Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#9

[SMK]

If this court convicts it won't be one more appeal. More likely it will be a case exhausting whatever appeals exist in the Italian system, followed by the ECHR. Probably with extradition proceedings in at least one country, (two if Raffaele goes somewhere other than the US), running alongside the appeals.

Well, that sounds like a real mess

 

[SMK]

Defense Attorney Carlo Dalla Vedova, told the lay judges that once Guede was found, Knox and Sollecito ought to have been exxonorated , but the investigators simply could not let go of the idea of their involvement.

IF the lay judges doubt the evidence, and this sticks in their mind, together with their charges of "changing motive", they might not uphold the convictions. Just reflecting here.....any other thoughts?

 

[Katody]

I think what's important is that Nencini today read Amanda's letter into the court record.
IIRC he refused to do so with the Kerchers' letter at the beginning of the trial.

He might have said it's irritating and unusual to not have the defendant speak for herself.
What I'm sure of: the judge will not rule about the case from his 'irritation'. He will be extra careful, even overly cautious to not let such things direct his decision.

The letter has been read in the courtroom by the judge. I think it's a very strong and sincere voice that will have unshakable impact on the jurors.
Amanda gives reasons for her absence in the beginning.

I am not present in the courtroom because I am afraid. I am afraid that the prosecution's vehemence will leave an impression on you, that their smoke and mirrors will blind you. I'm afraid of the universal problem of wrongful conviction. This is not for lack of faith in your powers of discernment, but because the prosecution has succeeded before in convincing a perfectly sound court of concerned and discerning adults to convict innocent people Raffaele and me.

She then deals with the prosecution's case in a well reasoned, thoughtful manner. She makes great, concise points exposing prosecution's weakness.

http://www.amandaknox.com/2013/12/17/letter-to-the-court-of-appeals-of-florence

 

[SMK]

Youtube now has a video (courtesy the Guardian, UK) of Judge reading Amanda Knox's email to the court:

(also Francesco Maresca's commentary on the letter:


Amanda Knox declares innocence of Meredith Kercher murder in letter to Florence court -- video - YouTube

 

[Katody]

From Amanda's letter:
>>
My interrogation was illegal and produced a false "confession" that demonstrated my non knowledge of the crime. The subsequent memoriali, for which I was wrongfully found guilty of slander, did not further accuse but rather recanted that false "confession." Just as I testified to the prosecutor in prison and to my family members in prison when our conversations were being recorded without my knowledge.

My behavior after the discovery of the murder indicates my innocence. I did not flee Italy when I had the chance. I stayed in Perugia and was at the police's beck and call for over 50 hours in four days, convinced that I could help them find the murderer. I never thought or imagined that they would have used my openness and trust to fuel their suspicions. I did not hide myself or my feelings: when I needed comfort, Raffaele embraced me; when I was sad and scared, I cried; when I was angry, I swore and made insensitive remarks; when I was shocked, I paced or sat in silence; when I was trying to help, I answered questions, consoled Meredith's friends and tried to keep a positive attitude.

Upon entering the questura I had no understanding of my legal position. Twenty-years old and alone in a foreign country, I was innocent and never expected to be suspected and subjugated to psychological torture. I was interrogated as a suspect, but told I was a witness. I was questioned for a prolonged period in the middle of the night and in Italian, a language I barely knew. I was denied legal counsel. The Court of Cassation deemed the interrogation and the statements produced from it illegal. I was lied to, yelled at, threatened, slapped twice on the back of the head. I was told I had witnessed the murder and was suffering from amnesia. I was told that if I didn't succeed in remembering what happened to Meredith that night I would never see my family again. I was browbeaten into confusion and despair. When you berate, intimidate, lie to, threaten, confuse, and coerce someone in believing they are wrong, you are not going to find the truth.

The police coerced me into signing a false "confession" that was without sense and should never have been considered a legitimate investigative lead. In this fragmentary and confused statement the police identified Patrick Lumumba as the murderer because we had exchanged text messages, the meaning of which the police wrongfully interpreted ('Ci vediamo piu tardi. Buona serata'). The statement lacked a clear sequence of events, corroboration with any physical evidence, and fundamental information like: how and why the murder took place, if anyone else was present or involved, what happened afterward- it supplied partial, contradictory information and as the investigators would discover a little later, when Patrick Lumumba's defense lawyer produced proof of him incontestable alibi, it was obviously inaccurate and unreliable. I simply didn't know what they were demanding me to know. After over 50 hours of questioning over four days, I was mentally exhausted and I was confused.

This coerced and illegitimate statement was used by the police to arrest and detain a clearly innocent man with an iron-clad alibi with whom I had a friendly professional relationship. This coerced and illegitimate statement was used to convict me of slander. The prosecution and civil parties would have you believe that this coerced and illegitimate statement is proof of my involvement in the murder. They are accusing and blaming me, a result of their own overreaching.

Experience, case studies, and the law recognize that one may be coerced into giving a false "confession" because of psychological torture.

This is a universal problem. According to the National Registry of Exoneration, in the United States 78% of wrongful murder convictions that are eventually overturned because of exonerating forensic evidence involved false "confessions." Almost 8 in 10 wrongfully convicted persons were coerced by police into implicating themselves and others in murder. I am not alone. And exonerating forensic evidence is often as simple as no trace of the wrongfully convicted person at the scene of the crime, but rather the genetic and forensic traces of a different guilty party-just like every piece of forensic evidence identifies not me, but Rudy Guede.
<<

 

[Amber29]

I think what's important is that Nencini today read Amanda's letter into the court record.
IIRC he refused to do so with the Kerchers' letter at the beginning of the trial.

He might have said it's irritating and unusual to not have the defendant speak for herself.
What I'm sure of: the judge will not rule about the case from his 'irritation'. He will be extra careful, even overly cautious to not let such things direct his decision.

The letter has been read in the courtroom by the judge. I think it's a very strong and sincere voice that will have unshakable impact on the jurors.
Amanda gives reasons for her absence in the beginning.



She then deals with the prosecution's case in a well reasoned, thoughtful manner. She makes great, concise points exposing prosecution's weakness.

http://www.amandaknox.com/2013/12/17/letter-to-the-court-of-appeals-of-florence

Yes becasue saying I can't be there because I'm afraid you're going to find me guilty...was a good idea?

 

[Katody]

Yes becasue saying I can't be there because I'm afraid you're going to find me guilty...was a good idea?

It was sincere. And reasonable. She said she already had the justice fail her and she's fearful.

 

[Cappuccino]

Yes becasue saying I can't be there because I'm afraid you're going to find me guilty...was a good idea?

I expect it was just the plain truth. That's certainly how I would feel if I were in her shoes, and personally I don't think lying to the court would be a "good idea" either. I know Maresca does it, but its still not particularly admirable. Its called perjury in some cases, I believe.

 

[SMK]

From Amanda's letter:
>>
My interrogation was illegal and produced a false "confession" that demonstrated my non knowledge of the crime. The subsequent memoriali, for which I was wrongfully found guilty of slander, did not further accuse but rather recanted that false "confession." Just as I testified to the prosecutor in prison and to my family members in prison when our conversations were being recorded without my knowledge.

My behavior after the discovery of the murder indicates my innocence. I did not flee Italy when I had the chance. I stayed in Perugia and was at the police's beck and call for over 50 hours in four days, convinced that I could help them find the murderer. I never thought or imagined that they would have used my openness and trust to fuel their suspicions. I did not hide myself or my feelings: when I needed comfort, Raffaele embraced me; when I was sad and scared, I cried; when I was angry, I swore and made insensitive remarks; when I was shocked, I paced or sat in silence; when I was trying to help, I answered questions, consoled Meredith's friends and tried to keep a positive attitude.

Upon entering the questura I had no understanding of my legal position. Twenty-years old and alone in a foreign country, I was innocent and never expected to be suspected and subjugated to psychological torture. I was interrogated as a suspect, but told I was a witness. I was questioned for a prolonged period in the middle of the night and in Italian, a language I barely knew. I was denied legal counsel. The Court of Cassation deemed the interrogation and the statements produced from it illegal. I was lied to, yelled at, threatened, slapped twice on the back of the head. I was told I had witnessed the murder and was suffering from amnesia. I was told that if I didn't succeed in remembering what happened to Meredith that night I would never see my family again. I was browbeaten into confusion and despair. When you berate, intimidate, lie to, threaten, confuse, and coerce someone in believing they are wrong, you are not going to find the truth.

The police coerced me into signing a false "confession" that was without sense and should never have been considered a legitimate investigative lead. In this fragmentary and confused statement the police identified Patrick Lumumba as the murderer because we had exchanged text messages, the meaning of which the police wrongfully interpreted ('Ci vediamo piu tardi. Buona serata'). The statement lacked a clear sequence of events, corroboration with any physical evidence, and fundamental information like: how and why the murder took place, if anyone else was present or involved, what happened afterward- it supplied partial, contradictory information and as the investigators would discover a little later, when Patrick Lumumba's defense lawyer produced proof of him incontestable alibi, it was obviously inaccurate and unreliable. I simply didn't know what they were demanding me to know. After over 50 hours of questioning over four days, I was mentally exhausted and I was confused.

This coerced and illegitimate statement was used by the police to arrest and detain a clearly innocent man with an iron-clad alibi with whom I had a friendly professional relationship. This coerced and illegitimate statement was used to convict me of slander. The prosecution and civil parties would have you believe that this coerced and illegitimate statement is proof of my involvement in the murder. They are accusing and blaming me, a result of their own overreaching.

Experience, case studies, and the law recognize that one may be coerced into giving a false "confession" because of psychological torture.

This is a universal problem. According to the National Registry of Exoneration, in the United States 78% of wrongful murder convictions that are eventually overturned because of exonerating forensic evidence involved false "confessions." Almost 8 in 10 wrongfully convicted persons were coerced by police into implicating themselves and others in murder. I am not alone. And exonerating forensic evidence is often as simple as no trace of the wrongfully convicted person at the scene of the crime, but rather the genetic and forensic traces of a different guilty party-just like every piece of forensic evidence identifies not me, but Rudy Guede.
<<

I think all of this is weighty, and will be given due consideration by the jury - especially if they believe the evidence is weak.

I think if there is a presumption of innocence, this part will resonate with spirit and intuition:

Upon entering the questura I had no understanding of my legal position. Twenty-years old and alone in a foreign country, I was innocent and never expected to be suspected and subjugated to psychological torture. I was interrogated as a suspect, but told I was a witness. I was questioned for a prolonged period in the middle of the night and in Italian, a language I barely knew. I was denied legal counsel. The Court of Cassation deemed the interrogation and the statements produced from it illegal. I was lied to, yelled at, threatened, slapped twice on the back of the head. I was told I had witnessed the murder and was suffering from amnesia. I was told that if I didn't succeed in remembering what happened to Meredith that night I would never see my family again. I was browbeaten into confusion and despair. When you berate, intimidate, lie to, threaten, confuse, and coerce someone in believing they are wrong, you are not going to find the truth.

Essentially, all stands or falls with the legitimacy of the evidence:

Without the evidence, any theory involving Knox and Sollecito is pure speculation.

If the evidence is not believed, then this opens the door to believing that maybe the police should have discarded the theory about Knox and Sollecito when Guede was caught; that perhaps this is why the motive has shifted, and it could be a miscarriage of justice as Amanda says.

If conversely the jurors believe the evidence is strong, then all of this is just so many efforts and attempts to persuade as to innocence. But the letter makes strong points which resonate, if there is an openness to the idea of a wrongful arrest.

As so many believe the evidence is just ludicrously lacking, then this must of necessity lead those persons to a belief that the jury will acquit.

 

[Katody]

I think all of this is weighty, and will be given due consideration by the jury - especially if they believe the evidence is weak.

I think if there is a presumption of innocence, this part will resonate with spirit and intuition:



Essentially, all stands or falls with the legitimacy of the evidence:

Without the evidence, any theory involving Knox and Sollecito is pure speculation.

If the evidence is not believed, then this opens the door to believing that maybe the police should have discarded the theory about Knox and Sollecito when Guede was caught; that perhaps this is why the motive has shifted, and it could be a miscarriage of justice as Amanda says.

If conversely the jurors believe the evidence is strong, then all of this is just so many efforts and attempts to persuade as to innocence.

As so many believe the evidence is just ludicrously lacking, then this must of necessity lead those persons to a belief that the jury will acquit.

I think a conviction for reasons political and not based on facts or evidence is likely, having seen the nonsensical supreme court's report.

I'm sure if this happens, the people involved will never sleep well at night.

I remember judge Hellmann commenting that he waits to see who will take the (obviously political) deed of convicting the innocents on his conscience.
Will it be Nencini?

 

[SMK]

I think a conviction for reasons political and not based on facts or evidence is likely, having seen the nonsensical supreme court's report.

I'm sure if this happens, the people involved will never sleep well at night.

I remember judge Hellmann commenting that he waits to see who will take the (obviously political) deed of convicting the innocents on his conscience.
Will it be Nencini?

OK, granted there could be political reasons for needing convictions upheld. In the Ryan Ferguson case, this entailed a prosecutor falsifying evidence. That much I can understand.

But I don't understand how Nencini could make the lay judges deliberate to conviction if they don't want to?

 

[Katody]

OK, granted there could be political reasons for needing convictions upheld. In the Ryan Ferguson case, this entailed a prosecutor falsifying evidence. That much I can understand.

But I don't understand how Nencini could make the lay judges deliberate to conviction if they don't want to?

He can advise them to vote so, using his charisma and authority as the one schooled in law.

 

[SMK]

I did notice, though, that Judge Nencini did read Knox's latter in a very dead-pan, rushed way.

There appeared to be disdain, quite evident - as though in his manner of reading, he was saying, "blah, blah, blah, blah and yada, yada , yada... " - a sentiment he was clearly conveying to the jury.

(if we are cynical we will believe he is politically swayed, if we are optimists we'll think it's because he is convinced by the evidence)>> it has been suggested by some that he perhaps resented playing to American media audiences)

Notwithstanding:

If you watch even the first few lines, it is evident:

Amanda Knox declares innocence of Meredith Kercher murder in letter to Florence court -- video - YouTube

 

[otto]

I'm having a problem understanding something, and hopefully those that believe in Knox's innocence can help me understand.

It sounds like the Kercher family has made a request, through a lawyer, for Knox to remove all references to their daughter from her blog. Do I understand correctly that Knox has refused to do this unless the Kercher family speaks directly with her?

Why is she refusing to respect the wishes of the Kercher family? Why does she demand that they speak with her? Why does she refuse to respect the Kercher family request if it is made through a lawyer?

On the surface, it looks a bit like blackmail, where Knox is making demands of the victim's family before she will respect their wishes.

What am I missing? How is this the attitude and action of a nice person?

For those that believe that Knox is innocent, has it always been well known that she is the type of person to be cruel to the family of a murder victim? That is, in my opinion, what she is doing is cruel.

 

[Katody]

I did notice, though, that Judge Nencini did read Knox's latter in a very dead-pan, rushed way.

There appeared to be disdain, quite evident - as though in his manner of reading, he was saying, "blah, blah, blah, blah and yada, yada , yada... " - something he was conveying to the jury.

If you watch even the first few lines, it is evident:

Amanda Knox declares innocence of Meredith Kercher murder in letter to Florence court -- video - YouTube

The montage shows him reading just the first lines and the last one.
Also, I assume you haven't seen footage of Italian judges reading the harshest verdicts given your opinion

My impression is that he read it quite nicely, keeping the meaning of the text in mind. The text is very nicely written, too.
IMO there is a change and more softness in his tone when reading the last words:

I beg you to see the facts and reason of what I say. I am innocent. Raffaele is innocent. Meredith and her family deserve the truth. Please put an end to this great and prolonged injustice. In faith,
Amanda Marie Knox

If we're into analyzing it like that, I'd predict an effect on the judge:
Given something on paper makes you easy to dismiss it or skim and reject.
Being made to read it aloud, makes you unconsciously internalize the text. The judge is far less disposed to dismiss it without consideration now, having read it aloud like he did. JMO.

It's exactly what Amanda asked for. She begged to consider the arguments and observations she made.

 

[SMK]

The montage shows him reading just the first lines and the last one.
Also, I assume you haven't seen footage of Italian judges reading the harshest verdicts given your opinion

My impression is that he read it quite nicely, keeping the meaning of the text in mind. The text is very nicely written, too.
IMO there is a change and more softness in his tone when reading the last words:



If we're into analyzing it like that, I'd predict an effect on the judge:
Given something on paper makes you easy to dismiss it or skim and reject.
Being made to read it aloud, makes you unconsciously internalize the text. The judge is far less disposed to dismiss it without consideration now, having read it aloud like he did. JMO.

It's exactly what Amanda asked for. She begged to consider the arguments and observations she made.

OK, then maybe I received a false impression (it was a strong one, though). :facepalm: I don't have a tape to the closing words, do you have a link? Of course the statement (5 pp) was eloquent and moving. OK, then perhaps he was moved and will reflect as will the lay judges. :blushing::seeya:

 

[otto]

The montage shows him reading just the first lines and the last one.
Also, I assume you haven't seen footage of Italian judges reading the harshest verdicts given your opinion

My impression is that he read it quite nicely, keeping the meaning of the text in mind. The text is very nicely written, too.
IMO there is a change and more softness in his tone when reading the last words:



If we're into analyzing it like that, I'd predict an effect on the judge:
Given something on paper makes you easy to dismiss it or skim and reject.
Being made to read it aloud, makes you unconsciously internalize the text. The judge is far less disposed to dismiss it without consideration now, having read it aloud like he did. JMO.

It's exactly what Amanda asked for. She begged to consider the arguments and observations she made.

It's mind boggling that Knox writes that the Kercher family deserves the truth, yet at the same time Knox evidently doesn't believe that they deserve respect. Knox's actions speak louder than words here, where she demands that the Kerchers speak with her directly before Knox will remove information about their daughter from her blog.

 

[Katody]

OK, then maybe I received a false impression (it was a strong one, though). :facepalm: I don't have a tape to the closing words, do you have a link? Of course the statement (5 pp) was eloquent and moving. OK, then perhaps he was moved and will reflect as will the lay judges. :blushing::seeya:

The last words are on video you linked. It's edited like this.

 

[SMK]

I'm having a problem understanding something, and hopefully those that believe in Knox's innocence can help me understand.

It sounds like the Kercher family has made a request, through a lawyer, for Knox to remove all references to their daughter from her blog. Do I understand correctly that Knox has refused to do this unless the Kercher family speaks directly with her?

Why is she refusing to respect the wishes of the Kercher family? Why does she demand that they speak with her? Why does she refuse to respect the Kercher family request if it is made through a lawyer?

On the surface, it looks a bit like blackmail, where Knox is making demands of the victim's family before she will respect their wishes.

What am I missing? How is this the attitude and action of a nice person?

For those that believe that Knox is innocent, has it always been well known that she is the type of person to be cruel to the family of a murder victim? That is, in my opinion, what she is doing is cruel.

It is lacking in tact and finesse, for certain. If I were in Knox's shoes , upon hearing from Maresca, I would have posted on my blog: After hearing from the Kercher family attorney, and out of respect, I have removed references of Meredith Kercher from my blog. This would not be committing to any idea that she had no right to honor Meredith, just that she was respecting their wishes. She seems if not cruel, then a bit feisty. A bit feisty.

 

[Katody]

It's mind boggling that Knox writes that the Kercher family deserves the truth, yet at the same time Knox evidently doesn't believe that they deserve respect. Knox's actions speak louder than words here, where she demands that the Kerchers speak with her directly before Knox will remove information about their daughter from her blog.

She makes no such demands.