Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #14

[wasnt_me]

I agree there is much to respect in otto. I think he is very bright, obviously knowledgeable about this case and strong in his convictions as to the guilt of all three defendants. I have not forgotten the many times he helped me when I was trying to sort out all the players and details of MK's murder.

And that's where I should stop, because we aren't really supposed to discuss one another here.

I plead the Fif!

I plead the Fif!

1-2-3-4-5----FIF!

:floorlaugh:

 

[SMK]

Yes, because the other story you were talking about came from here:

http://www.crimeblog.it/post/6952/d...nel-corso-della-prossima-udienza-il-27-giugno

Not here:

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

but I figured it out.

I didn't see that all the people would be called as a rebuttal, but it's hard to discern what the paragraph is saying through translation. i could be wrong.

At this point, after the five witnesses who cleared Amanda and Raffaele Giancarlo Costagliola the Attorney General has requested and obtained by the Assize Court of Appeal that, as a rebuttal, Rudy Hermann Guede be heard, that in the past has already denied the story Alessi, his friend Giacomo Benedetti, two prisoners who had contact with Luciano Aviello, the head of the squad and assistant chief Mark Chat Monica Napoleoni.

Sounds like the article is saying that yes, as a rebuttal, which also means response (remember this is a translation), RG will be called because he'd denied Alessi's claim in the past. He may want Benedetti for the same thing, but I don't know why. BUT we also don't know what all 3 hours of the skype call was about. Then it seems he wants two prisions who know Aviello to testify, probably to discredit him--as he should be, and then they want Marc Chat and Monica, but it doesn' say why. The article seems to say that these requests happened after the conclusion of testimony, not because of the testimony, though, as I said, I'm not good with the translate, so it could very well be BECAUSE of it.

After reading what I said here, what do you think? I'm open to suggestions. I might try the "bing" translator to see if it does better for me.

Bing translated like this:

At this point, after five witnesses who cleared Amanda and Raffaele, the Attorney General Giancarlo Costagliola asked and obtained from the Court of Assizes of appeal that, as currently being heard Rudy Hermann Guede, who in the past has already refuted the tale of Alessi, his friend James Benedetti, two prisoners who had contact with Luciano Aviello, the head of the mobile team and Marco Chat Deputy Monica Napoleons.

and this is what Dempsey says:

And by Saturday's end, it had gotten even longer, as the court agreed to call a number of counter-witnesses requested by the prosecution, including two more prisoners and two police officials.

The court also agreed to hear Giacomo Benedetti, the friend of Rudy's whose Skype conversation with Guede while Guede was on the lam in Germany led to his arrest, as well as Guede himself

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/arti...tify-in-Knox-appeal-1430190.php#ixzz1Pm5sVYso

So the two prisoners who know Aviello, the two police officers Marc and Monica are listed in her counter-witness part.

Yes, a bit confusing... But thanks for all the links and straightening it out. I listed it as Umbria because IIP - where I got the list - said it was from Umbria. Sorry. I did not even see this one with the pic of Guede: ETA: the translations are so convoluted. I think it is simply that the 6 witnesses are being called to rebut June 18 on June 27 by the prosecution......running out of steam here......

 

[wasnt_me]

I'm looking for a full skype call transcript. I'm almost about to pay for a membership on this news site and if I pay, and they don't have the whole thing, I will be PISSED.

ETA--So I paid it. I'm researching the archives. Anything interesting, I'll add it to my google docs links in my signature.

 

[wasnt_me]

Apparently in April 2009, he took the stand at Ak and Rs's trial:

The prosecution in the case had hoped that Mr Guede would shed light on what really happened on the night of 1 November 2007, when Ms Kercher was sexually assaulted, stabbed in the throat and strangled. However he took the witness stand to tell the judge, Giancarlo Massei, that he would “exercise my right not to respond”.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article2599605.ece

This from a news brief: 2008

Kercher theft theory

Police investigating the murder of Meredith Kercher said that her handbag had traces of blood from Rudy Guede, the Ivory Coast immigrant and drugs dealer, who is one of the three suspects.

Traces of Ms Kercher’s blood were inside the bag and Mr Guede’s was on the outside, suggesting that theft may have been a motive in the killing, investigators said. Ms Kercher, a Leeds University student who had started a course at Perugia University for Foreigners, had withdrawn €250 (£188) from a bank machine to pay her rent. The money has never been found.

Police said that they were unable to confirm reports that DNA traces not matching the three suspects had been found on Ms Kercher’s bra, suggesting that others were also involved in her murder.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article1917162.ece

 

[SMK]

I'm looking for a full skype call transcript. I'm almost about to pay for a membership on this news site and if I pay, and they don't have the whole thing, I will be PISSED.

ETA--So I paid it. I'm researching the archives. Anything interesting, I'll add it to my google docs links in my signature.

Wow, that sounds great!

 

[SMK]

Apparently in April 2009, he took the stand at Ak and Rs's trial:

The prosecution in the case had hoped that Mr Guede would shed light on what really happened on the night of 1 November 2007, when Ms Kercher was sexually assaulted, stabbed in the throat and strangled. However he took the witness stand to tell the judge, Giancarlo Massei, that he would “exercise my right not to respond”.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article2599605.ece

OK. This man is not big on telling the truth about that night. I do not think we can expect any "break through" from him. It would be a beautiful scene in a movie, where he would admit he was alone, etc., and plead that Knox and Sollecito be imprisoned no longer. But it is not going to happen. Of course those who think she is guilty do not think it ought to happen. In any case, did you find the Skype transcript? I recall reading about many points within that Skype call.....but cannot recall where...:crazy:

 

[otto]

Ah, yes...right. Well, if it is upbeat and constructive, and tending toward robust harmony, then I say it is important and interesting. So, thanks! I feel Mignini is similarly honest and admirable (though he does have kooky "fixed ideas")----in the end, though, justice and truth ought to win out. If a theory is wrong, the conviction which sprang from it ought to be overturned. Just wish clarity would come forth from the murkiness of this crazy appeals process.

What sort of "kooky fixed ideas" does the prosecutor have? I thought he was guilty of corruption and incompetence, but now "kooky ideas" as well? A kooky, corrupt, evil prosecutor? Sounds like something out of Disney cartoons.

 

[otto]

I agree there is much to respect in otto. I think he is very bright, obviously knowledgeable about this case and strong in his convictions as to the guilt of all three defendants. I have not forgotten the many times he helped me when I was trying to sort out all the players and details of MK's murder.

And that's where I should stop, because we aren't really supposed to discuss one another here.

Many people believe that the jury made the correct decision and others believe that everyone and everything is broken in the Italian justice system such that an American woman was caught in a web. No matter how hard the American woman tries to squirm out of the web, the tighter it gets. This latest charade of child murderers testifying that they know some other guy did it is entertaining, as a circus for the media should be, but it is only squeezing Knox tighter into the web. Why is that? Is there no legitimate information to be offered in her defense - other than testimony from a child murderer and unfounded allegations of forensic evidence contamination?

 

[otto]

Does anyone know what happened to the Bruce Fisher (fake name) rants? His stuff has been wiped from the net ... a bit like Frank's stuff was wiped from the net a couple of weeks ago. Did Google wipe out the Bruce stuff too, or was there some other reason? Is some weblog like IIP going to resurrect the Bruce Fisher rants too?

And what about Dempsey? I heard that she was a sockpuppet on Wikepedia peddling her own stuff, and she got caught ... and banned. What's that about? Why is Dempsey peddling her wares (facts about the Meredith murder trial) under disguise?

 

[wasnt_me]

OK. This man is not big on telling the truth about that night. I do not think we can expect any "break through" from him. It would be a beautiful scene in a movie, where he would admit he was alone, etc., and plead that Knox and Sollecito be imprisoned no longer. But it is not going to happen. Of course those who think she is guilty do not think it ought to happen. In any case, did you find the Skype transcript? I recall reading about many points within that Skype call.....but cannot recall where...:crazy:

Heck, no I could not find that dang on thing and wasted by $1.66!!!!

:slapfight:

So I'm going to bed!

:escape:

 

[otto]

Oh, Otto, you answer with an idle tongue. We can all agree to disagree. And I hope my comment about the Kercher's attorney did not offend you. I have nothing but sympathy for the Kercher family; it is the attorney who I think is just out for money. Now hush. :slap:

Yes, I have an opinion about attacking the victim's lawyer after he required that the defense witness be credible. Was the witness supposed to be deemed credible because he spoke for the defense? Why would he be deemed credible? One way to establish credibility is to show him a photo of the 18 month old child that he snatched from a high chair and beat to death with a shovel. When he was presented with the child's photo, he claimed to not know the child. That is a serious credibility issue and much as some want to complain (like the lawyer that Dr Sollecito described as "Ms 30 Balls"), Meredith Kercher's lawyer had every right to request that the credibility of the witness be established. The witness testimony became unreliable the moment his credibility was destroyed.

To criticize Meredith, the victim ... to criticize her lawyer because he destroyed the credibility of a prisoner circus defense witness with one photo ... I don't think the victim's lawyer should be criticized. He is speaking for the victim, and it doesn't seem unusual that a victim would want to exclude (distance herself from) unrelated child-murderer defense excuses from the proceedings.

 

[SMK]

What sort of "kooky fixed ideas" does the prosecutor have? I thought he was guilty of corruption and incompetence, but now "kooky ideas" as well? A kooky, corrupt, evil prosecutor? Sounds like something out of Disney cartoons.

Oh, you know what "fixed idea" I meant. It's obvious, isn't it? Do we have to go into the history of this again? Yes, I think Mignini suffers from a fixed idea and so do many others. And yes, it can be classified as "kooky".

 

[SMK]

Yes, I have an opinion about attacking the victim's lawyer after he required that the defense witness be credible. Was the witness supposed to be deemed credible because he spoke for the defense? Why would he be deemed credible? One way to establish credibility is to show him a photo of the 18 month old child that he snatched from a high chair and beat to death with a shovel. When he was presented with the child's photo, he claimed to not know the child. That is a serious credibility issue and much as some want to complain (like the lawyer that Dr Sollecito described as "Ms 30 Balls"), Meredith Kercher's lawyer had every right to request that the credibility of the witness be established. The witness testimony became unreliable the moment his credibility was destroyed.

To criticize Meredith, the victim ... to criticize her lawyer because he destroyed the credibility of a prisoner circus defense witness with one photo ... I don't think the victim's lawyer should be criticized. He is speaking for the victim, and it doesn't seem unusual that a victim would want to exclude (distance herself from) unrelated child-murderer defense excuses from the proceedings.

I do not agree about the lawyer. I think he is aggressive and money driven and many others say so. The truth about what happened that night should take precedence over anything else. I did not criticize Meredith, as you well know. Why did you say, To criticize Meredith, the victim ??? Show me please where I did that, because it has really annoyed me now. Otherwise, you are making this up as I never said a word against her.

 

[SMK]

Does anyone know what happened to the Bruce Fisher (fake name) rants? His stuff has been wiped from the net ... a bit like Frank's stuff was wiped from the net a couple of weeks ago. Did Google wipe out the Bruce stuff too, or was there some other reason? Is some weblog like IIP going to resurrect the Bruce Fisher rants too?

And what about Dempsey? I heard that she was a sockpuppet on Wikepedia peddling her own stuff, and she got caught ... and banned. What's that about? Why is Dempsey peddling her wares (facts about the Meredith murder trial) under disguise?

(Wikipedia bans sock puppets on a daily basis. My boss was banned for having 2 accounts. I left Wikipedia as an editor 2 years ago and never looked back. They accused me of sock puppetry and I never had more than one account, under my real name. Thus, I don't respect them. )

Bruce Fisher was still writing on June 19 on Ground Report, which is picked up heavily by Google News - and still heads IIP as webmaster and forum director - all of my reviews of his book still appear on Google also --- what do you mean, "wiped out"? And how does any of this have an effect on the appeals process?

ETA: Yep, Google has cut his articles as well. Gee, I wonder why/how that happened? Riight. I suppose Mignini has sued him and contacted Google via Court authority. Too bad someone over here could not have done the reverse, and got court authority seizure papers for some of the other writers and forums. This is not about justice for Meredith anymore. This is about ego and petty "win at all costs" mind set.

This article, though, is still standing from June 14:http://networkedblogs.com/j8FZV

 

[Nova]

Many people believe that the jury made the correct decision and others believe that everyone and everything is broken in the Italian justice system such that an American woman was caught in a web. No matter how hard the American woman tries to squirm out of the web, the tighter it gets. This latest charade of child murderers testifying that they know some other guy did it is entertaining, as a circus for the media should be, but it is only squeezing Knox tighter into the web. Why is that? Is there no legitimate information to be offered in her defense - other than testimony from a child murderer and unfounded allegations of forensic evidence contamination?

Given where RG has been kept for that past several years, to whom would you expect him to talk, the Pope? Trial attorneys have to work with the witnesses they can get.

But all that purple prose about a tightening web reads as if it came straight from a Grade B potboiler. Maybe that's why you are so willing to believe improbable theories from the prosecution.

 

[Nova]

Oh, you know what "fixed idea" I meant. It's obvious, isn't it? Do we have to go into the history of this again? Yes, I think Mignini suffers from a fixed idea and so do many others. And yes, it can be classified as "kooky".

Too bad we can't all read and write French, because the French phrase for the same thing, "idee fixe", is much more expressive and to the point.

 

[Nova]

Yes, I have an opinion about attacking the victim's lawyer after he required that the defense witness be credible. Was the witness supposed to be deemed credible because he spoke for the defense? Why would he be deemed credible? One way to establish credibility is to show him a photo of the 18 month old child that he snatched from a high chair and beat to death with a shovel. When he was presented with the child's photo, he claimed to not know the child. That is a serious credibility issue and much as some want to complain (like the lawyer that Dr Sollecito described as "Ms 30 Balls"), Meredith Kercher's lawyer had every right to request that the credibility of the witness be established. The witness testimony became unreliable the moment his credibility was destroyed.

To criticize Meredith, the victim ... to criticize her lawyer because he destroyed the credibility of a prisoner circus defense witness with one photo ... I don't think the victim's lawyer should be criticized. He is speaking for the victim, and it doesn't seem unusual that a victim would want to exclude (distance herself from) unrelated child-murderer defense excuses from the proceedings.

Um, actually, since he performed what was obviously a stunt, MK's lawyer only ADDED to the circus atmosphere!

 

[Nova]

I do not agree about the lawyer. I think he is aggressive and money driven and many others say so. The truth about what happened that night should take precedence over anything else. I did not criticize Meredith, as you well know. Why did you say, To criticize Meredith, the victim ??? Show me please where I did that, because it has really annoyed me now. Otherwise, you are making this up as I never said a word against her.

Oh, you know otto, SMK. As far as he is concerned, any of us who doesn't swallow hook, line and sinker everything the prosecution says must be actively attacking the victim.

 

[SMK]

Too bad we can't all read and write French, because the French phrase for the same thing, "idee fixe", is much more expressive and to the point.

Do you know I had actually considered using the French, as my favorite part of Nietzsche is when he goes into Saint Paul suffering from an idee fixe?

 

[Nova]

(Wikipedia bans sock puppets on a daily basis. My boss was banned for having 2 accounts. I left Wikipedia as an editor 2 years ago and never looked back. They accused me of sock puppetry and I never had more than one account, under my real name. Thus, I don't respect them. )

Bruce Fisher was still writing on June 19 on Ground Report, which is picked up heavily by Google News - and still heads IIP as webmaster and forum director - all of my reviews of his book still appear on Google also --- what do you mean, "wiped out"? And how does any of this have an effect on the appeals process?

ETA: Yep, Google has cut his articles as well. Gee, I wonder why/how that happened? Riight. I suppose Mignini has sued him and contacted Google via Court authority. Too bad someone over here could not have done the reverse, and got court authority seizure papers for some of the other writers and forums. This is not about justice for Meredith anymore. This is about ego and petty "win at all costs" mind set.

This article, though, is still standing from June 14:http://networkedblogs.com/j8FZV

Great article, great summary!

And who knew the British say "tit bit" instead of "tidbit"? They must not have "Beavis and Butthead" over there.