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

[Yellow]

Juan Martinez told the jury, "you are not supposed to speculate BEYOND what the evidence tells you." He also said, "you are not supposed to be investigators and try to find evidence that isn't there." He said, "you are to look at the facts which were presented to you in court, and only those facts, and come to a determination whether or not those facts point to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
***** I am paraphrasing him from memory from the Arias and Chrisman trials, but I'm pretty sure I came pretty close to what he actually said. Anyone who cares to check can look at the closing arguments in the Jodi Arias trial and the Richard Chrisman trial.

With the example of RS that was stated in your post, you are speculating on behalf of Raffaelo. That is pure speculation. Rather than look objectively at what he actually said, and what the computer and phone records actually show. You are also speculating about his state of mind. We are not supposed to speculate on "other things" they could have been doing unrelated to the crime. I am not talking about here on this thread, I'm responding to what you said in your posts, which is from the point-of-view of a jury in finding reasonable doubt. What is in evidence is what they said they were doing, which was at Raffaelo's place, eating, on the computer, having sex, then sleeping until 10 am. That is what is in the evidence of what they were doing at the time of the murder. Ambiguous, "other things" are not in evidence.

Same with the second paragraph. We are not supposed to speculate on what else she "could have done." We don't know whether she thought they would pin the murder on her or not. We don't know whether she felt guilty or not, in fact the evidence points more the other way (callous remarks).

And I guess the prosecution is not speculating when they say there was some sort of sex game gone wrong going on nor are they speculating about using a weapon that does not even have blood on it. Nor are they speculating about their being 2 murder weapons instead of one (maybe there is just one missing murder weapon that fits the cuts and has blood on it). Nor are they speculating that luminal prints in the home have a sinister implication as opposed to someone just walking barefoot in their own home.

I would not necessarily trust a prosecutor's explanation of what reasonable doubt is anyway. Of course, every jury knows not to speculate, but what they mean is they do not want the jury to speculate on scenarios and then accept those scenarios as fact that can be used to support the jury's verdict. Like in Scott Peterson, they did not want the jury speculating on how he killed her or how exactly he got her in the water - they only needed to decide whether he killed it, matter of death need not be decided. In that case there was a powerful motive and circumstantial evidence he wanted his wife gone.

Here it is in no way speculation because I am not saying those things definitely happened. I am just using those examples to say we just do not know what happened and that a completely innocent explanation can be explained by the facts in evidence, it is not speculation to say that one scenario is that they were simply not in the murder room because there is no reliable forensic evidence tying them to that room. No reliable DNA, no blood, nothing. The absence of evidence in a room coated with RG's evidence is very telling on who did the crime.

It is prosecution's burden not the defenses. And all I have ever seen from the prosecution is one scenario implying some sex game stitching together various people's statements about AK combined with some apparent inconsisenties in AK and RS and then to appease the fact they have nothing tying her to the actual murder, some DNA evidence that 2 dozen experts discredited.

We will see in a few weeks what the court finds and then ultimately what the higher courts agree with. Mignini IMO did himself no favors by going so over the top in his argument speculating about the sex. It just makes his case look all the more ridiculous. Not sure if he is done yet but maybe there will be more tomorrow.

 

[Yellow]

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

Technically, if Baez knew that he was playing a game and was not going to submit any evidence of sexual abuse, he could have been sanctioned. But it is almost impossible to prove that. He could have simply said I intended to put Casey on the stand to testify to that but then decided we did not need it.

Slimy tactic and it probably hurts a lawyer's reputation long term if they do such things, but it did work in the casey case by shifting the narrative.

 

[Amber29]

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

Yeh I know he was within the bounds of the law. My point was only that lawyers do nasty things, that can sway a jury.

 

[otto]

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?

That would certainly help in terms of explaining why there were no footprints beneath the window and no mud in the bedroom.

How likely is it that Meredith, home alone at night, would open the door after a 9 pound rock came flying through the window? Wouldn't a phone call for help be more likely?

 

[Amber29]

And I guess the prosecution is not speculating when they say there was some sort of sex game gone wrong going on nor are they speculating about using a weapon that does not even have blood on it. Nor are they speculating about their being 2 murder weapons instead of one (maybe there is just one missing murder weapon that fits the cuts and has blood on it). Nor are they speculating that luminal prints in the home have a sinister implication as opposed to someone just walking barefoot in their own home.

I would not necessarily trust a prosecutor's explanation of what reasonable doubt is anyway. Of course, every jury knows not to speculate, but what they mean is they do not want the jury to speculate on scenarios and then accept those scenarios as fact that can be used to support the jury's verdict. Like in Scott Peterson, they did not want the jury speculating on how he killed her or how exactly he got her in the water - they only needed to decide whether he killed it, matter of death need not be decided. In that case there was a powerful motive and circumstantial evidence he wanted his wife gone.

Here it is in no way speculation because I am not saying those things definitely happened. I am just using those examples to say we just do not know what happened and that a completely innocent explanation can be explained by the facts in evidence, it is not speculation to say that one scenario is that they were simply not in the murder room because there is no reliable forensic evidence tying them to that room. No reliable DNA, no blood, nothing. The absence of evidence in a room coated with RG's evidence is very telling on who did the crime.

It is prosecution's burden not the defenses. And all I have ever seen from the prosecution is one scenario implying some sex game stitching together various people's statements about AK combined with some apparent inconsisenties in AK and RS and then to appease the fact they have nothing tying her to the actual murder, some DNA evidence that 2 dozen experts discredited.

We will see in a few weeks what the court finds and then ultimately what the higher courts agree with. Mignini IMO did himself no favors by going so over the top in his argument speculating about the sex. It just makes his case look all the more ridiculous. Not sure if he is done yet but maybe there will be more tomorrow.

Well when a motive isn't crystal clear as some are, everyone attempting to come up with a motive is speculating. When putting together a scenario of how the crime happened, one is speculating as well. That is the task of the prosecutor, to look at the evidence and come up with what happened. I don't always agree with a prosecutors theory although I can agree on who committed the crime.

Mignini is no longer the prosecutor here though, it's Crini.

 

[SMK]

Knox says on her blog post today (Nov 25 2013) that her attorneys have filed an appeal of the slander conviction (calumnia charge re Patrick Lumumba ) with the European Court of Human Rights: (she says the police brought his name in and were coercing her)

http://www.amandaknox.com/blog/

 

[geevee]

That would certainly help in terms of explaining why there were no footprints beneath the window and no mud in the bedroom.

How likely is it that Meredith, home alone at night, would open the door after a 9 pound rock came flying through the window? Wouldn't a phone call for help be more likely?

Was the wet night and muddy ground brought up at trial?

 

[SMK]

Knox attorneys filing appeal of calumnia charge against Patrick

Knox says on her blog post today (Nov 25 2013) that her attorneys have filed an appeal of the slander conviction (calumnia charge re Patrick Lumumba ) with the European Court of Human Rights:

(she says the police brought his name in and were coercing her)

http://www.amandaknox.com/blog/

I was going to add onto this, that it strikes me as being(along with an earnest appeal for Amanda's human rights) a strategic move on the part of her attorneys.

The prosecution argued today that the accusation of Patrick Lumumba is a strong piece of evidence of guilt. The defense attorneys mean to make an end of this, and make it (rightly or wrongly) part of police coercion. If the ECHR decides the case has merit before Jan 10, it might influence the judges in their deliberations.

 

[Amber29]

I was going to add onto this, that it strikes me as being(along with an earnest appeal for Amanda's human rights) a strategic move on the part of her attorneys.

The prosecution argued today that the accusation of Patrick Lumumba is a strong piece of evidence of guilt. They mean to make an end of this, and make it (rightly or wrongly) part of police coercion. If the ECHR decides the case has merit before Jan 10, it might influence the judges in their deliberations.

I believe I've read that the ECHR is backed way up , so I doubt that they will get to hers before jan 10th but I think it sends a clear message that they will take this whole case that far. So in that way I think it is strategic in the timing of the announcement.

 

[otto]

Was the wet night and muddy ground brought up at trial?

I don't remember. What was brought up was that the broken window was a staged break-in. I'm not sure how many facts were introduced to demonstrate the staging.

 

[otto]

Knox says on her blog post today (Nov 25 2013) that her attorneys have filed an appeal of the slander conviction (calumnia charge re Patrick Lumumba ) with the European Court of Human Rights: (she says the police brought his name in and were coercing her)

http://www.amandaknox.com/blog/

Police didn't bring up his name. That's absurd. Knox should make a bigger effort to work with the truth.

 

[sherlockh]

Prosecutor is expected to ask for a life sentence for both. He is taking a lot of time to go through all the details. Are we looking at another delay for judgement day?
http://thefreelancedesk.com/front_featured/amanda-knox-appeal-2/

 

[whoanellie]

Knox says on her blog post today (Nov 25 2013) that her attorneys have filed an appeal of the slander conviction (calumnia charge re Patrick Lumumba ) with the European Court of Human Rights: (she says the police brought his name in and were coercing her)

http://www.amandaknox.com/blog/

Good for her. I hope she finds justice at the ECHR.

 

[SMK]

Prosecutor is expected to ask for a life sentence for both. He is taking a lot of time to go through all the details. Are we looking at another delay for judgement day?
http://thefreelancedesk.com/front_featured/amanda-knox-appeal-2/

Looks like it. She is right, though - they minced no words today. Thanks for linking this.

 

[SMK]

Was the wet night and muddy ground brought up at trial?

I believe there was some talk about the grass being very wet, and no real indication of footprints. I can't recall exactly when this was brought up, or if I am only remembering it from a forum :blushing:

 

[SMK]

Good for her. I hope she finds justice at the ECHR.

If they agree with her about the interrogation consisting of coercion, the language barrier, the lack of attorney, and in particular the special circumstances of not being informed of being considered a suspect , they may indeed be interested in rectifying the ruling of slander.

I also think this ECHR issue could effect a call (if necessary) for extradition. I think her attorneys are being quite strategic in this aspect.

 

[Nova]

But the problem is that Amanda told them she was killed by the wardrobe and not where she was found. She was questioned about it at court and couldn't explain how she would know that detail without witnessing the crime.

Are you sure AK said "killed by the wardrobe INSTEAD of where she was found"? Link please.

Because the bedrooms in that flat are so small that "by the wardrobe", "by the bed" and "by the door" are all within a few feet of each other. If AK merely said "by the wardrobe" it doesn't signify much.

 

[otto]

Are you sure AK said "killed by the wardrobe INSTEAD of where she was found"? Link please.

Because the bedrooms in that flat are so small that "by the wardrobe", "by the bed" and "by the door" are all within a few feet of each other. If AK merely said "by the wardrobe" it doesn't signify much.

"Small" seems rather relative and subjective. What are the dimensions of the bedroom?

 

[Myvice]

Are you sure AK said "killed by the wardrobe INSTEAD of where she was found"? Link please.

Because the bedrooms in that flat are so small that "by the wardrobe", "by the bed" and "by the door" are all within a few feet of each other. If AK merely said "by the wardrobe" it doesn't signify much.

I linked it at post 566 of this thread. She was also questioned about it and had no explanation.

It was Merideth's friend Butterfield that was testifying.

 

[Nova]

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.

Anyone who has ever seen a LIFETIME Movie could have guessed as much.