Amanda Knox New Motivation Report RE: Meredith Kercher Murder #1 *new trial ordered*

[Allusonz]

What's the general conscensus regarding the prosecution's appeal? Is it good? Will it end in a new trial, or will it merely be another stack on the mountain of paperwork in this case?

Not only an additional stack of prosecutors paper.

As well an additional burden for the taxpayers of Italy unfortunately.

I cannot see one point of law this could be overturned on.

 

[Sonata]

His prints were on her purse, but like he picked it up and placed it on her bed. I believe Meredith was using her other bag that evening... not the purse with the prints.

Can someone clarify something for me about this?

I am wondering whether the purse with the fingerprints was a purse as in wallet, or a bag. The reason I ask is that 'purse' has different connotations in English and American English. The British use purse to mean just the wallet. Americans often use purse to mean a whole bag.

I think it makes a difference to the understanding of the case. If she had used a different bag, and we are using purse in the American sense then there is no reason the money would be there. If we are using the UK meaning, then she would probably have just taken her purse in the other bag and so the money WOULD have been there.

Hope that made sense!!! :waitasec:

 

[Footwarrior]

Can someone clarify something for me about this?

I am wondering whether the purse with the fingerprints was a purse as in wallet, or a bag. The reason I ask is that 'purse' has different connotations in English and American English. The British use purse to mean just the wallet. Americans often use purse to mean a whole bag.

I think it makes a difference to the understanding of the case. If she had used a different bag, and we are using purse in the American sense then there is no reason the money would be there. If we are using the UK meaning, then she would probably have just taken her purse in the other bag and so the money WOULD have been there.

Hope that made sense!!! :waitasec:

DNA was found on the purse, not his fingerprints.

Sample 166A was a mix of Meredith and Guede's DNA found on the biege handbag that was sitting on the bed in Meredith's room. It's not known if Meredith's missing money, credit cards or keys had been in this purse. Guede's DNA was found on one side of the purse zipper in the middle of the opening. This is a good indication that he was had reached inside looking for something.

 

[Sonata]

DNA was found on the purse, not his fingerprints.

Sample 166A was a mix of Meredith and Guede's DNA found on the biege handbag that was sitting on the bed in Meredith's room. It's not known if Meredith's missing money, credit cards or keys had been in this purse. Guede's DNA was found on one side of the purse zipper in the middle of the opening. This is a good indication that he was had reached inside looking for something.

Thanks, so just to confirm, we're talking about a bag, yes?

 

[Footwarrior]

Thanks, so just to confirm, we're talking about a bag, yes?

Yes, specifically this bag.

 

[OldSteve]

Articles like this make me sick! It's the sort of stuff that was initially done to turn opinion against Amanda. Take a happy picture of Amanda and write whatever you want to make her look bad!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ucrative-book-deal-new-man-James-Terrano.html

 

[ohiogirl]

Nice to see her smiling, though.

 

[SMK]

From what I am hearing, and what I read in an Italian article, this appeal of the prosecution will be reviewed sometime "this year" behind closed doors for one day. I am wondering what can be accomplished in so short a time period. And I wonder why it cannot be accomplished sooner rather than later. If anyone knows anything more about this, I am all ears.

 

[Malkmus]

I think a misconception by some is that the SC will be reviewing all the evidence. It probably won't take very long to do what they are actually assigned to do, which is find any instances where the law was broken in the last trial. I believe one of the complaints listed by the prosecutor is that it was illegal to appoint the independent experts. This seems like a rather easy argument for the SC to address, and I will be surprised if something like that turns out to have been illegal.

 

[SMK]

I think a misconception by some is that the SC will be reviewing all the evidence. It probably won't take very long to do what they are actually assigned to do, which is find any instances where the law was broken in the last trial. I believe one of the complaints listed by the prosecutor is that it was illegal to appoint the independent experts. This seems like a rather easy argument for the SC to address, and I will be surprised if something like that turns out to have been illegal.

Thanks, Malkmus. I believe I also read on TJMK that Hellmann "broke Italian law" in his usage of "reasonable doubt". In fact, let me find the quote, as I am wondering if there is anything to it....:waitasec:
..............Here is the quote:

NOT ONE non-Italian media source has explained what we have reported in the four posts just below: that Dr Galati is stating that Judge Hellman BROKE ITALIAN LAW in two make-or-break respects. Judge Hellman is seen to have extended the appeals court’s terms of reference in ways that he is forbidden to do. And he introduced the DNA consultants which (as Mr Mignini several times argued) he was also forbidden to do.
Amanda Knox and Raffaele Solecito now face the fights of their lives. The last thing they need in this shark tank is a couple of biased self serving books “chock full of omissions” and anti-Italy smears.

They will almost certainly have to get up on the stand under oath and cross-examination and try to explain their scenario in a context where they each have contradicted and even accused one another. Their lawyers may be okay at trial or first appeal level but they are very outclassed by Dr Galati at this third level and it would seem the Knoxes, Mellases and Sollecitos would be best served to find new (very expensive) Supreme Court teams

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

 

[Malkmus]

Thanks, Malkmus. I believe I also read on TJMK that Hellmann "broke Italian law" in his usage of "reasonable doubt". In fact, let me find the quote, as I am wondering if there is anything to it....:waitasec:
..............Here is the quote:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

Okay, so it seems the two issues are the American references to DNA collection standards and the appointing of independent experts. I believe it won't take long to determine if any actual laws were broken in regards to this. The part about the Knox family needing good lawyers to combat the SC seems really out of place to me since I don't believe they would be able to argue the SC on their decision. MOO, and I could be wrong.

 

[SMK]

Okay, so it seems the two issues are the American references to DNA collection standards and the appointing of independent experts. I believe it won't take long to determine if any actual laws were broken in regards to this. The part about the Knox family needing good lawyers to combat the SC seems really out of place to me since I don't believe they would be able to argue the SC on their decision. MOO, and I could be wrong.

Yes, I see, thanks for your quick reply. Guess it had nothing to do with "reasonable doubt"--I think they had said that somewhere, but not in this particular post. Hope they are wrong on this RE Hellmann....:what:

 

[SMK]

@Malkmus: I thought Hellmann was supposed to appoint independent experts???

 

[RoseMontague]

The reasonable doubt quote was given when the appeal court ordered the new DNA testing. The court did not share the opinion of Massei on reasonable doubt. Massei chose to believe the prosecution experts over the defense experts and did not properly motivate that decision. That is where the reasonable doubt questions comes in. The appeal of RS puts it this way:

Naturally, in all judgments the exposition of the facts is an essential part of the provision. However, when one is faced with an in-depth illustration of hearings and witness testimonies (quotes which in this case are partial or inaccurate), whilst the space dedicated to the reasoning that guided the Judges to accept one theory rather than another is almost non-existent, this signifies that the judgment has not fulfilled its duty to explain its reasoning.
The imbalance between the exposition of evidence and reasoning requires that the provision be reprimanded because, alongside the extremely long summary of the trial, the enunciation of the choice to embrace one theory [rather than another] translates into a sort of act of faith in one of the various hypotheses under consideration.

It is obvious that Hellman agreed with this and that is the very simple motivation for the independent testing.

The claim by PQ that Amanda and Raffaele will get up and testify is just bizarre. There will be no testimony and no witnesses, the SC will simply review the legal nature of the first and second court's decisions.

 

[SMK]

The reasonable doubt quote was given when the appeal court ordered the new DNA testing. The court did not share the opinion of Massei on reasonable doubt. Massei chose to believe the prosecution experts over the defense experts and did not properly motivate that decision. That is where the reasonable doubt questions comes in. The appeal of RS puts it this way:



It is obvious that Hellman agreed with this and that is the very simple motivation for the independent testing.

The claim by PQ that Amanda and Raffaele will get up and testify is just bizarre. There will be no testimony and no witnesses, the SC will simply review the legal nature of the first and second court's decisions.

Yes, Quennell does seem to let his imagination run riot, doesn't he?

 

[Francisco]

From what I am hearing, and what I read in an Italian article, this appeal of the prosecution will be reviewed sometime "this year" behind closed doors for one day. I am wondering what can be accomplished in so short a time period. And I wonder why it cannot be accomplished sooner rather than later. If anyone knows anything more about this, I am all ears.

I believe the later rather than sooner issue is most likely a result of the court's schedule and not an indication of how long it will take to consider the appeal. Review of the case and consideration of the issues raised by the prosecution's appeal will certainly take much longer than a day. However, I suspect the "one day" comment was intended to suggest the appeal is essentially without merit and, as such, deliberations would be quick.

 

[RoseMontague]

I believe the later rather than sooner issue is most likely a result of the court's schedule and not an indication of how long it will take to consider the appeal. Review of the case and consideration of the issues raised by the prosecution's appeal will certainly take much longer than a day. However, I suspect the "one day" comment was intended to suggest the appeal is essentially without merit and, as such, deliberations would be quick.

The "one day" is for presentation of oral arguments by the lawyers. The court will have already reviewed the case file and any appeals. My understanding is that the in session court time is rarely more than one day, usually a verbal judgment is given no later than the next day and a written motivation provided in a month or two.

 

[Allusonz]

Thanks, Malkmus. I believe I also read on TJMK that Hellmann "broke Italian law" in his usage of "reasonable doubt". In fact, let me find the quote, as I am wondering if there is anything to it....:waitasec:
..............Here is the quote:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

I don't believe Quennell knows the meaning of reality...

 

[Allusonz]

The reasonable doubt quote was given when the appeal court ordered the new DNA testing. The court did not share the opinion of Massei on reasonable doubt. Massei chose to believe the prosecution experts over the defense experts and did not properly motivate that decision. That is where the reasonable doubt questions comes in. The appeal of RS puts it this way:



It is obvious that Hellman agreed with this and that is the very simple motivation for the independent testing.

The claim by PQ that Amanda and Raffaele will get up and testify is just bizarre. There will be no testimony and no witnesses, the SC will simply review the legal nature of the first and second court's decisions.

It does make me wonder if PLE will ever record their collection methods again

 

[Allusonz]

I believe the later rather than sooner issue is most likely a result of the court's schedule and not an indication of how long it will take to consider the appeal. Review of the case and consideration of the issues raised by the prosecution's appeal will certainly take much longer than a day. However, I suspect the "one day" comment was intended to suggest the appeal is essentially without merit and, as such, deliberations would be quick.

:welcome: