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

[Strawberry]

The english version of her letter is very nicely written. Almost too well written. Did she right her self? She has become a very effective writer if that's the case.

Given the nature of the document I think she would have to be absolutely stupid to write it without the help of a legal adviser. And I don't think she's absolutely stupid.

 

[Bill Williams]

Fact is, Knox and Sollecito got 26-25 years in their first instance trial. That is, 24 years for murder and rape. The additional penalties are for staging and calunnia. (all this in a regular trial, with no fast track reduction).

Guede got 30 years in his first instance trial.
Then he got 16 years on his appeal (this equates to getting 24 years in a regular trial). So he got mitigation only on his appeal.

This means, obviously, Knox and Sollecito got a more favoruable treatment than Guede.

(Not to speak about the fact that Knox and Sollecito even got a ridiculous acquittal for murder on their appeal...)

Lol, everything with you and your country is so incredibly convoluted, smh.....

given your choice of screen name, I think we're being trolled

It may not be Italy, per se. But what Machiavelli represents is the very definition of dietrology.... I really do not wise to over use the word, but if Machiavelli is going to continue to overuse the concept..... the core of it is that nothing is ever what it seems. So it is it becomes impossible to take anything at face value...

.... there's always an underlying explanation for everything that sometimes even reverses the plain meaning of what is written before.

Case in point: Judge Massei says that AK and RS had no psychopathology about them.... Machiavelli argues tooth and nail that this is not true. Judge Massei says that Meredith and Amanda had a normal, but brief, friendly relationship as housemates.... Machiavelli argues tooth and nail that this is not true. And so on and so on and so on....

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Was the defence effective in rebutting the lawyers for the Kercher family, was Lumumba represented?

I read posts here and elsewhere but I am finding it difficult to determine how this appeal is unfolding.

So what is the general opinion of how the appeal received Amanda’s letter (email) to the appeal court?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Was the defence effective in rebutting the lawyers for the Kercher family, was Lumumba represented?

I read posts here and elsewhere but I am finding it difficult to determine how this appeal is unfolding.

So what is the general opinion of how the appeal received Amanda’s letter (email) to the appeal court?

Not that I was there, but I think the fact the judge commented that Amanda should be in court is probably a bad sign. It could have been a simple issue of admissibility, but I doubt it. If we're being honest, I would say it's not looking so good for the defendants.

 

[Bill Williams]

Was the defence effective in rebutting the lawyers for the Kercher family, was Lumumba represented?

I read posts here and elsewhere but I am finding it difficult to determine how this appeal is unfolding.

So what is the general opinion of how the appeal received Amanda’s letter (email) to the appeal court?

Basically Mr. Maresca made the same assertions about Knox's character. He assassinated it. The defence is, really, to say that there's never been any evidence presented other than these assertions.

Because Knox's comments came via email, Nencini made comments about being able, truly, to verify that those were her words.

Yes, it would have been better to have had her there in person - but her absence has allowed the court, hopefully, to focus on the facts of the case.... rather than on the tabloid frenzy over every movement Knox made.

It's allowed it to be about Meredith, rather than the media invention of Foxy Knoxy.

The Guardian in the UK has been giving good coverage of tthe whole thing. Search there. IMO based on the facts The Guardian prints, a reacquittal should be a certainty.

Yet there's every reason to believe that the ISC will only sign off on some kind of guilty verdict. If so it will be a conviction based on no evidence.

I cannot see how that honours the victim.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Not that I was there, but I think the fact the judge commented that Amanda should be in court is probably a bad sign. It could have been a simple issue of admissibility, but I doubt it. If we're being honest, I would say it's not looking so good for the defendants.

Basically Mr. Maresca made the same assertions about Knox's character. He assassinated it. The defence is, really, to say that there's never been any evidence presented other than these assertions.

Because Knox's comments came via email, Nencini made comments about being able, truly, to verify that those were her words.

Yes, it would have been better to have had her there in person - but her absence has allowed the court, hopefully, to focus on the facts of the case.... rather than on the tabloid frenzy over every movement Knox made.

It's allowed it to be about Meredith, rather than the media invention of Foxy Knoxy.

The Guardian in the UK has been giving good coverage of tthe whole thing. Search there. IMO based on the facts The Guardian prints, a reacquittal should be a certainty.

Yet there's every reason to believe that the ISC will only sign off on some kind of guilty verdict. If so it will be a conviction based on no evidence.

I cannot see how that honours the victim.

Thank you both for your posts. I have read the alleged comments of the judge elsewhere and really wanted to gauge what folks here perceived, either way the motivation report of this appeal will be interesting either way next spring.

 

[Bill Williams]

Not that I was there, but I think the fact the judge commented that Amanda should be in court is probably a bad sign. It could have been a simple issue of admissibility, but I doubt it. If we're being honest, I would say it's not looking so good for the defendants.

Basically Mr. Maresca made the same assertions about Knox's character. He assassinated it. The defence is, really, to say that there's never been any evidence presented other than these assertions.

Because Knox's comments came via email, Nencini made comments about being able, truly, to verify that those were her words.

Yes, it would have been better to have had her there in person - but her absence has allowed the court, hopefully, to focus on the facts of the case.... rather than on the tabloid frenzy over every movement Knox made.

It's allowed it to be about Meredith, rather than the media invention of Foxy Knoxy.

The Guardian in the UK has been giving good coverage of tthe whole thing. Search there. IMO based on the facts The Guardian prints, a reacquittal should be a certainty.

Yet there's every reason to believe that the ISC will only sign off on some kind of guilty verdict. If so it will be a conviction based on no evidence.

I cannot see how that honours the victim.

Thank you both for your posts. I have read the alleged comments of the judge elsewhere and really wanted to gauge what folks here perceived, either way the motivation report of this appeal will be interesting either way next spring.

I disagree with HumanityBlues. Given that Nencini could have ordered Knox's appearance, and hasn't, his comments really relate to the relative "admissibility" of the method of communication - kind of like Rudy having a letter of his read at a previous trial: the difference being that Rudy then was actually in the court.

Even though I'm pessimistic about the outcome, that is not a reason, really, to be pessimistic IMO.

On other matters. I'm not sure how much Mr. Maresca overtly represents the Kerchers. At the beginning of this third trial, the Kerchers had a letter of their own read, requesting that the court review ALL the evidence.

Did Mr. Maresca, then, complain about the many times Nencini disallowed various further tests? Of the way that expert evaluations of past tests were not allowed?

Maresca also offered a variation on motive - as if there aren't enough variations out there already. Rather than going with Rudy's pooh in Filomena's/Laura's toilet boiling over into an argument between Meredith and Amanda (Crini's completely unique theory!), Maresca had RS and AK murdering in a drug fueled frenzy - something that even Judge Massei at the first trial rejected (although Massei speculated that the last second "choice for evil" was fueled by drugs in some way).....

..... Maresca is perhaps representing the Kerchers well by stopping short of this being a "sex game gone wrong." Upthread, I recalled Piers Morgan (on CNN) getting a little disgusted at that last June - when it was revealed that the ISC was including Meredith, implicitly, in the "sex game" before it went wrong.

I can't imagine in a million years that this part of the ISC quashing made the Kerchers happy.

Still.... given that there is no evidence, really, that RS and AK were involved, motive at some point must play big in any guilter theory.... simply because there's not much else. The RIS Carabinieri DNA report has pretty well ruled out the kitchen knife as involved in the crime - so if Maresca is still trying to say that Meredith's DNA was found, then he's arguing with the Italian police experts, not RS or AK's defence teams.

Read The Guardian article on the day in court when the RIS Carabinieri report was received. The point made was that none of Meredith's blood was found, so it really is irrelevant to try to decipher what 36b may have been.....

.... finally a reputable police force has entered into evidence something the innocenters have been saying for years in criticizing Stefanoni's work.

You are quite correct CoulsdonUK - the motivations report for this trial will be a fascinating read. If Nencini convicts, and includes things like "the kitchen knife being a match for the bedsheet outline", then my view will be that the fix was always in. Not even Mignini tried to get away with that...

There's really nothing at this third trial that points to AK and RS at all. Aveillo washed out, and they haven't even covered most of the points the ISC said to cover. If Nencini just comes back with the "staging of the break-in" nonsense, without pointing to all the non-existent evidence.... then the fix is in.

Your mileage will vary.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
Case in point: Judge Massei says that AK and RS had no psychopathology about them.... Machiavelli argues tooth and nail that this is not true.

But he simply never says that!

Such thing simply does not exist even as a face value in Massei's findings, in the first place.

Judge Massei says that Meredith and Amanda had a normal, but brief, friendly relationship as housemates.... Machiavelli argues tooth and nail that this is not true. And so on and so on and so on...

.

Massei doesn't make any kind of those judgemental findings.

Look at how you change the face value of things, instead. You also asserted that Massei found that Knox and Sollecito had "no motive", and that the only person with a motive was Guede, that it was because of Guede's lust, and Guede alone.
Now the only true thing in the above statement is that Massei used the word "lust" (or an Italian equivalent) in reference to Rudy Guede. But never says the word "alone".
The qualification "alone" is your own invention. It doesn't belong to the text. The text does not say that and does not say that Knox and Sollcito had no sexual motive, actually it states something the opposite of that: the Massei report says Knox and Solelcito shared the same intent of Guede and in the same degree.

It is simply incredible - to me - how a person can "read" this text and think that it carries that "face value" that you attribute to it.

 

[Grinder]

Of course we don't know what the original Italian words were. It's curious that Mach places the word "bang" in quotes but not the word "intend".

Well since the entire thing is made up what difference does it make? I have never seen any report where the boys reported anything more than he expressed an interest if she were unattached.

I said it was rapist's talk. It doesn't necessarily mean that Guede had committed rape at that time - just that he wasn't particularly concerned with the wishes the woman.

You sound like Mach and his parsing. He probably didn't say it and I'll bet most rapists don't voice their intents.

You can disagree if you wish, but I don't think it's worth this amount of bandwidth, quite honestly. We do know that Guede went on to attempt the rape of Meredith at knife-point.

Do we? I thought the prevailing theory here is that he did his advances after the knife attack.

Why "clearly"?

Because he thought of himself as a catch.

Sorry - you're not making sense. You do agree that the state of Meredith's corpse indicated exactly that, don't you?[/quiote]

According to what we've been allowed to know she was digitally attacked. But I was referring to before the attack on Meredith which is what you were saying about his remark about Amanda.

The point is that Mach was trying to make his claim stand up that Amanda and Guede had an intimate relationship. In support of that he quotes Guede as saying that he intends to bang Amanda, without any indication that the attraction was mutual.

As I said earlier it just proved that Rudy hadn't slept with her at that time. God only knows what Mach is trying to prove.

I don't think we have any evidence that Rudy was a rapist or that his alleged remark make him a candidate for being one. The alleged rape prank of Amanda is similar.

I think it is worth pointing these things out because they become part of the discussion. The gold watch is an excellent example. So is the drug dealer on speed on the PGP side.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is such an outrageous lie that's been spread around by guilters of late. Knox's appeal against the calunnia charge was struck down by the high court. Sollecito didn't appeal at all. The sole reason this trial is happening is that the prosecution appealed the acquittal and Cassation sided with them. If you have to engage in elaborate rhetorical contortions to make the process sound fair, maybe, just maybe, the process isn't actually fair.

The sole reason this appeal takes place is that Knox and Sollecito appealed their conviction.

There has been no acquittal. There has been no appeal that was accomplished yet. The appeal that has taken place under the ruling of Pratillo Hellmann-Zanetti was illegitimate and invalid.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli, this woman is not a killer.

She just doesn't have it in her. Show me - don't tell me - anything to the contrary, please.

What do you think a "killer" looks like?

 

[Grinder]

Given the nature of the document I think she would have to be absolutely stupid to write it without the help of a legal adviser. And I don't think she's absolutely stupid.

I'm not sure she was given or took the advice she needed.

The phrase subjugated to psychological torture makes no sense to me. Could it be that they translated from Italian to English? I would have had her change it to subjected.

She may not be absolutely stupid but she does seem to think that "her voice" will win the day. Does anybody think that The "All you need is Love" sweatshirt was recommended by the lawyers?

 

[katy_did]

Not that I was there, but I think the fact the judge commented that Amanda should be in court is probably a bad sign. It could have been a simple issue of admissibility, but I doubt it. If we're being honest, I would say it's not looking so good for the defendants.

If I'm being honest, I have to say I think Nencini made a reasonable point. If someone doesn't want to attend the trial, then in Italy they don't have any obligation to do so, but I'm not sure that someone who chooses to stay away should have an automatic right to speak to the jury 'from afar', as it were. Or at least, no automatic right to expect that communication to be given the same weight as if it had been delivered in person.

Nencini is certainly right that he has no guarantee the letter was even written by Amanda: if it arrived in an e-mail, then even Amanda's lawyers can't really know that for sure. It seems reasonable to give that letter a lower degree of importance than statements like Raffaele's, given in person, which is the point Nencini was making.

What worries me more, actually, is not so much Nencini's reaction today, but the way the general focus (outside of the legal process) seems to have switched to extradition - as if the important audience is in America, not Italy. It seems to me far too early to be thinking like that. Nencini's reaction, on the other hand, doesn't worry me so much, since he seems to deal out snark on a pretty even-handed basis.

 

[Grinder]

Not that I was there, but I think the fact the judge commented that Amanda should be in court is probably a bad sign. It could have been a simple issue of admissibility, but I doubt it. If we're being honest, I would say it's not looking so good for the defendants.

Agreed. It seems they didn't spend the hours the prosecution did. As I've said before, I thought they should rip the "confession" and the police chief and point out the "what we knew was correct" but I think Amanda's attorneys are afraid of being charged with defamation.

They should have shown the footprints under luminol and pointed out that no one said they matched anybody and they weren't shown to be in blood.

Maybe Raf's lawyers will come to the rescue as they have in the past.

 

[Machiavelli]

Is anybody else struck by the width of the gap between the slutty, vicious girl portrayed for so long in the tabloid press and the calm, clear voice of the woman herself?

Everything about that letter -- and the website itself -- speak of gentleness, strength, intelligence, class, and honesty. I think the guilters are right to see this as a PR move (altho' it's clearly a legal one as well). When the press follows the link to that website, they're going to see a person radically different from the one they were led to expect.

Which is the point.

I never read tabloids. But, going back to 2008 and 2009, I recall Amanda Knox's testimony turned my opinion -still with some doubts, ignoring the evidence - towards a powerful perception of guilt.
Now, through her later, subsequent declarations, she - Sollecito's as well - conveys to me the worse possible perceptions about her being guilty and about her personality.
Not only she is proven guilty as for the evidence, she also appears to me as guilty person in the most spectacular way. About everything she says and communicates, to me its speaks about lies.

You are correct about her being somehow different from what I expected. When I saw her in person I was surprised. Then when I saw her in media appearances I was even more surprised. But I was stunned because she appeared to me far worse than what I expected.
She conveyes basically two things to me: her being a liar, and her being a narcissist. Almost everything she says appears to me as a lie.
I did not expect her to convey a negative impression to me up to this point.

 

[acbytesla]

The sole reason this appeal takes place is that Knox and Sollecito appealed their conviction.

There has been no acquittal. There has been no appeal that was accomplished yet. The appeal that has taken place under the ruling of Pratillo Hellmann-Zanetti was illegitimate and invalid.

No, that is not correct. There has been no conviction. While the the moronic Italian..SC set aside the acquittal, there has been no conviction. The SC ordered a new trial. PERIOD.

 

[HumanityBlues]

If I'm being honest, I have to say I think Nencini made a reasonable point. If someone doesn't want to attend the trial, then in Italy they don't have any obligation to do so, but I'm not sure that someone who chooses to stay away should have an automatic right to speak to the jury 'from afar', as it were. Or at least, no automatic right to expect that communication to be given the same weight as if it had been delivered in person.

Nencini is certainly right that he has no guarantee the letter was even written by Amanda: if it arrived in an e-mail, then even Amanda's lawyers can't really know that for sure. It seems reasonable to give that letter a lower degree of importance than statements like Raffaele's, given in person, which is the point Nencini was making.

What worries me more, actually, is not so much Nencini's reaction today, but the way the general focus (outside of the legal process) seems to have switched to extradition - as if the important audience is in America, not Italy. It seems to me far too early to be thinking like that. Nencini's reaction, on the other hand, doesn't worry me so much, since he seems to deal out snark on a pretty even-handed basis.

I think you're forgetting the fact that no similar comment was made when the Kercher's letter was read. If, as you say, there is "no automatic right to expect that communication be given the same weight as it had been delivered in person", that would apply to the Kercher's letter as well. I'm not making a judgment on it, I'm merely pointing out the inconsistency.

"Nencini is certainly right that he has no guarantee the letter was even written by Amanda: if it arrived in an e-mail, then even Amanda's lawyers can't really know that for sure. It seems reasonable to give that letter a lower degree of importance than statements like Raffaele's, given in person, which is the point Nencini was making."

Again, this would apply to any letter. Like I said, it could be nothing. But it is certainly reason to pause.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Was the defence effective in rebutting the lawyers for the Kercher family, was Lumumba represented?

I read posts here and elsewhere but I am finding it difficult to determine how this appeal is unfolding.

So what is the general opinion of how the appeal received Amanda’s letter (email) to the appeal court?

The Supreme Court has sent down instructions on how to rule. Every claim of the prosecution must be sustained, and every problem raised by the defense must be dismissed.

Nencini played a couple of cards that didn't pan out - the transvestite failed to say he was bribed, and the DNA analysis of the kitchen knife failed to confirm the incriminating result from 2007. But these are minor setbacks. Nencini understands his role, just as your Lord Lane understood his role when he presided over the appeal of the Birmingham Six. I assume the result will be the same. I'd like to be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Grinder]

If I'm being honest, I have to say I think Nencini made a reasonable point. If someone doesn't want to attend the trial, then in Italy they don't have any obligation to do so, but I'm not sure that someone who chooses to stay away should have an automatic right to speak to the jury 'from afar', as it were. Or at least, no automatic right to expect that communication to be given the same weight as if it had been delivered in person.

Nencini is certainly right that he has no guarantee the letter was even written by Amanda: if it arrived in an e-mail, then even Amanda's lawyers can't really know that for sure. It seems reasonable to give that letter a lower degree of importance than statements like Raffaele's, given in person, which is the point Nencini was making.

What worries me more, actually, is not so much Nencini's reaction today, but the way the general focus (outside of the legal process) seems to have switched to extradition - as if the important audience is in America, not Italy. It seems to me far too early to be thinking like that. Nencini's reaction, on the other hand, doesn't worry me so much, since he seems to deal out snark on a pretty even-handed basis.

Where has the focus switched to extradition?

Btw, I do agreed that Nencini had a point but I don't think he needed to express it.

As I've said all along I don't understand why the defense didn't do a video showing the footprint evidence, the climb by the rock climber guy, the glass expert etc.

This is not a trial de nova and looks more like a shame every day.

I don't see why Amanda couldn't have done a video instead of an email (and that should have been hard copy sent by FedEx) as that would prove it was her and since they can't cross these statements what difference would it make.

 

[Bill Williams]

John Douglas is a retired FBI profiler, the very model of police work in this area.

The following is his assessment (with Mark Olshaker) of Maresca's "case to the court", and why he feels that Maresca is not serving well his clients, the Kerchers.

http://mindhuntersinc.com/the-craziness-continues/

When a murder suspect keeps changing his story, our natural and reasonable tendency is to figure he’s guilty. So what should we figure when a murder prosecution keeps changing its story?

Now comes the report that Francesco Maresca, an attorney for the Kercher family, has put forth the premise that drugs and alcohol fueled a murderous rage on the part of Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy, said drugs and drink having “deprived their minds of inhibitory impulses.”

As if acknowledging that this scenario was unsupportable, Maresca declared that the “motive” was irrelevant since it had been proved the three were in the room together when Meredith was killed.

Except it hasn’t been proved. It has, in fact, been contradicted. Guede’s DNA is all over the crime scene. Amanda and Raffaele’s are nowhere to be found. This is typical of the illogic and outright fabrications that have characterized this entire sordid process.

The grieving Kercher family is entitled to the truth, and various elements have made a concerted effort to isolate them from it.