Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL* #2

[SMK]

I think much of the confusion, for me at least, is that the 2 sides (pro and contra guilt) interpret the court findings in so diverse a manner.

An article such as Dempseys which appeared yesterday definitely makes you doubt what you were reading elsewhere (such as TJMK, where they believe the finding was a huge blow to the defense):

<modsnip>
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2...r-amanda-knox-victims-dna-not-found-on-knife/

I really hope the discussion on Nov. 6 will clear this up, and that the case will wrap soon after (as the appeal process is supposed to be a brief one).

 

[rashomon]

We have lots of data. Lots of case files are online, and many have even been translated into English.

But didn't experts also argue that Meredith's fatal wounds were caused by a smaller (switchblade-type) knife?
In addition, the knife from the kitchen drawer did not match the bloddy imprint of the knife found on Meredith's bedsheet.
And why should (of all people!) Sollecito, who probably possessed a whole collection of switchblade knives, instead have suggested to Amanda that she take that unpractical kitchen knife over to via della Pergola on that night?
And no doubt Knox knew about Raffaele's collection of knives - so why didn't she just take one of RS' weapons over there?

 

[SMK]

Thankfully, it ought to be made clear and wrapped within a reasonable time-frame:

Trial dates:

• Nov. 6,
• Nov. 25,
• Nov. 26 (possible verdict).

Maxi-courtroom 32, Palazzo di Giustizia,
Novoli neighbourhood, Florence, Italy.

 

[sherlockh]

It's not the appeal that indicates it but the result of the appeal regardless of the annulment.

That is the problem then. You can't draw any conclusions from an appeal courts reasoning that was against the law. An appeal decision without evaluating all the evidence is worthless. As it stands the evidence is complete, and the annulment indicates that the previous court messed up. That is all it indicates

 

[sherlockh]

But didn't experts also argue that Meredith's fatal wounds were caused by a smaller (switchblade-type) knife?
In addition, the knife from the kitchen drawer did not match the bloddy imprint of the knife found on Meredith's bedsheet.
And why should (of all people!) Sollecito, who probably possessed a whole collection of switchblade knives, instead have suggested to Amanda that she take that unpractical kitchen knife over to via della Pergola on that night?
And no doubt Knox knew about Raffaele's collection of knives - so why didn't she just take one of RS' weapons over there?

The fatal wound matched the kitchen knife. The smaller wounds at the opposite side of Meredith's neck matched a smaller knife like the one with the outline on the bed. The defense argued that one smaller knife could have made all the wounds if it was used as a saw for the big wound. I don't know why they took the knife over there. That is speculation

 

[Sonata]

That is the problem then. You can't draw any conclusions from an appeal courts reasoning that was against the law. An appeal decision without evaluating all the evidence is worthless. As it stands the evidence is complete, and the annulment indicates that the previous court messed up. That is all it indicates

I think you and I are just on completely different pages. I want to be open about this whole case because it takes much more certainty to make me convinced beyond doubt.

 

[otto]

I disagree. The appeals and annulment are directly related to difficulties involving the evidence. That was the basis of the release of AK and RS. And it is not that normal for things to bat back and forth quite so much in a murder trial. Appeals are quite usual, but release and potential re-incarceration are not.

If the evidence was so complete, then an appeal would not have resulted in a totally different outcome.

To suggest that it is not normal for a trial to have prolonged debate in Italy surprises me. Let's look at the case against Knox for the false accusation against Patrick. The case was heard and she was convicted. She appealed that conviction. Does that mean that there were problems with the evidence, or does it simply mean that Knox had the right to appeal and that she pursued that option? I believe it is the latter. Her appeal was heard. That seems fair. The appeal court confirmed her conviction.

One would expect that the matter was closed. She had to pay her financial debt and that would be the end of it. She did not pay that debt, and instead fled the country and ignored her obligation. The appeal is now being heard again, due to the annulment. Because Knox failed to pay her debt, Patrick was given the opportunity to be heard again. Does this mean that there are problems with the evidence? Not at all. It means that Knox continues to violate the order of the court.

Knox is directly responsible for dragging out justice for Patrick and it has nothing to do with the evidence.

Regarding the right of the prosecution to appeal a verdict, one need only look north of the border to the second largest country in the world (after Russia) and find the very same legal right: the prosecution can appeal any verdict. What has happened in Italy may seem strange to some, but it is a rather common practice outside of the US. Is the Canadian legal system so strange and foreign that it should be held up as medieval, unjust, and run by lunatics? I think not.

 

[Sonata]

Is the Canadian legal system so strange and foreign that it should be held up as medieval, unjust, and run by lunatics? I think not.

Who said anything like this?!

:banghead:

 

[Sonata]

To suggest that it is not normal for a trial to have prolonged debate in Italy surprises me. Let's look at the case against Knox for the false accusation against Patrick. The case was heard and she was convicted. She appealed that conviction. Does that mean that there were problems with the evidence, or does it simply mean that Knox had the right to appeal and that she pursued that option? I believe it is the latter. Her appeal was heard. That seems fair. The appeal court confirmed her conviction.

One would expect that the matter was closed. She had to pay her financial debt and that would be the end of it. She did not pay that debt, and instead fled the country and ignored her obligation. The appeal is now being heard again, due to the annulment. Because Knox failed to pay her debt, Patrick was given the opportunity to be heard again. Does this mean that there are problems with the evidence? Not at all. It means that Knox continues to violate the order of the court.

Knox is directly responsible for dragging out justice for Patrick and it has nothing to do with the evidence.

Regarding the right of the prosecution to appeal a verdict, one need only look north of the border to the second largest country in the world (after Russia) and find the very same legal right: the prosecution can appeal any verdict. What has happened in Italy may seem strange to some, but it is a rather common practice outside of the US. Is the Canadian legal system so strange and foreign that it should be held up as medieval, unjust, and run by lunatics? I think not.

I'm not sure I understand where your assertion about the efficiency and legitimacy of various legal systems being questioned comes from. I have never said anything in criticism of the legal system.

All I am saying is that there seem to be enough gaps in our knowledge about the evidence to result in two different verdicts at different times. I don't understand how that can be called into question. They were imprisoned, they were released, now there is talk of imprisonment again.

 

[Linda7NJ]

To suggest that it is not normal for a trial to have prolonged debate in Italy surprises me. Let's look at the case against Knox for the false accusation against Patrick. The case was heard and she was convicted. She appealed that conviction. Does that mean that there were problems with the evidence, or does it simply mean that Knox had the right to appeal and that she pursued that option? I believe it is the latter. Her appeal was heard. That seems fair. The appeal court confirmed her conviction.

One would expect that the matter was closed. She had to pay her financial debt and that would be the end of it. She did not pay that debt, and instead fled the country and ignored her obligation. The appeal is now being heard again, due to the annulment. Because Knox failed to pay her debt, Patrick was given the opportunity to be heard again. Does this mean that there are problems with the evidence? Not at all. It means that Knox continues to violate the order of the court.

Knox is directly responsible for dragging out justice for Patrick and it has nothing to do with the evidence.

Regarding the right of the prosecution to appeal a verdict, one need only look north of the border to the second largest country in the world (after Russia) and find the very same legal right: the prosecution can appeal any verdict. What has happened in Italy may seem strange to some, but it is a rather common practice outside of the US. Is the Canadian legal system so strange and foreign that it should be held up as medieval, unjust, and run by lunatics? I think not.

It would seem they are more concerned with finding the truth of the matter than anything else. I like it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Sonata]

It would seem they are more concerned with finding the truth of the matter than anything else. I like it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

I think that's absolutely right.

My point is that the truth seems to be very difficult to find and be sure of.

 

[rashomon]

The fatal wound matched the kitchen knife.

Luminol can reveal minuscule amounts of blood even after an item has been cleaned.
In case the knife was the murder weapon: shouldn't it have tested positive for blood then?

 

[otto]

Who said anything like this?!


:banghead:

I'm not sure I understand where your assertion about the efficiency and legitimacy of various legal systems being questioned comes from. I have never said anything in criticism of the legal system.

All I am saying is that there seem to be enough gaps in our knowledge about the evidence to result in two different verdicts at different times. I don't understand how that can be called into question. They were imprisoned, they were released, now there is talk of imprisonment again.

They were convicted and put in prison. They appealed. Hellman's annulled ruling resulted in their release from prison. The prosecution appealed that ruling. This is a legitimate legal process, but there is a lot of objection because it can mean that a convicted felon can be returned to prison.

There seems to be a lot of confusion and objection regarding the fact that the prosecution had the right to appeal Hellman's decision. That process is not confusing. It is common practice in the second largest country in the world (after Russia). It is common practice in the country just North of the border. I fail to understand how there can be such a protest regarding a legal process in Italy when that same legal process is commonly practiced in Canada.

Based on the objection to the legal right of the prosecution to appeal any verdict, one almost gets the impression that it is a completely crazy thing that only lunatic Italians do. It is not. In the US, if the jury gets it wrong (OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony, etc.), that murderer is free to victimize others and no one can do anything about it. Some may find that practice a bit crazy.

 

[otto]

I think that's absolutely right.

My point is that the truth seems to be very difficult to find and be sure of.

At the very least, no one can complain that there was a rush to judgement or that Knox did not have an opportunity to present her position to the courts. She has a very capable legal team, so if the verdict is not in her favor, no one can suggest that her rights were violated.

 

[Linda7NJ]

They were convicted and put in prison. They appealed. Hellman's annulled ruling resulted in their release from prison. The prosecution appealed that ruling. This is a legitimate legal process, but there is a lot of objection because it can mean that a convicted felon can be returned to prison.

There seems to be a lot of confusion and objection regarding the fact that the prosecution had the right to appeal Hellman's decision. That process is not confusing. It is common practice in the second largest country in the world (after Russia). It is common practice in the country just North of the border. I fail to understand how there can be such a protest regarding a legal process in Italy when that same legal process is commonly practiced in Canada.

Based on the objection to the legal right of the prosecution to appeal any verdict, one almost gets the impression that it is a completely crazy thing that only lunatic Italians do. It is not. In the US, if the jury gets it wrong (OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony, etc.), that murderer is free to victimize others and no one can do anything about it. Some may find that practice a bit crazy.

Count me among those that believe double jeopardy is oftentimes disastrous as is putting the rights of the accused ABOVE the rights of victims.

IMO there needs to be a balance and the focus should be less about winning and more about getting to the truth of the matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Sonata]

They were convicted and put in prison. They appealed. Hellman's annulled ruling resulted in their release from prison. The prosecution appealed that ruling. This is a legitimate legal process, but there is a lot of objection because it can mean that a convicted felon can be returned to prison.

There seems to be a lot of confusion and objection regarding the fact that the prosecution had the right to appeal Hellman's decision. That process is not confusing. It is common practice in the second largest country in the world (after Russia). It is common practice in the country just North of the border. I fail to understand how there can be such a protest regarding a legal process in Italy when that same legal process is commonly practiced in Canada.

Based on the objection to the legal right of the prosecution to appeal any verdict, one almost gets the impression that it is a completely crazy thing that only lunatic Italians do. It is not. In the US, if the jury gets it wrong (OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony, etc.), that murderer is free to victimize others and no one can do anything about it. Some may find that practice a bit crazy.

Did you read the post you are responding to? Because it seems as if you are still implying that I have an objection to the legal process which I have been incredibly clear about not faulting.

Also, I live in the UK, just FYI.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The fatal wound matched the kitchen knife.

"Matched" is too strong a word, but I might go with compatible. What Professor Bacchi testified to in cross examination was different, and he was a prosecution witness. "However, Sollecito’s lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno, said that under cross-examination Dr Bacci had also admitted it was possible the wounds could have been caused by smaller knives." The defense witnesses were a little more emphatic, IIRC, saying in effect that any sharp knife could have been responsible for the slash wound.

 

[sherlockh]

Luminol can reveal minuscule amounts of blood even after an item has been cleaned.
In case the knife was the murder weapon: shouldn't it have tested positive for blood then?

I don't think they used Luminol on the knife but another tester (the Massei report doesn't say which tester). They only used a small portion of the sample for blood testing because the DNA test was more important. Blood was not detected but it could also not be excluded that the DNA came from blood. Either way, Meredith's DNA doesn't belong on the tip of a knife in an apartment where she had never been.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Now we know that there is DNA on the knife. Soon we'll learn whose it is. One thing we now know is that the Conti and Vecchiotti conclusions were completely wrong.

No, Conti and Vecchiotti found the DNA that is now being tested, and yet they drew the conclusions that they did (correctly IMO). The presence of Knox's DNA and other organic matter on the blade reinforces the notion that the knife had not been carefully cleaned.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I don't think they used Luminol on the knife but another tester (the Massei report doesn't say which tester). They only used a small portion of the sample for blood testing because the DNA test was more important. Blood was not detected but it could also not be excluded that the DNA came from blood. Either way, Meredith's DNA doesn't belong on the tip of a knife in an apartment where she had never been.

They used TMB, and the knife has now been tested several times for blood and always gives a negative result. Nor did Lukis Anderson's DNA have any business being on Ravi Kumra's fingernails. No one knows the route of transmission, BTW.