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

[Machiavelli]

Then why don't they drop him? No, he is the only alleged witness to the kids not being at Raf's. The prosecution has in no way proved the alibis to be false.

But why should they? ("they" who?) The first instance judges found him credible. They listened to him in person, they listened to his voice, asked him all questions they wanted, and thought he was credible. And thought there were reasons to think he likely saw the right people (he knew them already at sight).

You don't "drop" witnesses. You assess their reliability and their relevance.
Here the relevance (imho) is quite low because the witness is unnecessary, but this is not a reason for "dropping" him. He exists, he brought a testimony.

 

[Machiavelli]

I think you're forgetting the fact that no similar comment was made when the Kercher's letter was read.(...)

Nencini refused to read Stephanie Kercher's letter in court.

 

[tsig]

Read Andrea Vogt's insinuations about the "secret US defense of Amanda Knox." Surely you can hear that dog whistle?

I asked you not Andrea Vogt, whoever she is.

 

[Strozzi]

No, but there is this repeated assertions of Guede that he was aroused by Amanda and he intended to "bang her", and his friends confirming he had the habit of hangng out with "American female students", and he would talk about Amanda (he apparently was never interested in Meredith).

Machiavelli, can you please provide some evidence that Guede's friends confirmed that Guede had "the habit of hanging out with "American female students", . . .

From what I have read, Guede had the habit of hanging out with Italian guys he knew casually from playing basketball, and Spanish girls, and possibly British girls including Sophie Preston with whom he exchanged hugs at the disco. I haven't read anything that claimed Guede hung out with American girls. What have I missed?

 

[Bill Williams]

But why should they? ("they" who?) The first instance judges found him credible. They listened to him in person, they listened to his voice, asked him all questions they wanted, and thought he was credible. And thought there were reasons to think he likely saw the right people (he knew them already at sight).

You don't "drop" witnesses. You assess their reliability and their relevance.
Here the relevance (imho) is quite low because the witness is unnecessary, but this is not a reason for "dropping" him. He exists, he brought a testimony (tainted by the effects of substance abuse, and that he was facing legal troubles of his own).

There, I fixed it for you.

 

[andreajo]

Nencini refused to read Stephanie Kercher's letter in court.

Did he comment or say why?

 

[katy_did]

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.

But that does apply to the Kerchers' letter: it obviously won't be given any weight as evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, and I really don't think anyone was arguing it should. Amanda's letter on the other hand obviously was an attempt to set out her case as well as she could, and presumably she wanted it to be listened to and taken seriously. Nencini only pointed out that it couldn't be given the same weight as a statement made in person - and yet he still read it out to the court. I don't see any reason to read anything negative into it, especially as he's made some pretty pointed remarks to the prosecution too.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Nencini refused to read Stephanie Kercher's letter in court.

Confirmed. Trust but verify.

 

[HumanityBlues]

But that does apply to the Kerchers' letter: it obviously won't be given any weight as evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, and I really don't think anyone was arguing it should. Amanda's letter on the other hand obviously was an attempt to set out her case as well as she could, and presumably she wanted it to be listened to and taken seriously. Nencini only pointed out that it couldn't be given the same weight as a statement made in person - and yet he still read it out to the court. I don't see any reason to read anything negative into it, especially as he's made some pretty pointed remarks to the prosecution too.

You don't see ANY reason? C'mon. I admit, it's not exactly the end all be all, but I find it hard to believe it doesn't raise ANY concern.

 

[Diocletus]

Nencini refused to read Stephanie Kercher's letter in court.

Who cares about stefanoni kercher. She's not a fact witness and she's not a defendant. She's an intermeddler in the criminal case who has hired a scumbag lawyer.

 

[Machiavelli]

Now, we are back to only court documents? I think we can find many news reports that say a rite of some sort was involved. More of those than the one article on the alleged cocaine dealer you point to as a fact.

You can only find one Italian source which says "saxual rite".
But I can point out court documents that do say something else which is totally different and rules it out.
It's not that I am just asking to cite court evidence: I actually pointed to court documents which is evidence of the contrary.

There was no background of personal grudges unless Meredith had some.

Meredith's girl friends testified about a rather non-idyllic picture.

There is nothing in the record of Amanda expressing any problems she had with Meredith and as you have pointed out Amanda wasn't very circumspect.

Let's say that it was the others (Meredith, friends, flatmates) who perceived some bizzarre, odd, and annoying behaviours on the part of Amanda, in areas such as cleaning and on relational aspects.

I'm sorry but there was some mention that he was interested in Amanda the first time he met, which wasn't in some cafe but with the boys from downstairs in the street after a night of pubbing.

Well he expressed his ideas with his friends, but also in his interrogation by the prosecutor.

He had a habit of hanging out with girls, like a lot of us. The two last nights before the murder he was out with Spanish girls.

Yes that's what he did.
It's actualy one reason more to think that he may have hung out with Amanda as well, and that it was unlikely that he had any urge to assail and rape Meredith.

Please produce the history of Rudy talking about Amanda. If he had "intended to 'bang'" her that would mean he hadn't therefore hadn't traded drugs for sex.

Well we could start with the prosecution arguments at his 2008 trial. But whetner he "traded drug for sex" seems totally irrelevant to me.
Even the concept of "trading in exchange of sex" seems to me something extremely elusive: even Berlusconi used to have sex with many girls, in something that was a "trade" in general terms, but often without "trading" anything specific that you could put in relation with an episode. I won't investigate into that sort of things. I am not interested actually in filling check boxes about all personal motivations why people have sex on a certain day - did you do that for that..? I just think if you are a woman who decides to spend a night with Guede, a bit of cocaine might be, let's say, part of the "pacakge" for the evening fun in some way. It might be or may be not. And I am not interested in investigating about "tradings".

 

[Diocletus]

But that does apply to the Kerchers' letter: it obviously won't be given any weight as evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, and I really don't think anyone was arguing it should. Amanda's letter on the other hand obviously was an attempt to set out her case as well as she could, and presumably she wanted it to be listened to and taken seriously. Nencini only pointed out that it couldn't be given the same weight as a statement made in person - and yet he still read it out to the court. I don't see any reason to read anything negative into it, especially as he's made some pretty pointed remarks to the prosecution too.

I don't know why the fact that she wrote a letter should matter. So the court didn't get to hear her testify in person? This court has heard basically no real evidence in person. This isn't a real trial: it's just a long argument by a bunch of lawyers.

 

[Machiavelli]

Did he comment or say why?

He said if it's in the file the court will read it, and that's enough for the court. There is no need to spend the hearing time to read documents which they are going to read anyway.

 

[billyryan]

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.

I have a powerful perception every time I see that little green avatar here comes more BS
Did you avoid all phone cameras today

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli, can you please provide some evidence that Guede's friends confirmed that Guede had "the habit of hanging out with "American female students", . . .

From what I have read, Guede had the habit of hanging out with Italian guys he knew casually from playing basketball, and Spanish girls, and possibly British girls including Sophie Preston with whom he exchanged hugs at the disco. I haven't read anything that claimed Guede hung out with American girls. What have I missed?

You missed, probably, the testimonies quoted by Mignini in his argument against Guede in 2008.

 

[Machiavelli]

I have a powerful perception every time I see that little green avatar here comes more BS
Did you avoid all phone cameras today

You are trying to call moderators in?

 

[Diocletus]

You can only find one Italian source which says "saxual rite".
But I can point out court documents that do say something else which is totally different and rules it out.
It's not that I am just asking to cite court evidence: I actually pointed to court documents which is evidence ".

LOL. You have neither read nor cited all of the transcripts, so it's laughable that you attempt such an absolute exclusion of miginis kooky halloween sex initiation wet dream.

We understand that it's embarrassing that Italian judges and prosecutors are behaving like a bunch of perverts, but if the shoe fits . . .

 

[andreajo]

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.

She obviously makes strong impressions on people. You, of course, believe that she killed Meredith which means that everything she says and does must appear false, callous, and infuriating in your eyes. I think that there must be more to it than just your belief in her guilt, since she appears to get under your skin more than the other two people who you believe are equally responsible for Meredith's death.

I don't see any reason to think she was involved in Meredith's murder and see only someone who is extremely earnest and trying hard do say and do right and honorable things. She sometimes misses the boat and rubs people the wrong way, which has hurt her badly throughout the investigation and trial proceedings.

Keep in mind that the people who really know her do not see her as a narcissistic liar. Consider the possibility that they may be right, and you might be mistaken.

 

[katy_did]

Where has the focus switched to extradition?

I just have a general, vague feeling that the real audience now is America - for example with this letter, it could well have been counter-productive in court (certainly it won't have had anywhere near the impact it would have had if Amanda herself had read it) but publicly it's probably been a success.

But like I said it's just a vague feeling with nothing concrete behind it, so I could very well be wrong (hope I am).

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

I'd guess that there was some discussion over whether to read Amanda's letter in court and what legal status it should have, and Nencini's remarks were made in that context. I do think he was right in what he said, and I can't really blame him for saying 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.

A video from Amanda would definitely have been better, I agree.

Although it's difficult to tell just from the Twitter and news reports, I agree with you that the defence arguments sounded disappointing today. Still, at least they served their main purpose - going on for long enough so that Bongiorno will make maximum impact opening the next hearing and saving the day for both of them, yet again...

 

[Machiavelli]

You don't see ANY reason? C'mon. I admit, it's not exactly the end all be all, but I find it hard to believe it doesn't raise ANY concern.

I think it's clear Nencini didn't like the thing. But actually what I've I noticed is that it is, specifically what Carlo Dalla Vedova does that irks Nencini or looks like an own goal.
Nencini pointd his finger at Dalla Vedova basically, saying "you are attributing these declarations to the defendant", and called this "irrituale".

irrituale = literally "not following the rite", in Italian it means "agaisnt the established practice".

It's a negative comment. I didn't perceive much enthusiasm about the initiative.
Moreover the letter basically insults the judges, calling them "blinded".