Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #14

[SMK]

Right IMO. She was still a 'part' of the murder. Still obvious clean up, and other evidence of her being there during or after the murder (Meredith's dna/blood mixed with hers).

Yes, but it becomes a general assertion which must be backed up by evidence. We cannot know if this new judge and jury will see it all outside of reasonable doubt......it really still hangs in the balance....

 

[dgfred]

What 'general assertion' must be backed by evidence?

 

[SkewedView]

Well hello there,
First off, I don't believe there are any cites that show RG 'scaled' a wall in his history. I would like to see one with proof, instead of speculation.

Secondly, the 'glass pattern' can not be used as proof one way or another about where the rock was thrown from (whether in or outside) IMO. Since the window can be opened to the inside... both are possibilites. A rock thrown from the outside (even tho heavy IMO) could have been thrown from the outside and the scene STILL BE STAGED.
*But the good thing at least from you since you claim it was a real break-in... we will not have to hear about 'RG staged the break-in, not AK' :rocker:

Third, as I said... whether the shutters were closed 'at first' doesn't really matter because the stager 'could' have first opened the shutters and then thrown the rock from the outside to stage (or opened the window to the inside and thrown it threw from inside the room). Thus, hazy memory or not from Filomena is irrevelant IMO. Her testimony of her actions regarding the glass fragments is quite clear... as is ILE testimony that the glass was ON TOP of the clothing and laptop. Experienced investigators usually 'red flag' any evidence of staging during 'theft' investigations... much more so a murder investigation I would think.

Fourth, I doubt Mignini (or me really)is too concerned over your reassurance regarding motive or how the knife got to the murder room. Carrying it in a bag IS a possibility- bringing as a prank 'prop' is also a possibility- as is for protection however remote. Since motive does not have to be proved, why is that such a 'stickler' for you?

Fifth, maybe a 'higher education' jury might INCREASE the sentence too, or find it even easier to back up the original convictions. I don't think the first jurors (with judges included I might add) was 'gullible' at all. We shall see.

Um, you do realize that in Italian trials, just like in US ones, the burden of proof is on the prosecution? By Italian law, AK & RS do not have to prove themselves innocent...only that there are realistic alternatives to the prosecution's allegations.

The prosecution has presented a list of 'maybes' 'possiblys' 'coulds' and 'suspicious' stuff that work great as the burden of proof for an indictment or a civil trial, but don't even come close to sufficient for a criminal trial. The break in 'possibly' being staged doesn't cut it, not for such a pivotal factor in the prosecution's allegations.

As for proving motive, no, that does not have to happen if the prosecution has a strong enough case otherwise, but if they don't have it, that is one heck of a big contributor to reasonable doubt.

The fact that the Massai report so casually dismisses any and all scenarios other than those presented by the prosecution is very telling. A judge who hadn't made up his mind from the start would have put much more thought into why he was rejecting the arguments of the defense, and most definitely would have been skeptical about any of the prosecution's assertions that were not backed up by concrete proof.

I don't see the original jury as being gullible at all, just biased. Such biases against defendants are common in every culture, particularly when the charge is murder, and most especially when where is a massive amount of media coverage involved. Ideally, the presiding Judge is there to try to curtail such bias, but alas, we do not live in an ideal world, and this case demonstrates perfectly how badly things can go wrong when a Judge neglects his duty to assure the defendant a fair trial.

 

[SMK]

What 'general assertion' must be backed by evidence?

That she was peripherally part of a planned attack.

 

[SMK]

Um, you do realize that in Italian trials, just like in US ones, the burden of proof is on the prosecution? By Italian law, AK & RS do not have to prove themselves innocent...only that there are realistic alternatives to the prosecution's allegations.

The prosecution has presented a list of 'maybes' 'possiblys' 'coulds' and 'suspicious' stuff that work great as the burden of proof for an indictment or a civil trial, but don't even come close to sufficient for a criminal trial. The break in 'possibly' being staged doesn't cut it, not for such a pivotal factor in the prosecution's allegations.

As for proving motive, no, that does not have to happen if the prosecution has a strong enough case otherwise, but if they don't have it, that is one heck of a big contributor to reasonable doubt.

The fact that the Massai report so casually dismisses any and all scenarios other than those presented by the prosecution is very telling. A judge who hadn't made up his mind from the start would have put much more thought into why he was rejecting the arguments of the defense, and most definitely would have been skeptical about any of the prosecution's assertions that were not backed up by concrete proof.

I don't see the original jury as being gullible at all, just biased. Such biases against defendants are common in every culture, particularly when the charge is murder, and most especially when where is a massive amount of media coverage involved. Ideally, the presiding Judge is there to try to curtail such bias, but alas, we do not live in an ideal world, and this case demonstrates perfectly how badly things can go wrong when a Judge neglects his duty to assure the defendant a fair trial.

:gthanks:

 

[dgfred]

I don't agree with much of your post, and the prosecution 'had' their burden of proof in the eyes of the jurors/judges regarding the staged break in.

Lying does seem to put defendants in a bad light to judges/jurors. Don't think it was 'bias'.

AK has said the trial was fair. No judge 'neglected' his duty IMO.

 

[dgfred]

That she was peripherally part of a planned attack.

So dna on a weapon, luminal prints and dna/blood mix with the victim doesn't count as 'involved'? That doesn't even mention the lying and forgetting what really went on that night.

 

[dgfred]

Hey SkewedView. I don't how wise it is to debate with you anyway, your views are well...... skewed. :great:

 

[SkewedView]

I don't agree with much of your post, and the prosecution 'had' their burden of proof in the eyes of the jurors/judges regarding the staged break in.

Lying does seem to put defendants in a bad light to judges/jurors. Don't think it was 'bias'.

AK has said the trial was fair. No judge 'neglected' his duty IMO.

The Massai report and the rulings during the trial itself ooze bias IMO.

And of course AK said the trial was fair - as she has already discovered, in Italy, saying anything that puts the authorities in a bad light gets you charged with criminal slander. :sick:

 

[SkewedView]

Hey SkewedView. I don't how wise it is to debate with you anyway, your views are well...... skewed. :great:

Very true - I believe in truth in advertising.

 

[dgfred]

Care to post exactly which Judge neglected his/her duties? And how?

 

[SkewedView]

Care to post exactly which Judge neglected his/her duties? And how?

I will be happy to do a play-by-play commentary after the weekend. It's my daughter's birthday, so my time is rather limited (and full of distractions) until then.

 

[SMK]

So dna on a weapon, luminal prints and dna/blood mix with the victim doesn't count as 'involved'? That doesn't even mention the lying and forgetting what really went on that night.

• dna on a weapon

• luminal prints

• and dna/blood mix with the victim,

• lying and forgetting what really went on that night

All have been examined, refuted, shot down. Wrong weapon, low copy number, iffy footprints and might be from prior time, not as much story telling considering the aggressive interrogation. Believe me, dgfred, I would LOVE to be convinced of their guilt. I keep hoping someone will be able to do so. But the same flimsy stuff is trotted out....

 

[SMK]

I will be happy to do a play-by-play commentary after the weekend. It's my daughter's birthday, so my time is rather limited (and full of distractions) until then.

:bdscroll: to your daughter.

 

[dgfred]

I will be happy to do a play-by-play commentary after the weekend. It's my daughter's birthday, so my time is rather limited (and full of distractions) until then.

No problem at all. Happy Birthday to your daughter. Mine will be 21 in November. Have a wonderful weekend.

 

[SMK]

As far as the letter to President Obama and members of Congress go, it was my hope that the appeal process would bring justice, and that this sort of thing would be unnecessary (attacking the Italian or Perugian system). I wonder about the timing, and hope it will not make matters worse. Of course, I tend to be a worrier and a pessimist.

 

[dgfred]

• dna on a weapon

• luminal prints

• and dna/blood mix with the victim,

• lying and forgetting what really went on that night

All have been examined, refuted, shot down. Wrong weapon, low copy number, iffy footprints and might be from prior time, not as much story telling considering the aggressive interrogation. Believe me, dgfred, I would LOVE to be convinced of their guilt. I keep hoping someone will be able to do so. But the same flimsy stuff is trotted out....

I disagree, except for the examined part with:

Refuted/Shot down= ???
*how could it be the wrong weapon with AK's and Meredith's dna on it?
Why would RS say he 'pricked' Meredith if the results of the knife testing didn't bother him? So not really refuted OR shot down. Since IMO the testing will be verified, both the knife evidence and the bra clasp dna of RS would seal the deal as far as the appeals failing. That puts both in Meredith's room at some point with his dna on the clasp and her dna on a weapon found with the victim's dna. How can anthing overcome that IF the testing is verified?

*dna retesting can not be redone, they are reviewing the original testing results and procedures now. LCN is not an issue in Italy. Top forensic experts have already verified the original testing methods used. IMO they will not be reversed. So not yet refuted OR shot down.

*'iffy' luminol prints- In who's opinion??? Not the judges/jurors. Not the experts that were presented to them in court. The BARE footprints of both RS and AK in the hallway has in NO WAY been refuted or shot down. Quite the opposite really. Was RS and AK BAREFOOTED at another time in the hallway and in the bathroom? Was this fact presented in court at all? Did anyone verify that both AK and RS were barefooted in the hallway in front of Meredith's room in the week they had known each other? I didn't hear of any.
Isn't it a little cold for them to be roaming around barefooted in late October.
Were they cleaning the floor or drinking/spilling juice barefooted? That doesn't seem reasonable to me, nor is there any evidence presented of it.

That is not even considering the bathroom BARE footprint of RS, which infers several things about the crime:
-There was a clean up of some type. Why? Not RG! Who would have motive?
There is little doubt reasonably that RG EVER had his shoes off that night.
-The print is RS's as found by the court. Where is the rest of it? Why is the rest of it and any leading to it cleaned up? Does it relate to the others in the hallway and the blood spots of AK's dna/Meredith's blood in both the bathroom and Filomena's room... I think so.

Did AK's reasoning/statements regarding the blood spots satisfy you? Would she have placed her finger in another's period blood if that is what she 'thought' it may be? If she 'thought' it was from her ears, wouldn't she have checked to make sure? Would she have 'bathmat boogied' naked back and forth to her room, without any lighting (no lamp not noticed) except the morning light after finding the front door open and in what was it... 15C weather??? That doesn't seem reasonable to me tho others sometimes claim it is perfectly normal. I also find her 'reasoning' regarding finding all that mentioned, getting a shower and walking back to RS's, eating lunch and cleaning up the 'spill' (another question I have) and then only making calls and returning to the cottage very confusing and suspicious. Why not make the calls from the cottage originally? I also find her email and other statements very self-serving and incriminating.

For example in the Brad Cooper trial it was found that he cleaned spotless certain parts of the home (for the first time cleaning at all supposidly) the very morning his wife 'disappears' = not normal behavior. He made two trips to the store to buy milk and juice (on the very morning his wife disappears)at like 4am and around 6am = not normal behavior. This behavior was very supicious to the jury, even tho nothing was really proven about where, when, or how his wife was actually killed. There was ZERO dna evidence against him, not just dna evidence disputed. ALL the evidence was circumstancial and he did not even lie to investigators. Unless there is some sort of HUGE conspiracy to 'get' AK... IMO she was justly found guilty of being part of a murder.

So I don't understand your 'flimsy' statement, maybe you can elaborate more.

 

[dgfred]

As far as the letter to President Obama and members of Congress go, it was my hope that the appeal process would bring justice, and that this sort of thing would be unnecessary (attacking the Italian or Perugian system). I wonder about the timing, and hope it will not make matters worse. Of course, I tend to be a worrier and a pessimist.

The letter makes several false claims/statements... doesn't that kind of 'spoil' the argument made?

- She had no interpreter
- She was denied food and water
- Interrogated ALL night
- She was supposed to be recorded because she was a suspect

to just mention a few :innocent: of the weaker ones

 

[SMK]

The letter makes several false claims/statements... doesn't that kind of 'spoil' the argument made?

- She had no interpreter
- She was denied food and water
- Interrogated ALL night
- She was supposed to be recorded because she was a suspect

to just mention a few :innocent: of the weaker ones

I guess I just believe that in the 11th hour, when the appeal is speeding toward its conclusion, this is not the time to slam Italy. I may be wrong, as I said, I tend to be overly cautious. I would not rock the boat at this point. Well. We shall see....Mignini says he did record her, and wished he had had a video, but his budget was busted..........

 

[SMK]

I am posting this excerpt from Perugia Murder File, June 10, because it is the State Department Briefing By Ian Kelly, December 7, 2009 ; right when the Washington State Senator was demanding Hillary Clinton as Secty of State get involved with the guilty verdict of Amanda Knox, which had just occurred in Perugia. I think it was clear at this point that Clinton did not wish to be involved, but thought that Knox ought to work through the Italian Appellate system. In any case, reading this makes me believe this letter to Clinton and Congress may not be the way to go??? the end section which i have underlined is very telling, IMO:waitasec:

QUESTION: May I ask you about the Amanda Knox case in Italy?
MR. KELLY: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: I know the Secretary was asked yesterday about that and she said she hadn’t had a chance to look into it. I’m wondering (a) whether Senator Cantwell or anyone else has contacted the Secretary to get involved and (b) whether she’s now looked at the matter and has any interest in getting involved or any diplomatic, you know, action she has in mind.


QUESTION: Is it your belief that Amanda – excuse me, Amanda Knox was treated fairly under local law?
MR. KELLY: Well, I don’t have any indications to the contrary. I do know that our Embassy in Rome was very closely involved in this. They visited Amanda Knox. They have monitored the trial. They were present, I know, on Friday. Consular officers were present. I think at this point right now, it – the trial ended on Friday. We’re also looking ahead to the next step in this, which is an appeal. I guess she has 45 days to appeal her conviction to the court of appeals. And during this period, of course, consular officials will stay in close touch with her and with the family, and continue to monitor and provide assistance to both her and her family.
Yeah. Jill.
QUESTION: And just to define that, the next step with the appeal, what specifically does the U.S. or the Consular service do in terms of that appeal? Do they study it? They – you know, what concretely are they doing to analyze this?
MR. KELLY: Well, I think it’s our role as – our diplomatic role to ensure that American citizens are treated fairly and that they have access to appropriate legal counsel. And that will continue to be our role as this process plays out.
QUESTION: Well, Ian, just – you know, in some cases – granted, they’re not all the same – but in previous cases dealing with Americans, the State Department often is quite vocal and quite out there publicly in terms of commenting. It’s been quite noticeable that there’s been very little comment, and especially that statement yesterday by the Secretary that she was busy with Afghanistan and actually wasn’t able to be up on it.
I would like to ask why she wasn’t able to make at least some further statement. It almost seemed, if you had this mindset, that you could say that the Secretary just didn’t care as much about it and was following Afghanistan, but not really following this case as closely as perhaps she should have.
MR. KELLY: Yeah. Well, the Department has followed this case very closely. The Secretary was asked about the verdict in – the verdict in the trial that had ended something like 12 hours before. It doesn’t mean that we’re not going to have some kind of statement, as the process goes forward. As – but as I said before, our role is to ensure that any American citizen is treated fairly, according to local law. The Italian court system is not the same as the American court system. It’s still early days, but as I said, we haven’t received any indications necessarily that Italian law was not followed.
And just – also, I’d just like to point out that we – that this is a – it’s an ongoing process too. There is an – she has the right to an appeal the next 45 days. And something else that we always say is that we are not going to comment too much on an ongoing legal process, and it is an ongoing legal process.
QUESTION: Well, can I – a couple of things. First of all, are the State Department lawyers going to undertake a review of the details of the trial to make sure that she was treated fairly? Today, Senator Maria Cantwell spoke to a few of us. And she said that there was tainted evidence, that the jury was not sequestered, and that the prosecutor himself was questionable.
In addition, we also saw that the jury was kind of wearing, like, these tri-colored bands. And there was just a lot of furor in the Italian press, which indicated that she didn’t receive a fair trial. And you’re saying now that there were no indications that she was treated fairly. So none of these things up until now, have raised a red flag with you? Because if they had, as Jill said, in the past, you have kind of raised the red flag when you feel that some things in the trial are questionable. And we haven’t really heard anything from you on that.
MR. KELLY: Well, let me just say that Italy does have its own judicial procedures. It is a different legal system than our common law system. If there have been irregularities in this trial or in any trial, there is a process in place for those – those irregularities, as the defense counsel sees fit to raise them, raises them. And so it is – we need to let this process play out. I mean, this – Italy is a democratic country that has an established and transparent legal system. And as I said, we will monitor this, this procedure as it goes forward, to make sure that Amanda Knox enjoys all the rights that she’s entitled to under Italian local law.
QUESTION: Ian, Senator Cantwell also said today she hoped the State Department would look aggressively at the details of the case, just following up on Elise. And she said she is hopeful that Secretary Clinton will express concern about the case to the Italian Government. Is that in the cards for Secretary Clinton and the State Department?
MR. KELLY: Well, I – as I said before, the Secretary looks forward to talking to the senator and having a discussion with her, and then we’ll see where we go from there.
QUESTION: Well, what about the Italian Government, though?
MR. KELLY: I'm sorry? What about the Italian Government?
QUESTION: What about the Italian Government?
MR. KELLY: I’m not sure I understand.
QUESTION: Senator Cantwell hopes that Secretary Clinton will raise the case with the Italian Government.
MR. KELLY: Let’s let Senator Cantwell talk to the Secretary, and then we’ll see where we go from there. I think in general, though, I mean, we – as we always do, we will closely monitor the appeal process as it goes forward. That’s our proper role. The Italian Government has allowed our consular officers to sit in on these trials. They’ve given us regular consular access to Amanda Knox. And we’ll continue to play that kind of monitoring and supportive role.
QUESTION: A couple more things. First of all, you didn’t the answer question. Are the State Department lawyers going to take a review of the trial and make its own judgment whether or not due process was afforded according to Italian law in this case? And secondly, is your reluctance to say whether due process was afforded have anything to do with your presumption of Amanda Knox’s guilt?
MR. KELLY: Well, on that latter question, I --
QUESTION: Well, usually when there --
MR. KELLY: We have no presumption of her guilt.
QUESTION: You don’t think she was guilty?
MR. KELLY: Oh, man.
QUESTION: Well, usually when the --
MR. KELLY: Elise.
QUESTION: I’m sorry. . . .