Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#10

[SMK]

I agree with LJ wholeheartedly about it. Of course the defence is not obliged to solve the crime, in the ideal world they shouldn't have to prove anything, just show the obvious reasonable doubt.

Yet, what we're dealing with here is the very specific instructions given by the supreme court considering the elements of the case that require explanation and / or additional examination in the SC's view.

The defence shouldn't count on the judge to write it all by himself. They should present a detailed reasoning answering all of the SC issues as a blueprint for the judge.

This includes showing how the additional evidence that were not presented in Guede's trial shows that the finding of Guede's trial about multiple assailants is wrong.

BBM - Do you think Sollectio Defense summation will argue this way on Jan 9?

 

[Katody]

Well, I did notice that a lot of the points she makes are taken from the wiki (same place I got my info) and that some of it really can be refuted. I will grant you that.

This organized campaign of disinformation is very disturbing. I've never witnessed something like that.
The very idea that the prosecution whose unconstrained power and funds are incomparable to the limited resources of the defendants needs some kind of help from the... let's say, popular volunteer movement is simply mindboggling.

 

[SMK]

Just to change the topic but I'm curious what people make of the fact Stefano in his witness statement Nov 4 told the cops about Guede and his toilet habits and they must have known a very similar break-in to the cottage had occurred just two weeks earlier at the law office.

They knew by Nov 6 the DNA from the vaginal swab and poo didn't match Amanda, Raffaele, Patrick.

Any thoughts?

I think many people believe that all this info you state above ought to have led the police and media to focus on Guede as the sole perpetrator, and dismiss Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba as being a mistake. (I have seen police do this kind of thing in other cases; admit that the trail went cold and they have switched to another focus).

IMO I believe Mignini could not get over the fact that in his presence, Amanda cried, covered her ears , said "it could have been true" : He became convinced that she had been present, and a witness to murder. His professional experience could not dismiss this.

 

[SMK]

This organized campaign of disinformation is very disturbing. I've never witnessed something like that.
The very idea that the prosecution whose unconstrained power and funds are incomparable to the limited resources of the defendants needs some kind of help from the... let's say, popular volunteer movement is simply mindboggling.

Yes. I will be the first to admit that I was very, very disappointed to find that the Wiki was not the neutral press package I had thought it was. I suppose to their reasoning they are trying to wage counter-measures against the Marriot campaign, by calmly and objectively showing the facts, which is fair enough.

But it is upsetting (and weakened my belief in guilt, although I am open to it as I had not been hitherto) to find that they are still listing points that were refuted or were dropped by Massei and the prosecution (ie, who returned to the cottage and moved the body after death? has been dismissed, does not appear in Massei and Crini doesn't mention it, but still appears as a huge talking point on the Wiki)

 

[Katody]

I guess you have a point there:

If these things stand in the SC with Guede's case, then the points cannot simply be changed or dismissed, legally.

A pro-innocence poster did say that unless the court believes in a sole attacker, Knox and Sollecito are sunk. I myself don't know if the lay judges could believe Guede acted with others who are not these defendants. I guess it depends. Hellmann seemed in his reasoning to be believing in a sole attacker despite prior rulings.

It's Guede's verdict that needs revision, because new evidence exists that wasn't considered in his case. Guede's trial found not some anonymous co-authors of the crime, but pointed directly at Amanda and Raffaele (It's written openly in Guede's motivation).

The idea that some verdict that the defendants were not able to contest or appeal decides about their guilt is against basic human rights.

 

[MichaelSmith]

You likely won't see the defense argue a lone wolf theory. RGs conviction is considered definate and it was said he acted with others. The SCC has ruled on this. Hellmann was partly turned over for not considering RGs supreme ruling.

He also was not convicted of breaking and entering because they considered it staged.

That's like that saying Soviet era courts ruled this or that. Who cares what they ruled? It's a bankrupt banana republic with kangaroo courts and byzantine legal system.

I couldn't care less if they say Aviello's brother did it with Rudy....This is such a farce, they just might.

 

[Katody]

BBM - Do you think Sollectio Defense summation will argue this way on Jan 9?

I think so.
Amanda's lawyers concentrated on the origins of the miscarriage of justice. I.e. the error that the investigators fell into because of their haste and not waiting for the forensic evidence. The jurors must understand what really happened, must have the full picture and the investigative error is the important part of it.

The explanation of the crime, the actual scenario as told by the forensic evidence will come with Bongiorno's argument, I think.

There's also the new computer logs evidence filed at the beginning of the trial. I don't think the prosecution or the horde of civil accusers tackled this. I think we'll here about it more.

 

[aa9511]

I'm not sure the phones were tested for blood.
Anyway I think if he washed his hands in Meredith's bathroom or even wiped them before taking the phones there would be no visible blood on them.

I think it's possible Guede threw the phones away in panic because he was spooked by the incoming message signal. He remembered how he was previously caught with stolen phones from the attorney's office and realized it would be much worse if they caught him with items linked to murder.

But how would that explain the time, then? Because didn't the call come in at 12-something, and in lone-wolf Rudy, the murder would have happened around 9:20 or something like that? So why would he have been wandering the streets for 2+ hours?

Also, I think regarding the stolen's phone from the other break-in, it would have taught him to just take the SIM cards out.

 

[Katody]

But how would that explain the time, then? Because didn't the call come in at 12-something, and in lone-wolf Rudy, the murder would have happened around 9:20 or something like that? So why would he have been wandering the streets for 2+ hours?

Also, I think regarding the stolen's phone from the other break-in, it would have taught him to just take the SIM cards out.

As for the first point, there was an MMS connection at 22:13 (look at Massei).
The phones were already in Guede's hands. (activity recorded in phone's memory at 21:58 and 22:00). The phone connected to a different tower, indicating that it was already away from the villa.

As for the second point:
The lawyer's phone was simply visually recognized because Guede had been caught with it. They didn't trace the phone, removing the SIM wouldn't do anything.
Also, removing SIM card doesn't help because the phone still is identifiable by IMEI and can be traced. Trying to sell or use phones linked to murder would be very bad idea.

 

[aa9511]

I'm sorry Sometimes my memory fails me -

I really had forgotten that this was asked and answered, so sorry :blushing:-

that is a good explanation, and thanks again.:loveyou:

LOL....it's ok, SMK, you're so kind! :loveyou:

 

[aa9511]

A point I have also seen brought up on other forums, and which strikes me as important , too: The idea that the best defense for Knox and Sollecito is the court being convinced (despite prior rulings) of a sole attacker;

if Guede "acted with others" these others will be presumed to be Knox and Sollecito.

Anyone agree or disagree?

Yes, exactly, SMK. Because there would have been evidence of these "others", like footprints, etc.. The only way would be if these "other" friends did a clean-up, and that would be impossible, IMO. Also, why would they leave Rudy's evidence?

So did the defense lay out a clear sole-Rudy theory in the trial?

 

[aa9511]

<modsnip>

These are my thoughts as well. It has always been said that RS has the best lawyer, so we will see.

I completely agree about keeping quiet and I have always felt the books were premature. Especially considering they both embellished the stories for the books.

I do think Raffaele is a lot more "street-smart" than Amanda is. Maybe it's his father and his sister giving him the advice, that would make total sense, his sister having been in the Cabinieri.

He's said quite a few things suspect, but not to the extent Amanda has, IMO.

He seems to have kind of "played" the system far better than Amanda has.

JMO.

 

[aa9511]

I get the feeling that with Knox's book (I may be wrong), the thought was that Hellmann's acquittal would be upheld by the supreme court, and that the prosecution would allow it to be rubber-stamped and over.

Well, really, this was her chance, now wasn't it? Before this latest trial began, where after that her future would be uncertain. This was THE chance for her to write the book.

If I had a chance to make millions, and that chance might be gone soon, oh boy you bet I'd take the chance at that time and not wait.

 

[aa9511]

You likely won't see the defense argue a lone wolf theory. RGs conviction is considered definate and it was said he acted with others. The SCC has ruled on this. Hellmann was partly turned over for not considering RGs supreme ruling.

He also was not convicted of breaking and entering because they considered it staged.

Ok, but why didn't they just let the jury, each jury, decide? Because obviously, many people "out there" still believe in lone-wolf Rudy. That is why this case is still a mystery. If there is no lone-wolf Rudy, there is no mystery.

Shouldn't they have been able to lay it all out there for the jury, the defense side, and then it would be open for cross-examination, and in the end the jury would decide whether lone-wolf or not, whether staged or not.

It seems that these definate rulings make the whole process available for criticism by those who believe lone-wolf and break-in, because they believe one thing, and the court is saying another.

Why all of this lone-wolf talk, then, if that is not even Amanda's own defense theory?

I'm super confused at this point about all of this.

 

[SMK]

Yes, exactly, SMK. Because there would have been evidence of these "others", like footprints, etc.. The only way would be if these "other" friends did a clean-up, and that would be impossible, IMO. Also, why would they leave Rudy's evidence?

So did the defense lay out a clear sole-Rudy theory in the trial?

I can't find anything in the tweets or Vogt notes that they questioned the multiple attackers, unless I missed it. Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong. They did assert that once Guede was caught, Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba ought to have all been dismissed, though (Vogt).

 

[Katody]

There is serious asymmetry here.

The defendants have limited funds, the years of trial can easily cost millions and there is still no end in sight.

They are criticized for trying to recuperate in a way that certainly is not unethical (writing books) while the prosecution is able to spend money with little responsibility and get away with it (Years of invigilation and thousands of wiretapped phone calls that gave them nothing, the 180 000 euro cartoon that the judge refused to accept into court record).

 

[aa9511]

I guess you have a point there:

If these things stand in the SC with Guede's case, then the points cannot simply be changed or dismissed, legally.

A pro-innocence poster did say that unless the court believes in a sole attacker, Knox and Sollecito are sunk. I myself don't know if the lay judges could believe Guede acted with others who are not these defendants. I guess it depends. Hellmann seemed in his reasoning to be believing in a sole attacker despite prior rulings.

If the defense wants to show reasonable doubt, then they have to show it. I disagree with others on here, that the jury should be able to, by itself, come up with a reaonable doubt scenario. No, that is the defense's entire job.

What better reasonable doubt than lone-wolf Guede?

I also believe that if the jury cannot see lone-wolf Rudy, then of course they have to find Amanda and RS guilty. There is just no other option, IMO. Someone was there with him, if the defense does not try to say otherwise!

That "someone," based on the evidence, cannot be anyone other than Amanda and RS.

I don't understand.

Why is the lone-wolf being debated so much on here and other places, when Amanda's own defense is not even using it?

 

[Katody]

TBH, I haven't seen anything that would make me believe the defence agrees with many attackers claim.

From what I understand they argue the evidence points only to Guede. Which means they argue he did it alone.

 

[SMK]

There is serious asymmetry here.

The defendants have limited funds, the years of trial can easily cost millions and there is still no end in sight.

They are criticized for trying to recuperate in a way that certainly is not unethical (writing books) while the prosecution is able to spend money with little responsibility and get away with it (Years of invigilation and thousands of wiretapped phone calls that gave them nothing, the 180 000 euro cartoon that the judge refused to accept into court record).

I wasn't arguing that it was unethical to publish the books, just unwise because:

1. As ,<modsnip> it may have subconsciously offended the SC judges and led to the overturning of Hellmann (speculation, but it might be true: <modsnip>

2. Marecas used the book deal against Knox in court.

3. The pro-guilt sites keep taking Knox to task, citing her book quotes
as in today's post: http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

 

[aa9511]

I can't find anything in the tweets or Vogt notes that they questioned the multiple attackers, unless I missed it. Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong. They did assert that once Guede was caught, Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba ought to have all been dismissed, though (Vogt).

No, I'm saying in the original trial?