Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #14

[Nova]

This is as I understand it, and what I was trying to say, but thanks for saying it more logically. :great:

In Italy, though, it seems to not be like that. Am I right? They seem to want to judge varying degrees of participation.

I honestly don't know if Italy has an equivalent to our "felony murder."

It does seem that in all the trials there have been attempts to define degrees of participation, but then all three defendants ended up with the same sentence (plus a year for AK for criminal slander/minus 8 years for RG for fast track).

 

[wasnt_me]

I'm sorry, wm, I knew EXACTLY what you meant and I think it's a great point.

And then I suddenly realized I had always assumed the actual text was in Italian and thought I should check: we're talking about a misunderstanding of Italian vernacular, not a misunderstanding of English slang by Italian readers, right?

Yes, AK wrote everything in her text in italian. sorry for not making that clear.

 

[wasnt_me]

I think it already has.

I think I have finally figured it all out:

1. For reasons unclear to me (the High Court ruling that Guede did not act alone?) the Defense was forced to abandon the Lone Wolf scenario.
2. Hence, if not Knox and Sollecito, then who?
3. Ergo, the 5 witnesses come in to cause confusion.
4. Thereby, causing the Prosecution to sic Guede on the Defense.

Hope I am wrong, but I doubt it.

still not sure why the defense should fear RG's testimony. They have never feared him in the past. why now? As a defense attorney I would keep him on the stand for a week, if I could, to get the truth out of him. If he's the one who did it and he did it alone, why fear letting the defense question him?

We will also hear from the guy who helped police set up the skype call, so that's good, too. I'm not sure why you're feeding into pessimism at this point. We have ALSO had "circus" witnesses from the prosecution, so the jury has to look at that as well. I'm not sure what the police officers are to testify to, but whatever it is, if we get into the skype call and into RG trying to counter the jailhouse statements, then obviously we are in territory were the defense will be allowed to ask him specific details about this murder.

He will NOT be able to explain things away. We will get the truth. If he lies, he will not be able to stay consistent, so why should a jury believe him above and beyond anyone else? In fact, he may say more things that blow the prosecution's theory. ESP if his statements from the Skype call are entered into evidence. Those were statements he made before he could get any of his lies straight. So he'll have to answer to those, too.

Unless, the court strictly calls him in to ONLY ask him did he talk to this jailhouse folks, and they limit his testimony to only that. If that happens, what is so bad about that? And I still want to know if he has the right to plead anything like USA's 5th amendment? cause if he does, then his testimony won't even matter, because he'll just say that he pleads that law instead of answering any questions.

 

[wasnt_me]

Also, I wonder if the conversation that MA refers to having with RG happened at a time when RG was contemplating testifying in AK and RS's trial. They say the conversation happened in November, a month prior to the 2009 verdict. So if there was buzz that he might testify or they wanted him to testify back then, then I can see him mulling it out and confiding in someone about it.

At that point, he was already convicted, but hadn't appealed himself. At that point also, he had not included RS in his story, right?

 

[wasnt_me]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/858...-is-innocent-of-Meredith-Kerchers-murder.html


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...x-is-innocent-of-Meredith-Kercher-murder.html

In this article, MA's story is more detailed.

It sounds believeable, but some parts still don't make sense, and there's still the DNA problem.

In this story, RG apparently says his friend followed MK home from some bar one night to see where she lived. a few days later, they decided to approach her for 3 way sex, which she refused. RG then goes to the bathroom and all hell breaks out, so he had to go help his friend subdue MK, then his friend flees.

The crap is in the toilet, that we know for sure. But did the rest of the events occur this way?

The story is almost identical to the one RG told when he first gave statements about what had happened.

Maybe I can believe this (and I'm totally making it up)

Say the friend and RG break into the house. RG hoists his friend up to the window, who gets in and has to go to the door to open it for RG. Say they somehow see MK coming, so the friend has to hide somewhere in the house. And RG is outside the house, still. Say he starts talking to MK, figuring out how to get his friend out of the house since they ahve to abort the robbery.

He uses the bathroom story and she lets him go to the bathroom, since she knows him from meeting him at her boyfriends house. He could have said he was there to visit the guys but they weren't home. Anyways, while RG is on the toilet, MK discovers the broken window or the friend in the house. Maybe she sees the window, scraems, and the friend has to hop out of hiding. RG barrels out of the bathroom with his pants half down, the friend screams, "Black man found, black man guilty" and flees.

Anyways, the point of this guessing is because I just do not believe any version were MK lets two strangers inside. She might let RG, just because she knew him from downstairs before. They could have both been waiting outside for her, but that doesn't explain the window. It's possible they threw it from outside the house after killing her and then left, but not logical to me. It's not logical to me that the rock was thrown from inside that house at all.

 

[Nova]

I am well aware of what you are suggesting: that Amanda's blood was in the sink but Knox didn't see it. If that's the case, then she should have testified that she did not know if her blood was in the sink the day before Meredith was murdered. As it stands, she testified that it was not there the day before Meredith was murdered. I'm not prepared to make or accept excuses for Knox when she herself did not provide those excuses during trial.

You can call it semen, and I will call it grapefruit juice to be consistent with all the other grapefruit juice that some people think was all over the crime scene.

If AK has no memory of seeing blood in the sink, she may believe it wasn't there. But we have no way of knowing whether she is correct.

In any event, as wasnt_me pointed out, you call most of what AK says "lies", but cherry-pick those details that suit you.

Insisting this particular detail must be true is just plain silly.

 

[Nova]

Dr Sollecito seemed to think very early on that some sort of political intervention was needed in order to get the justice he wanted for his son.

Given the notorious corruption of the Italian government and legal system, he was probably right.

 

[wasnt_me]

Another detailed article, but translated needs to be translated:

http://www.umbrialeft.it/notizie/meredith-mario-alessi-aula-come-testimone

 

[SMK]

still not sure why the defense should fear RG's testimony. They have never feared him in the past. why now? As a defense attorney I would keep him on the stand for a week, if I could, to get the truth out of him. If he's the one who did it and he did it alone, why fear letting the defense question him?

We will also hear from the guy who helped police set up the skype call, so that's good, too. I'm not sure why you're feeding into pessimism at this point. We have ALSO had "circus" witnesses from the prosecution, so the jury has to look at that as well. I'm not sure what the police officers are to testify to, but whatever it is, if we get into the skype call and into RG trying to counter the jailhouse statements, then obviously we are in territory were the defense will be allowed to ask him specific details about this murder.

He will NOT be able to explain things away. We will get the truth. If he lies, he will not be able to stay consistent, so why should a jury believe him above and beyond anyone else? In fact, he may say more things that blow the prosecution's theory. ESP if his statements from the Skype call are entered into evidence. Those were statements he made before he could get any of his lies straight. So he'll have to answer to those, too.

Unless, the court strictly calls him in to ONLY ask him did he talk to this jailhouse folks, and they limit his testimony to only that. If that happens, what is so bad about that? And I still want to know if he has the right to plead anything like USA's 5th amendment? cause if he does, then his testimony won't even matter, because he'll just say that he pleads that law instead of answering any questions.

I have read on IIP that the witness MUST answer all questions, he cannot plead "the 5th". Of course, he may say "I don't know" or "I cannot recall". (actually, if you read post below, he CANNOT even say these. He must answer.)

Some are still saying that the defense used the 5 inmates to force Guede onto the stand, so if so, it is good. But Guede will be on the prosecution's side, and I fear him simply saying Knox and Sollecito were the ones there. I guess I am naturally pessimistic. ETA: Just read it was Judge Hellman, and NOT the prosecution, who has requested Guede!:great:

But my pessimism will not effect things one way or the other. If anything, better to fear the worst, and then be proven totally wrong. But in any case: Guede will care only about Guede, not truth, not justice, not putting things right. Unless I am being too pessimistic about that as well.............

 

[SMK]

I just read on IIP that it is Judge Hellman, and not the prosecution, who wants Guede on the stand. That does make it somewhat better, doesn't it???:waitasec:

 

[SMK]

DNA tests are being carried out once again on judge orders. According to CBSnews.com, Kurt Knox, Amanda's father, doesn’t believe new witnesses testifying in favor of his daughter are important to the case. Rather, “it's more wrapped around … the DNA evidence that's going to be brought to the trial on the 30th of June.”

http://www.christianpost.com/news/amanda-knox-trial-latest-inmates-testify-in-defense-51312/

 

[SMK]

Another detailed article, but translated needs to be translated:

http://www.umbrialeft.it/notizie/meredith-mario-alessi-aula-come-testimone

and from this, via Google Translation:

Attorney Bongiorno: Today upturn in the proceedings - "I believe that today there 'was a turning point in the proceedings because' three witnesses have categorically ruled out detailed and overlapping responsibility 'Raffaele Sollecito in the murder of Meredith Kercher."This was stated at the end of the hearing today, a student of the defenders of Giovinazzo, a lawyer Giulia Bongiorno.According to the law "all three, despite being prisoners, they had no interest in making statements on this matter, so 'as they have not benefited from them."


Maori lawyer now Rudy Guede must tell the truth - "I think it is very important to the outcome of the hearing today, and that means 'to June 27 next, finally, Rudy Guede will be able' have their say."It 'as said one of the lawyers for Raffaele Sollecito, the lawyer Luca Maori, commenting on the decision of the Court of Assizes of Appeal Perugia to accept the request of the Attorney General to hear Guede as a witness in the appeal trial for murder Meredith Kercher."Rudy Guede, who in recent years and is' always hidden behind legal technicalities to avoid telling the truth '- the lawyer said - finally will have' at this point, as a witness, tell the truth 'of the facts so' as actually occurred. Now that his conviction and 'final Guede can not' hide behind the 'I do not remember', or 'I can not speak', or 'I use the right' not to answer '.

"With regard to the testimony of Alessi's lawyer said that Maori "is not 'so much the personality' of the subject that interests you, but the fact that what is said to have feedback." (


"The testimonies of today have their own significance and demonstrates the fact that the attorney general has asked a very detailed proof to the contrary, accepted by the Court. "This was stated by one of the defenders of Amanda Knox's lawyer Luciano Ghirga, at the end of the hearing today.Regarding the reliability 'of the witnesses, the lawyer Ghirga said that "this' assessment that it is the decision of the judges of the Court of Assizes of Appeal.""We have asked these witnesses - said Ghirga - 'cause we believe are useful to a complete reconstruction of the murder.""One step done, we go forward," concluded the lawyer.

:waitasec:

 

[SMK]

Yet Umbria 24 http://www.umbria24.it/mez-alessi-%C2%AB-lassassino-e-un-amico-di-rudy%C2%BB-livoriano-testimoniera-nella-prossima-udienza/46594.html
does list these as being called for rebuttal by the prosecution:

Rudy Guede
Giacomo Benedetti (Rudy's Skype call friend)
Two prisoners who have had contact with Aviello
Marco Chiacchiera (Chief of the squadra mobile)
Monica Napoleoni

 

[SMK]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/858...-is-innocent-of-Meredith-Kerchers-murder.html


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...x-is-innocent-of-Meredith-Kercher-murder.html

In this article, MA's story is more detailed.

It sounds believeable, but some parts still don't make sense, and there's still the DNA problem.

In this story, RG apparently says his friend followed MK home from some bar one night to see where she lived. a few days later, they decided to approach her for 3 way sex, which she refused. RG then goes to the bathroom and all hell breaks out, so he had to go help his friend subdue MK, then his friend flees.

The crap is in the toilet, that we know for sure. But did the rest of the events occur this way?

The story is almost identical to the one RG told when he first gave statements about what had happened.

Maybe I can believe this (and I'm totally making it up)

Say the friend and RG break into the house. RG hoists his friend up to the window, who gets in and has to go to the door to open it for RG. Say they somehow see MK coming, so the friend has to hide somewhere in the house. And RG is outside the house, still. Say he starts talking to MK, figuring out how to get his friend out of the house since they ahve to abort the robbery.

He uses the bathroom story and she lets him go to the bathroom, since she knows him from meeting him at her boyfriends house. He could have said he was there to visit the guys but they weren't home. Anyways, while RG is on the toilet, MK discovers the broken window or the friend in the house. Maybe she sees the window, scraems, and the friend has to hop out of hiding. RG barrels out of the bathroom with his pants half down, the friend screams, "Black man found, black man guilty" and flees.

Anyways, the point of this guessing is because I just do not believe any version were MK lets two strangers inside. She might let RG, just because she knew him from downstairs before. They could have both been waiting outside for her, but that doesn't explain the window. It's possible they threw it from outside the house after killing her and then left, but not logical to me. It's not logical to me that the rock was thrown from inside that house at all.

1. It may be believable IF they can point one of the 19 samples of unidentified DNA/fingerprints found at the cottage toward the friend.

2. And in THIS scenario, Guede may well have wanted to stage a break-in to make it look like strangers.

3. Of course, asking Meredith to have a 3 way was incredibly stupid, but if you are drugged up, or have somehow gotten the wrong and very false impression about Meredith (perhaps through someone's boasting lies?) then it may make some sense.

 

[otto]

Given the notorious corruption of the Italian government and legal system, he was probably right.

If the "notorious corruption" were true, then he would have gotten away with attempting to corrupt the process of justice. He did not.

 

[otto]

If AK has no memory of seeing blood in the sink, she may believe it wasn't there. But we have no way of knowing whether she is correct.

In any event, as wasnt_me pointed out, you call most of what AK says "lies", but cherry-pick those details that suit you.

Insisting this particular detail must be true is just plain silly.

We do have a way of knowing whether she saw her blood in the sink the day before the murder: to simply ask her the question. She was asked the question and, under oath, stated that her visible blood was not in the sink prior to the day of the murder. Regarding Knox and her faulty memory (contradictory claims and outright lies), it's quite true that she claims to have a baffling memory loss on the night of the murder, but the following day her memory is fully restored so there is no reason to provide her with the convenient excuse of "faulty memory" the day after the murder.

It is not "silly" to hold Knox responsible for the statements that she has made. Her "silly" statements are in fact one of the reasons that she was arrested and convicted of murder. However, given that you describe Knox's sworn testimony as "just plain silly", it is understandable that you doubt her guilt ... since you do not hold her responsible for what she says.

Before you once again claim that I have not read your comment (I'll place that remark alongside comments like "sigh" and "layman's terms"), let me clarify one other point: I do not cherry pick to believe or disbelieve that, for example, Knox said she ate dinner at 9:30, 10, 11 and "late" as I know that she is lying in each of those statements. I do not cherry pick whether to believe that Knox slept until 10 as I know that she is lying. Knox is a proven liar in many instances. There is nothing to prove that Knox is lying under oath about her blood not being in the sink the day before the murder and no drug induced "faulty memory" to blame.

 

[otto]

I just read on IIP that it is Judge Hellman, and not the prosecution, who wants Guede on the stand. That does make it somewhat better, doesn't it???:waitasec:

After hearing the conflicting stories from prisoners claiming they were told stories by Guede, the judge has decided that Guede will testify. I suspect the questions will be based on what he said during the skype call and in jail. He has given conflicting statements until this time, so it's anyone's quess how one more statement that doesn't match the others will play out.

 

[SMK]

After hearing the conflicting stories from prisoners claiming they were told stories by Guede, the judge has decided that Guede will testify. I suspect the questions will be based on what he said during the skype call and in jail. He has given conflicting statements until this time, so it's anyone's quess how one more statement that doesn't match the others will play out.

Well, I just read a dreadful, horrific theory on IIP that Hellman is looking for excuses to uphold the convictions: This is only an excerpt from a very long post: Hope someone can refute this, as I am beginning to be truly sorry I ever paid any mind to this case:

Therefore, Hellmann intends to sustain the verdict, and he is looking for grounds on which to do so.

This explains why he has blocked an effort to determine the source of a semen stain left at the scene of a sexual homicide, but he is willing to entertain the gossip tendered by a group of criminals as well as any testimony Guede himself may provide.

By doing so, he shifts the focus of the appeal away from the junk science and the preposterous theory of the prosecution. The new focus becomes the credibility of these criminal witnesses, which is nil. Alessi is a liar; therefore Amanda and Raffaele are guilty.

http://www.injusticeinperugiaforum.org/post12093.html#p12093

 

[SMK]

June 19 post on Perugia Shock by Frank Sfarzo:

Today would be a historical day if judicial critique, if anthropology, if sociology really existed in Italy. The witnesses from the Viterbo jail, plus Luciano Aviello (who, instead, was together with Raffaele in Terni) have taught a real lesson of humanity, legality and reasoning to all prosecutors. The only argument for all the prosecution lawyers was ‘they are criminals, therefore not credible’: the argument of prejudice, of contempt, of insult. The argument of those who think to be superior to you, just because you may happen to be in jail.

But superior were the inmates, from all points of view. From the moral point of view: their target was to free someone, to criticize the judicial system, to have their voice heard. This exactly the opposite of the one all prosecutors had, since they are trying to get someone to jail, to defend the unfair part of the system, to silence witnesses. Yes, because these men of law have tried with all their strength, rather than prove the witnesses wrong, to shut them up! [. . . ]Amanda and Raffaele have nothing to do with the murder of Meredith. The killer escaped to England after the crime (according to Rudi’s tale). But we shall speak about that later.

http://perugiashock.com/2011/06/19/the-killer-is-free/

 

[otto]

Well, I just read a dreadful, horrific theory on IIP that Hellman is looking for excuses to uphold the convictions: This is only an excerpt from a very long post: Hope someone can refute this, as I am beginning to be truly sorry I ever paid any mind to this case:

Looks to me like someone is setting the groundwork for alleging that Hellman is corrupt, and to hold the Judge responsible for the prisoner circus. That is, if the appeal is not successful, then it can be suggested that the Judge deliberately shifted the focus from evidence to prisoner circus gossip in order to uphold the convictions. It should remain clear in everyone's minds that the defense chose to introduce the prisoner circus, not the prosecution and not the judge. Now that the prisoner circus has been introduced as evidence on behalf of the convicted pair, the Judge has to consider it ... and what better way than to see what Rudy has to say about the words that the prisoner circus have put in his mouth.

I suspect that next week Rudy will be in court. He will be asked if he told five conflicting stories to five prisoners. He might say no, in which case the prisoner circus can be dismissed. He might say yes, in which case the conflicting stories of the prisoner circus can be viewed as meaningless - since they are conflicting stories that do not match the evidence (eg: Meredith in a nightgown). He has already denied that he made the statements the prisoners have attributed to him.

It was a foolish decision to parade the prisoner circus through the courtroom in an attempt to put words in Rudy's mouth ... but perhaps there's a method to the madness that we have yet to see. Hopefully this isn't a brainchild of Mellas, although it does appear to be spawned by some misguided belief that a prisoner circus is a good source of information (talking heads on both sides of the pond seem to be rolling their eyes at this desperate move).

Re: "semen stain" - there is no semen stain. There are untested stains in the cottage, but sufficient evidence was collected to establish the guilt of all three convicted murderers.