Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#5

[otto]

This states otherwise about Guede.

"Guede was already well known to police by the time he killed Miss Kercher. As well as being a drug dealer with a criminal record for minor drugs offences, he had been held in Milan in the weeks before the murder for an alleged theft. On that occasion, he broke into a school to hide from police and, significantly, had a knife in his hand when he was eventually arrested."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...245/Amanda-Knox-trial-Rudy-Guede-profile.html

And another one.

"But when police analyzed the crime scene, they found no DNA from Knox. Instead, they found DNA from someone else, a local drifter named Rudy Guede who had a criminal history of break-ins in Perguia and Milan."

http://abcnews.go.com/International...g-revenge-redemption/story?id=14623904&page=2

Thanks. I didn't know that Guede had a criminal record for a minor drug offense. Do you know if Sollecito had a criminal record for a minor drug offense as well? He had some interaction with police regarding drugs.

If Guede has a criminal record for a minor drug offense, would that make him more likely to commit murder than Sollecito and Knox, who should have criminal records for illegal drug offenses?

 

[redheadedgal]

I read that the last human interaction was 8:26 pm, IIRC. Let me see if I can find a link or something.

Of course, the computer activity will be "disputed" by the defense - that is a big deal to their case, big deal. Do you think something so central to his case as his alibi will not be "disputed." For this reason, I am not going to take the defense's "word" on this as the true fact. They have EVERY REASON to dispute it and frankly, distort it.

And who has more of an incentive to lie about that? The prosecution, or Raffaelo whose very libertyis on the line.

the defense requested new testing done on the computer and was denied... hmmm...

 

[geevee]

While I don't agree with whole article and her assumptions here. I have to say that while there are so many things that stand out to me in regards to theirs actions. The not flushing the toilet is a big one. IMO when you see a toilet unflushed in your home, you would simply flush it. No I don't think she's guilty based on that toilet, it just adds to list in my head.

It actually happened to me this morning. I went in my daughters bathroom and she hadn't flushed. I flushed it immediately, and left the room. The thought that it is strange to see a unflushed toilet in my house and I should leave it as possible evidence to prove something never crossed my mind. It boggles the mind.

I've given the dirty toilet some thought and why she wouldn't/didn't flush it. If she and MK didn't see eye to eye on housekeeping as I've read, then maybe she wanted to point it out -'see, I'm not the pig around here, someone else didn't flush' something like that. She certainly seemed upset about the unflushed toilet and most adults (and probably kids too) would just go ewww and flush without much other thought but if there was contention about cleanliness, maybe that's the only reason. I can't think of another reason except she just thought it was disgusting and someone else's job to flush.

 

[otto]

BBM

But who's lie is it? Since the computer information was destroyed and we have only the word of the ones that are prosecuting AK and RS, can we really trust it?

Page 308 of the Massei report is a discussion of defense team analysis of Sollecito's hard drive. They had access to the copy that was made of the drive - same as the prosecution.

 

[Amber29]

the opinion of an american investigator, professor, etc is undesirable, but the opinion of an american prosecutor should be valued and regurgitated here?

I guess you disagree with Juan Martinez when he says don't go beyond the evidence? Are you of the opinion that jurors should make up their own evidence that goes against what is said in court?

 

[redheadedgal]

I guess you disagree with Juan Martinez when he says don't go beyond the evidence? Are you of the opinion that jurors should make up their own evidence that goes against what is said in court?

1) i didn't follow the JA trial so anything quoted/selectively paraphrased from there really has no relevance to me
2) we can all cherry-pick phrases from various trials, lawyers, experts, etc. to defend our position, can't we?
3) answering a question with another question = obfuscation imo

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Obfuscation

 

[Amber29]

One point that Crini made today

"45. Knox spoke about a scream and a sexual violence before anyone knew. Sollecito said nothing was stolen before they knew."

I never even thought about amanda knowing Meredith had been sexually assaulted or sexual violence being involved before that was known.

 

[SMK]

One point that Crini made today

"45. Knox spoke about a scream and a sexual violence before anyone knew. Sollecito said nothing was stolen before they knew."

I never even thought about amanda knowing Meredith had been sexually assaulted or sexual violence being involved before that was known.

Yes, it does stand out. Although I suppose that there are those who could say it could be conjectured or inferred (she knew her roommate, a young female, had been killed. Being killed often involves screaming; girls are often sexually assaulted during robberies.) On the other hand, it does bespeak a certain knowledge of what did take place: A scream, a sex assault (or simulation of one).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I guess you disagree with Juan Martinez when he says don't go beyond the evidence? Are you of the opinion that jurors should make up their own evidence that goes against what is said in court?

I only wish that PM Mignini had been constrained in that way. As one lawyer put it: "During the summation, the prosecutor told the jury about the things Amanda Knox might have said to Meredith Kercher before the alleged drug-induced orgy that ended with her throat being slashed.

“You are always behaving like a little saint. Now we will show you. Now we will make you have sex.”

This would be a horrible thing to say, except that it never happened. No one says that such a statement was ever made. But summations in Perugia aren’t limited to evidence, as they are here. Rather, this is a permissible indulgence into fantasy, a made up dramatization of what the prosecutors contend might have happened. It’s used to inflame the jury. It’s what prosecutors try to do everywhere, except that there are no restrictions on such fabrications in Italy. Still, arousing passion gets a far better visceral response that appealing to reason. Reason requires evidence."

 

[SMK]

@Otto: Was wondering what you thought of Nadeau's piece, and especially this section: (posted page 29 here):

He focused much of his attention on forensic and circumstantial evidence against Knox, implying to some court watchers that perhaps he would be open to the possibility that Sollecito’s guilty verdict could be overturned and Knox’s upheld. Never in the more than five years of legal proceedings have we heard anything that has seemingly separated the two, but Crini’s focus is most certainly intended to mean that he thinks Knox is far more guilty than her erstwhile boyfriend.

 

[SMK]

I only wish that PM Mignini had been constrained in that way. As one lawyer put it: "During the summation, the prosecutor told the jury about the things Amanda Knox might have said to Meredith Kercher before the alleged drug-induced orgy that ended with her throat being slashed.

“You are always behaving like a little saint. Now we will show you. Now we will make you have sex.”

This would be a horrible thing to say, except that it never happened. No one says that such a statement was ever made. But summations in Perugia aren’t limited to evidence, as they are here. Rather, this is a permissible indulgence into fantasy, a made up dramatization of what the prosecutors contend might have happened. It’s used to inflame the jury. It’s what prosecutors try to do everywhere, except that there are no restrictions on such fabrications in Italy. Still, arousing passion gets a far better visceral response that appealing to reason. Reason requires evidence."

I agree that it was ridiculous to put such a phrase in a defendant's mouth. Bad enough, but it was so far-fetched. Yes, stick to the evidence, not conjecture and fantasy.
ETA: Although in all fairness to the Italians, prosecutors here also stray from the factual and empirical evidence and go off on flights of fancy ("the defendant knew this was his last chance; he had to show her, blah blah....")

 

[Footwarrior]

RS was asked during the 112 call if anything was stolen and he said no. Which is the right answer when you do not yet know of anything that has been stolen. In fact, things had been stolen. Meredith's cell phones, credit card, money and a sweatshirt were missing.

The guy that stole the sweatshirt admitted to having done so. And since he left his DNA on Meredith's purse, it's a good bet that he took the rest of her stuff.

 

[Amber29]

I only wish that PM Mignini had been constrained in that way. As one lawyer put it: "During the summation, the prosecutor told the jury about the things Amanda Knox might have said to Meredith Kercher before the alleged drug-induced orgy that ended with her throat being slashed.

“You are always behaving like a little saint. Now we will show you. Now we will make you have sex.”

This would be a horrible thing to say, except that it never happened. No one says that such a statement was ever made. But summations in Perugia aren’t limited to evidence, as they are here. Rather, this is a permissible indulgence into fantasy, a made up dramatization of what the prosecutors contend might have happened. It’s used to inflame the jury. It’s what prosecutors try to do everywhere, except that there are no restrictions on such fabrications in Italy. Still, arousing passion gets a far better visceral response that appealing to reason. Reason requires evidence."

And Jose Baez in his opening statements accused George Anthony of sexual molestation without an ounce of proof. Did it resonate with the jury? I'm sure, should he have been albe to do that, no.

 

[otto]

About the window and whether someone climbed in through the window, finally proof that it was raining on the night of the murder. The rain means that anyone climbing through the window should have left some evidence in mud below the window and evidence of mud in Filomina's bedroom.

"Curatolo è sicuro del suo ricordo e non basta dire che è un tossico per svalutarne la testimonianza - prosegue Crini - e il fatto che confonda una data con un'altra non è fondato, perché ha fatto confusione con la sera di Halloween, ma il ricordo è preciso per il fatto che ricorda come in quella sera (tra il 1 e il 2 novembre 2007) pioveva e in effetti pioveva la sera del delitto".

"Curatolo is sure of his memory and not enough to say that it is a toxic to devalue the testimony - Crini continues - and the fact that confuse a date with another is not well founded, because he mixed up the night of Halloween, but the memory is correct for the fact that remembers how in the evening (between 1 and 2 November 2007) it was raining and in fact it was raining the night of the murder. "

http://www.lanazione.it/firenze/cro...eredith-processo-accusa-sollecito-crini.shtml

 

[Amber29]

I agree that it was ridiculous to put such a phrase in a defendant's mouth. Bad enough, but it was so far-fetched. Yes, stick to the evidence, not conjecture and fantasy.
ETA: Although in all fairness to the Italians, prosecutors here also stray from the factual and empirical evidence and go off on flights of fancy ("the defendant knew this was his last chance; he had to show her, blah blah....")

Lawyers do these such things all the time, even if they know they will get objected. They know that once that bell is rung..

GM is no different than most lawyers in this situation and shouldn't be held to a higher standard.

 

[otto]

@Otto: Was wondering what you thought of Nadeau's piece, and especially this section: (posted page 29 here):

He focused much of his attention on forensic and circumstantial evidence against Knox, implying to some court watchers that perhaps he would be open to the possibility that Sollecito’s guilty verdict could be overturned and Knox’s upheld. Never in the more than five years of legal proceedings have we heard anything that has seemingly separated the two, but Crini’s focus is most certainly intended to mean that he thinks Knox is far more guilty than her erstwhile boyfriend.

My understanding is that he discusses Sollecito's involvement, but it sounds like Knox is still identified as the ring leader. It's hard to say whether that role distinction can influence the sentence. We still have to hear from the defense. I think that's where we'll learn whether the defense wants to separate the two in the same way.

 

[otto]

I'm not sure why Nadeau thinks that the prosecution is separating Knox and Sollecito. Although the emphasis does seem to be on circumstantial evidence related to Knox, Sollecito is tied to her throughout the night of the murder.

"Beyond that, continues Crini, "Knox spoke on the fact, slandering Patrick Lumumba, accusing him of being the murderer, then talking about a scream of a victim and sexual violence suffered by Meredith, data that can only be derived from the fact that it was the protagonist who knew the real facts. Segments of truth with which Amanda intersperses her slander." A slander, according to Crini, "with an intent by Knox to mislead." According to the reasoning of Crini (on the line of what was said by the Supreme Court) "if Knox accused Lumumba, even knowing he was totally alien to the crime, it is precisely because she was present at the crime scene and her presence can not be detached from that of Sollecito " .

http://www.lanazione.it/firenze/cro...eredith-processo-accusa-sollecito-crini.shtml

 

[SMK]

I'm not sure why Nadeau thinks that the prosecution is separating Knox and Sollecito. Although the emphasis does seem to be on circumstantial evidence related to Knox, Sollecito is tied to her throughout the night of the murder.

"Beyond that, continues Crini, "Knox spoke on the fact, slandering Patrick Lumumba, accusing him of being the murderer, then talking about a scream of a victim and sexual violence suffered by Meredith, data that can only be derived from the fact that it was the protagonist who knew the real facts. Segments of truth with which Amanda intersperses her slander." A slander, according to Crini, "with an intent by Knox to mislead." According to the reasoning of Crini (on the line of what was said by the Supreme Court) "if Knox accused Lumumba, even knowing he was totally alien to the crime, it is precisely because she was present at the crime scene and her presence can not be detached from that of Sollecito " .

http://www.lanazione.it/firenze/cro...eredith-processo-accusa-sollecito-crini.shtml

I agree - I did not get the sense that Sollecito might have his conviction overturned while Knox's would be upheld. Nadeau really leapt to a conclusion.

 

[geevee]

I remember hearing very early on that it was raining on the night of the murder, but could never find absolute verification of the fact. I think it is now a fact, and it means that anyone that climbed through the window would have had mud on his shoes and there should be mud in Filomina's bedroom. The complete absence of mud on the window ledge and in the bedroom almost eliminates possibility that anyone climbed in the window. The layer of glass on outside of the window sill also removes the possibility that someone climbed through the window.

Seems to me RG was a burglar who carried a knife, isn't it possible he threw the rock at the window, MK opened the door to see what happened and he entered through front door and sexually assaulted and killed her?

 

[Linda7NJ]

And Jose Baez in his opening statements accused George Anthony of sexual molestation without an ounce of proof. Did it resonate with the jury? I'm sure, should he have been albe to do that, no.

The way our justice system is set up Jose was perfectly within the bounds of the law when he made that statement.

It was a brilliant strategy. The prosecution never recovered the ball after that statement. IMO. Say what you will about Jose, he went to the mat for his client. He's one hell of a defense attorney.

Of course it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2