhaps he judged it unlikely that he could trip Guede up on that point, given that Guede either really wrote the letter or would have been well coached to withstand a cross examination about the letter especially when the area of cross examination was to be severely restricted.

 

[acbytesla]

Let's keep in mind that this trial has demonstrated that hearsay rules in Italy are obviously pretty lax compared to the U.S. or England. The most obvious example is Maresca's use of a Daily Mail article (the about the rock throwing party) as evidence in the first trial.

That is kind of bogus isn't it? They leak the story to the press and then turn around and quote the story. As the Church lady on SNL says, "How convenient".

 

[HumanityBlues]

That's true. But it's hard to believe that even the Italians would have a hearsay rule that says that hearsay isn't really hearsay if you just write the hearsay down.

I wouldn't find that hard to believe. If you're allowed to bring in tabloid articles in an as evidence, why would this new stupid exception be any more absurd? The main point is, we're dealing with courts that do not care about hearsay.

 

[Poppy1016]

The letter itself is admissible as a document, if the letter is about a topic that the defence decided to discuss or to bring in themselves.
Whatever is written in the letter can be assessed by the judge, whether it's reliable or unreliable as evidence this is another question.
Technicaly it's not Guede who "accuses" them, it's the document what "accuses" them; you cannot cross-examine a document, but you can find it irrelevant or false or unreliable.

I can't believe you just stated that a document accused AK and RS. And you can't cross examine a document. Are you serious?

 

[Diocletus]

The main point is, we're dealing with courts that do not care about hearsay.

Which means that they don't care about cross-examination, either. Plausible. But certainly worthy of great criticism.