Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #14

[Allusonz]

I'm not seeing the connection. He is proud of Italy's forensic testing and represents the victim so he's aggressive and after money? I see it differently, obviously ... I see that he is trying to keep convicted child murderers and people with a history of providing false testimony from being taken seriously in court - doing exactly what he should do.

Then he is IMO a very poor lawyer. There is nothing whatsoever to be proud of with respect to the forensic testing, collection methods, investigation that this particular group of ILE partook in. Good science does not know international borders

That tells me that his interests go beyond finding the truth

 

[Allusonz]

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.

I have been trying to figure out whom they have been setting up to take the fall for alot of this. MN is one candidate

 

[Allusonz]

It's amazing that drug addicts who actually couldn't get their days and holidays straight on the prosecution side are okay, but prisoners' testimony should be discounted. It's amazing that no one knows what the others were in jail for, but they are immediately dismissed while backing MA. It's amazing that AK is a murderer and a liar, but she sure the hell knows when a blood drop landed on a sink.

It seems to me that the court has done the same thing with these prison witnesses as they did with the drug addict. They are calling for more testimony. To support or refute the drug addict, they called in the bus and disco people. Now, to substantiate or refute the prisoners, they're calling RG, his skype friend, and somem police officers.

BBM

Amazing is it not for such a liar they believe her when it suits them

 

[Allusonz]

I remember discussing that way-back ... about how prosecutors in the US are elected and that they can lose their jobs if their prosecution rates are not high enough. I don't know of any other country that elects prosecutors. Are you? I'm familiar with prosecutors that are hired into gov't positions and where they generally establish a lifelong career.

Yet no matter what system a country uses you still have bad apples and not just in the US

ETA I believe it was Nova that explained the US system with respect to whom is elected for what many times

 

[Allusonz]

BBM: If you knew that Mellas meant "funny" as in "bizarre", why did you claim he was "amused" by the process?

I wonder why as well

 

[Allusonz]

Exactly. So much for all the protestations of "serious" concern for justice for Meredith Kercher. And so much for admitting one's own mistakes, even though one is lightening-quick to condemn the mistakes of others!

I'm thinking was't_me was right: there's no way to deal with the word games except ignore them.

Must agree here

 

[Allusonz]

Thanks! I mean that's just the same thing the other side was saying about the drug addict. Even though he was disproved through other witnesses, the other side defended him for his right to speak even though he was homeless and a drug addict.

The innocent side kept saying homelessness and drugs didn't matter. what mattered what his testimony didn't add up.

Now that there are prisoners saying AK and RS were not involved, they are being attacked for the same thing that the other side defended the drug addict for.

There's no arguing with hypocrits.

You make an important distinction here that should be noted

 

[Allusonz]

You know, I was thinking, what if AK had said, "Okay, then I'm going to see Forrest Gump tonight..." on her text message to PL. They'd probably have arrested Tom Hanks!

Or if she'd said, "Roger. See you later, good night," then they'd be looking for Roger.

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh: too funny

 

[otto]

Then he is IMO a very poor lawyer. There is nothing whatsoever to be proud of with respect to the forensic testing, collection methods, investigation that this particular group of ILE partook in. Good science does not know international borders

That tells me that his interests go beyond finding the truth

It seems to me that in every single trial I follow, some errors are made. There were some errors in the investigation into the murder of Meredith Kercher as well, but not so many that we can conclude that all the evidence is tainted, or that anything was seriously wrong with the forensic analysis. Americans are proud of their forensic methods and courts systems, and it seems that Italians have the same pride in their country. I see no reason to read anything into this. I certainly don't see this as a reason to conclude that the victim's lawyer is aggressive and money hungry.

 

[Allusonz]

The fact that you would say this about The Innocence Project and its noble goals...

That's it, I'm back to lurking, otherwise I'm going to get myself banned.

Totally understand this :giggle:

 

[Allusonz]

It seems to me that in every single trial I follow, some errors are made. There were some errors in the investigation into the murder of Meredith Kercher as well, but not so many that we can conclude that all the evidence is tainted, or that anything was seriously wrong with the forensic analysis. Americans are proud of their forensic methods and courts systems, and it seems that Italians have the same pride in their country. I see no reason to read anything into this. I certainly don't see this as a reason to conclude that the victim's lawyer is aggressive and money hungry.

You still do not make the evidence fit the hypothesis. If the evidence does not fit the hypothesis you change it instead of going out of your way to silence those that are trying to point out the problems. No one should go to the extremes that has gone on here

 

[otto]

BBM

Amazing is it not for such a liar they believe her when it suits them

I'm a little disappointed that so much is made of referencing the fact that Amanda said her visible blood was not in the sink the day before the murder. Knox told multiple lies in the days after the murder. She was proven to be a liar because her stories were refuted with facts.

Fast forward a couple of years and Knox is in the courtroom testifying as a witness in her own defense. This is a completely different situation than the days following the murder. She is sworn to tell the truth and during questioning, under these circumstances, we can only hope that she told some truth, although I doubt she told all the truth.

Should we assume that everything that Knox said is a lie, that everything she said it true, that some of what she said it true? When I mention Knox's sworn testimony about her blood, it is suggested that I am cherry picking what I believe.

Is it really necessary to criticize people that comment on this case and if so, why? In debating this case, it is significant to mention Knox's testimony regarding the blood in the sink. Does that mean that I believe this? No. It means I am discussing a case and hopefully bringing relevant points to the discussion. Instead of the debate going forward, I have to read that I cherry pick what to believe.

 

[otto]

You still do not make the evidence fit the hypothesis. If the evidence does not fit the hypothesis you change it instead of going out of your way to silence those that are trying to point out the problems. No one should go to the extremes that has gone on here

I can cite examples of errors made in recent court cases, but won't. However, I will say that those errors did not result in a change of suspect or a not guilty verdict. They were viewed as errors that did not impact the end result. I don't see any significant errors in the Knox trial that should have resulted in different suspects.

 

[SMK]

I can cite examples of errors made in recent court cases, but won't. However, I will say that those errors did not result in a change of suspect or a not guilty verdict. They were viewed as errors that did not impact the end result. I don't see any significant errors in the Knox trial that should have resulted in different suspects.

:razz:

 

[otto]

:razz:

In a recent case, a victim was missing after going for a run, but police had her cell phone. The cell phone could have contained information about who she was meeiting, which could have led to suspects. Police proceeded to completely wipe the cell phone by entering options - up to 10 times - to confirm the deletions and wiping of the phone. That seems rather significant, but it didn't change the outcome of the trial. What have we seen in the Meredith Kercher murder investigation that matches, or is worse, than that?

 

[SMK]

In a recent case, a victim was missing after going for a run, but police had her cell phone. The cell phone could have contained information about who she was meeiting, which could have led to suspects. Police proceeded to completely wipe the cell phone by entering options - up to 10 times - to confirm the deletions and wiping of the phone. That seems rather significant, but it didn't change the outcome of the trial. What have we seen in the Meredith Kercher murder investigation that matches, or is worse, than that?

I cannot believe police wipe clean phones and fry computer hard drives with impunity. Yet they are the first to hold people accountable for the tiniest infractions. Ugh, maybe Kierkegaard was right, this world is not a world with justice.......ugh.....:razz:

 

[Nova]

I must say that the times that RG gives in his Skype call are interesting

9:00 - 9:20 - 9:30

All interesting times he gives in that call. As well interesting that he mentions Giacomo and the fact that someone rang the doorbell.

RG is rather specific about the times, isn't he? Although parts of what he says are obviously self-serving, it's hard to see what he would gain by lying about the times.

And if the prosecution is correct and RG only came to the cottage with AK and RS later in the evening, how would RG know that MK was in fact at home by 9pm or thereabouts?

 

[Nova]

In a recent case, a victim was missing after going for a run, but police had her cell phone. The cell phone could have contained information about who she was meeiting, which could have led to suspects. Police proceeded to completely wipe the cell phone by entering options - up to 10 times - to confirm the deletions and wiping of the phone. That seems rather significant, but it didn't change the outcome of the trial. What have we seen in the Meredith Kercher murder investigation that matches, or is worse, than that?

I can't believe you actually asked that!

The destruction of three--count 'em three--hard drives comes to mind...

 

[otto]

I can't believe you actually asked that!

The destruction of three--count 'em three--hard drives comes to mind...

What information relevant to the investigation was held in the computer from Knox? Since information was obtained from Raffaele's computer, and it was fried when they tried to make a second copy, what difference does it make? Frying the phone (in the case I referenced) happened in the US and it made no difference in the court decisions and proceedings.

 

[SMK]

What information relevant to the investigation was held in the computer from Knox? Since information was obtained from Raffaele's computer, and it was fried when they tried to make a second copy, what difference does it make?

Well, just to begin with one small thing: Knox was upset, because there were pictures of her with Meredith, which conveyed affection between the 2 girls. I would be upset, too.