• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Samson said:
Best post ever I think. Succinct.
Click to expand...

I didn't get it, actually. :o

I understood the reference to Di Felice's November 8th statement, but otherwise I was lost. Is there some humour there someone from a place with a cool accent might get that a Yank might not?
 
Verdict due 10 AM central standard time.

Raffaele pictured in court (couldn't upload photo--too big) looking pretty calm. One picture looked like Maresca appearing bored.
 
Rats! I fell asleep and missed the streaming.

I'm glad to hear the jury was attentive. Last time, Maresca acted out boredom to the point of rudeness while Amanda and Raff were addressing the court. Good to know he's doing it again: maybe it means the same verdict.

*********************
Here are Mach's tweets (from earlier to later) without the timestamps:
*********************

Let's make a short summary.

Dalla Vedova's talking lasted a short time, and not very orderly.

DV focused on evidence assessment procedure, quoted SC rulings.

D.V. emphasized the single pieces of evidence should be assessed each one in parceled out, atomized way before considering the whole

D.V. says believes there are other Supreme Court rulings in his favor.

Dalla Vedova asked acquittal, did not specify, whereas Ghirga instead, talking later, invoked reasonable doubt.

Ghirga recalled a small number of details of physical evidence and autopsy.

Ghirga talked about: Meredith's blue sweater, an echimosis at back of her head, DNA laboratories and Stefanoni's quantization

Ghirga: Meredith's blue sweater was removed before fatal stabbing, as for Torre's opinion. Admitas he disagrees with Sollecito's defence.

Says bruise at back of head is compatible with frotal fight against single aggerssor (disagreement with Introna on this too)

Ghirga: cited the claims about picograms, said amount is not the point, the problem is test repetition and other conditions

Said no blood on knife because of negative TMB and blood confirmatory tests.

In point of law: Ghirga said evidence must be considered as a whole in compliance with SC, but assessment should find reasonable doubt

Ghirga emphasized discretional power of the court. Said they have big power to acquit.

Said because of the greatness of their power they should acknowledge reasonable doubt.
 
anglolawyer said:
You are a genius. Kaosium is a knucklehead.


:D ETA I had better add some emoticons to that in order not to give offence! Just kidding Kaosium! :)
Click to expand...

Heh, no. I got it, I like British Humour. When I get it.

I didn't get the Rudy 'buckled' post, I'm afraid I missed something funny! :eek:

If he 'buckles' and says Amanda and Raffaele weren't involved, (again) he'll just say it was the left-handed Italian, or the fat guy who fled to England, or whatever. Anything but what (very likely) happened.
 
Wildhorses said:
Rats! I fell asleep and missed the streaming.

I'm glad to hear the jury was attentive. Last time, Maresca acted out boredom to the point of rudeness while Amanda and Raff were addressing the court. Good to know he's doing it again: maybe it means the same verdict.

*********************
Here are Mach's tweets (from earlier to later) without the timestamps:
*********************

Let's make a short summary.

Dalla Vedova's talking lasted a short time, and not very orderly.

DV focused on evidence assessment procedure, quoted SC rulings.

D.V. emphasized the single pieces of evidence should be assessed each one in parceled out, atomized way before considering the whole

D.V. says believes there are other Supreme Court rulings in his favor.

Dalla Vedova asked acquittal, did not specify, whereas Ghirga instead, talking later, invoked reasonable doubt.

Ghirga recalled a small number of details of physical evidence and autopsy.

Ghirga talked about: Meredith's blue sweater, an echimosis at back of her head, DNA laboratories and Stefanoni's quantization

Ghirga: Meredith's blue sweater was removed before fatal stabbing, as for Torre's opinion. Admitas he disagrees with Sollecito's defence.

Says bruise at back of head is compatible with frotal fight against single aggerssor (disagreement with Introna on this too)

Ghirga: cited the claims about picograms, said amount is not the point, the problem is test repetition and other conditions

Said no blood on knife because of negative TMB and blood confirmatory tests.

In point of law: Ghirga said evidence must be considered as a whole in compliance with SC, but assessment should find reasonable doubt

Ghirga emphasized discretional power of the court. Said they have big power to acquit.

Said because of the greatness of their power they should acknowledge reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

Ugh. That's not filling me with any great confidence. Machiavelli's version of the defense close is not inspiring.
 
RWVBWL said:
Asked whether she would see a guilty verdict as certain guilt:
"The doubts will always be the same. In some way in my heart doubts will remain, it's obvious, but we can only accept what the judges tell us and no matter what respect Italian Justice."
"
Click to expand...

It sounds like Stephanie Kercher believes there is reasonable doubt - quite a headline for today 'sister of Meredith Kercher claims she has doubts that Knox is guilty'
 
Last edited:
Last time, the press interviewed the family immediately after the verdict. A reporter asked if they were planning to appeal. Stephanie spoke up and said, NO. She said something to the effect of "let's be done with the court room and move on."

Maresca took over and said of course they'd appeal.

That teeny glance of Stephanie made me think she's not as hung up on blaming AK/RS.
 
Kaosium said:
Ugh. That's not filling me with any great confidence. Machiavelli's version of the defense close is not inspiring.
Click to expand...

I doubt the close matters.

Well, I still would have liked them to give a powerpoint presentation with a point-by-point rebuttal of all lunacy. Short of that, it prob doesn't matter.

I am ever so cheered up by Raff being there. (Or maybe I'm just sleep deprived.) He's looking good in a purple v-neck. He outgrew that Harry Potter look.

I can't imagine him going without having been given some assurance he won't be hauled off in a paddy wagon.
 
NancyS said:
It sounds like Stephanie Kercher believes there is reasonable doubt - quite a headline for today 'sister of Meredith Kercher claims she has doubts that Knox is guilty'
Click to expand...
Wildhorses said:
Last time, the press interviewed the family immediately after the verdict. A reporter asked if they were planning to appeal. Stephanie spoke up and said, NO. She said something to the effect of "let's be done with the court room and move on."
Maresca took over and said of course they'd appeal.
That teeny glance of Stephanie made me think she's not as hung up on blaming AK/RS.
Click to expand...
Interesting, my interpretation of the translated article was that she is side stepping any controversial questions and leaving it to the court, her focus unsurprisingly is on her sister. As for this appeal, it is part of an automatic process; it is Raffaele and Amanda’s appeal against the verdict of the 1st level trial.
 
Wildhorses said:
Last time, the press interviewed the family immediately after the verdict. A reporter asked if they were planning to appeal. Stephanie spoke up and said, NO. She said something to the effect of "let's be done with the court room and move on."

Maresca took over and said of course they'd appeal.

That teeny glance of Stephanie made me think she's not as hung up on blaming AK/RS.
Click to expand...

Worth remembering that Maresca is not Stephanie's lawyer. Or he was not last time I looked. Now I wonder why not?
 
CoulsdonUK said:
Interesting, my interpretation of the translated article was that she is side stepping any controversial questions and leaving it to the court, her focus unsurprisingly is on her sister. As for this appeal, it is part of an automatic process; it is Raffaele and Amanda’s appeal against the verdict of the 1st level trial.
Click to expand...

I agree with your interpretation. In general, Stephanie speaks carefully and avoids controversy. I read that article as more of the same.

But I do believe I caught a glimpse of her with her guard down. Maybe I'm wrong. I've never heard anyone mention it.

The Kerchers didn't have to continue the civil case. I don't recall the exact words used in the post-verdict interview. All I know is Stephanie briefly indicated she was willing to be done with the mess -- and she was interrupted by Maresca.
 
Kaosium said:
Ugh. That's not filling me with any great confidence. Machiavelli's version of the defense close is not inspiring.
Click to expand...

A source that was there also said DV asked the court why convict two innocent people to protect institutions, and asked what are we doing here? I am told there was complete silence in the court at that one. He also covered yet again, Rudy's history of break ins.
 
CoulsdonUK said:
As for this appeal, it is part of an automatic process; it is Raffaele and Amanda’s appeal against the verdict of the 1st level trial.
Click to expand...
You are confused. Amanda's appeal was rejected. Raffaele did not file an appeal for this round. The current trial was ordered by Cassation after the court accepted Galati's appeal and quashed the bulk of Hellmann's judgement. The 'automatic' three round process ended last March.

In no way can the current process be interpreted as Raffaele and Amanda appealing the 1st level judgement. I don't even know why the PGP have even been pushing this particular angle: it just makes it obvious they're trying to paper over some inconvenient truths about the fairness of the process.
 
RoseMontague said:
A source that was there also said DV asked the court why convict two innocent people to protect institutions, and asked what are we doing here? I am told there was complete silence in the court at that one. He also covered yet again, Rudy's history of break ins.
Click to expand...

Barbie mentioned that. Didn't mention the silence. Or the break ins.

Barbie Latza Nadeau ‏@BLNadeau 4h

#amandaknox says you can't put two innocent people in jail to cover up mistakes of judicial system.
 
Wildhorses said:
I don't understand. Isn't he the lawyer for the Kercher family? Does not the Kercher family include Stephanie?
Click to expand...

Stephanie hired her own lawyer, separately from the rest of the family. I don't know whether nor when that arrangement ended. Somebody here will pipe up shortly and tell us who that lawyer was,
 
RoseMontague said:
A source that was there also said DV asked the court why convict two innocent people to protect institutions, and asked what are we doing here? I am told there was complete silence in the court at that one. He also covered yet again, Rudy's history of break ins.
Click to expand...

The smoke signals don't seem to bode well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom