Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #15

[otto]

:razz: ETA:
The SCOI said that Rudy Guede did not act alone,he acted with unnone persons.
The SCOI did not mention AK or RS as the unnone persons. Guede did, but his word is not good.

Do you mean unknown? What is the SCOI?

Regardless of whether Guede's word, along with that of the other two convicted murderers, is good, his words have been entered into evidence in the appeal. There is no reason for Guede to lie at this point, as it cannot aid his case in any way. There is no upside for him to implicate the pair, so if it isn't true, why would he lie? I suppose it's possible that he was fed, and then immediately deprived of food and water for two hours, bopped on the head, and out popped the accusations against Knox and Sollecito ... perhaps ... but not likely. It's not likely that Knox was coerced that way either, but if it's believable for Knox, it should be believable for Guede.

 

[SMK]

Do you mean unknown? What is the SCOI?

Regardless of whether Guede's word, along with that of the other two convicted murderers, is good, his words have been entered into evidence in the appeal. There is no reason for Guede to lie at this point, as it cannot aid his case in any way. There is no upside for him to implicate the pair, so if it isn't true, why would he lie? I suppose it's possible that he was fed, and then immediately deprived of food and water for two hours, bopped on the head, and out popped the accusations against Knox and Sollecito ... perhaps ... but not likely. It's not likely that Knox was coerced that way either, but if it's believable for Knox, it should be believable for Guede.

omg, I surely meant, "unknown". And I meant the high court of Italy, or the Supreme Court of Italy, as in SCOTUS, Supreme Court of US. :blushing: How do you know Guede was not told it would be "better for him" if he stuck with the original prosecution theory? Eh? .......:waitasec:

 

[otto]

omg, I surely meant, "unknown". And I meant the high court of Italy, or the Supreme Court of Italy, as in SCOTUS, Supreme Court of US. :blushing: How do you know Guede was not told it would be "better for him" if he stuck with the original prosecution theory? Eh? .......:waitasec:

He did not state that Knox and Sollecito were definitely at the scene until 2010, so there was no "orginal" story for him to tell. His earlier statements about Knox and Sollecito were vague with saying things like: someone like Knox was seen running from the cottage, it sounded like the voice of Knox, someone like Sollecito was present but Guede changes the detail of whether this person wore glasses or not. The confirmation statement was given in 2010, 3 years after the murder, and it was recently affirmed in court.

In what way is it better for Guede to verify that the pair were present for the murder after his case is concluded?

 

[SMK]

He did not state that Knox and Sollecito were definitely at the scene until 2010, so there was no "orginal" story for him to tell. His earlier statements about Knox and Sollecito were vague with saying things like: someone like Knox was seen running from the cottage, it sounded like the voice of Knox, someone like Sollecito was present but Guede changes the detail of whether this person wore glasses or not. The confirmation statement was given in 2010, 3 years after the murder, and it was recently affirmed in court.

In what way is it better for Guede to verify that the pair were present for the murder after his case is concluded?

Mayhap, to get privileges in prison, or to avoid further "trouble"? If they were there, why not say so? "Raffaele and Amanda were with me that night." Why always talk of a "shadow" which looked like RS, and of a "voice" which sounded like AK??? :waitasec:

 

[Nova]

The defense seems to agree that this murder was committed by more than one person, otherwise they would not have paraded the lying prisoners through the courts - all of whom attempted to point the finger at Guede and an accomplice other than Knox and Sollecito.

<modsnip>: the defense is duty-bound to introduce exculpatory witnesses. It is not obligated to present a single, unified theory of the case. The introduction of the jailhouse witnesses tells us nothing about a defense theory of the crime, or even whether the defense lawyers share the same view.

 

[Nova]

I think it was a huge blunder for the defense to include the prisoner's testimony in the appeal. Not only did it elicit self-serving testimony from Guede, but it put forth the following negative points: that the defense acknowledges that Guede did not act alone, that Guede confirms Knox and Sollecito were involved, that it attaches Guede trial notes to Knox/Sollecito and that it detracts from the strength of the DNA arguments. In a way, it tainted and muddied the defendants, causing some talking heads to describe the "contaminated DNA argument" as the pair trying to get off on an OJ style technicality.

It would have been malpractice not to put those witnesses on the stand. How was the defense to know for sure that RG would tell the same lie when his turn came? He has changed his story before. How is the defense to know which witnesses the jury will find more credible?

Alessi & Co. merely testified to what RG SAID in their presence. They were not at the cottage on the night of the murder and CANNOT testify to whether RG's statements were true.

So insisting that those witnesses prove anything about the actual crime or that they lock the defense into a certain theory is nonsense.

<modsnip> that OJ was acquitted; he didn't "get off on a technicality."

 

[otto]

It would have been malpractice not to put those witnesses on the stand. How was the defense to know for sure that RG would tell the same lie when his turn came? He has changed his story before. How is the defense to know which witnesses the jury will find more credible?

Alessi & Co. merely testified to what RG SAID in their presence. They were not at the cottage on the night of the murder and CANNOT testify to whether RG's statements were true.

So insisting that those witnesses prove anything about the actual crime or that they lock the defense into a certain theory is nonsense.

<modsnip> that OJ was acquitted; he didn't "get off on a technicality."

I didn't know that if a lawyer did not present statements from prisoners (that are well known for giving false testimony) during an appeal, that it would result in a malpractice suit. That is very surprising!

 

[wasnt_me]

Maybe this is why so many of us want to celebrate this victory early, and fully. Because it may reverse, so now is the time to celebrate.....

yes, I want to celebrate all the small moments, because as we know, illogical things seem to happen in this case, and if we don't celebrate the small victories, we might miss the chance. The defense has had so few, if an victories, I can't help but celebrate. :woohoo:

 

[OldSteve]

It would have been malpractice not to put those witnesses on the stand. How was the defense to know for sure that RG would tell the same lie when his turn came? He has changed his story before. How is the defense to know which witnesses the jury will find more credible?

Alessi & Co. merely testified to what RG SAID in their presence. They were not at the cottage on the night of the murder and CANNOT testify to whether RG's statements were true.

So insisting that those witnesses prove anything about the actual crime or that they lock the defense into a certain theory is nonsense.

<modsnip> that OJ was acquitted; he didn't "get off on a technicality."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the defense does not have to all who claim to be witnesses to testy... similar to not calling a defendant to testify.

 

[otto]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the defense does not have to all who claim to be witnesses to testy... similar to not calling a defendant to testify.

I would tend to agree. If testimony does not add anything to the argument, the lawyer (defense or prosecution) has the prerogative to exclude it.

 

[emyr]

I'm a little vague on your last point regarding doing a blank DNA test. It is a test to rule out contamination. If Meredith's DNA was tested immediately prior to the knife blade DNA, then it would be a problem. There should be a record of what was tested prior to the DNA from the blade. The report says that the information received by the experts is incomplete. The way I understand the blank testing factor is that it points towards the conclusion that contamination cannot be ruled out.

The scenario is more like using a tape cassette that had a previous recording on it, erasing the tape cassette then putting a new recording on top of it. THEN amplifying the sound up to the maximum level so you can hear someone whispering in the background.

Before using the tape again, you could have listened to the tape with the sound at maximum level to ensure that the tape is actually completely erased. Once you put a new recording on top of it, you're kind of hosed as to your options to listen to sound below a certain level. If you choose to amplify the sound to that level, you can never be certain that you are listening to a ghost tape, or the real audio from the newer recording.

So: the DNA. The contamination might not have occured in the prior test, it could have happened in any previous test. The "noise" everyone talks about in these tests is typically below 50 (RFU?, I can't remember the unit name). The results usually show up over 1000 units at their peak. (I think 2500 is typical?) But she was looking at peaks from 25-50. If you're blowing up the results that much you are also blowing up miniscule contamination that much as well.

Which is why testing such low levels is so much more stringent.

 

[otto]

The scenario is more like using a tape cassette that had a previous recording on it, erasing the tape cassette then putting a new recording on top of it. THEN amplifying the sound up to the maximum level so you can hear someone whispering in the background.

Before using the tape again, you could have listened to the tape with the sound at maximum level to ensure that the tape is actually completely erased. Once you put a new recording on top of it, you're kind of hosed as to your options to listen to sound below a certain level. If you choose to amplify the sound to that level, you can never be certain that you are listening to a ghost tape, or the real audio from the newer recording.

So: the DNA. The contamination might not have occured in the prior test, it could have happened in any previous test. The "noise" everyone talks about in these tests is typically below 50 (RFU?, I can't remember the unit name). The results usually show up over 1000 units at their peak. (I think 2500 is typical?) But she was looking at peaks from 25-50. If you're blowing up the results that much you are also blowing up miniscule contamination that much as well.

Which is why testing such low levels is so much more stringent.

Thanks. Have you come across any journal/academic/research articles about DNA analysis that you could recommend? I would like to get a better understanding of the process.

 

[sherlockh]

I think it was a huge blunder for the defense to include the prisoner's testimony in the appeal. Not only did it elicit self-serving testimony from Guede, but it put forth the following negative points: that the defense acknowledges that Guede did not act alone, that Guede confirms Knox and Sollecito were involved, that it attaches Guede trial notes to Knox/Sollecito and that it detracts from the strength of the DNA arguments. In a way, it tainted and muddied the defendants, causing some talking heads to describe the "contaminated DNA argument" as the pair trying to get off on an OJ style technicality.

Thanks, I am still scratching my head what exactly the point was of that clown show. Rudy being added as a direct eye witness testifying under oath can't be all that good for the defense. Why would they even go there? The timing of the leaked report must have something to do with that. Quickly forget about the testifying prisoners and move on. Well done. But wait..wasn't the Italian police (or even the evil Mignini?) bashed before for leaking details about the case? Why is it ok now to leak this information? Strange.

 

[sherlockh]

Mayhap, to get privileges in prison, or to avoid further "trouble"? If they were there, why not say so? "Raffaele and Amanda were with me that night." Why always talk of a "shadow" which looked like RS, and of a "voice" which sounded like AK??? :waitasec:

Admitting he was with them is the same as admitting his guilt. After all he still claims his innocense. Admitting that he is a rapist and murderer won't make his life any easier in jail (and after) either.

 

[otto]

Thanks, I am still scratching my head what exactly the point was of that clown show. Rudy being added as a direct eye witness testifying under oath can't be all that good for the defense. Why would they even go there? The timing of the leaked report must have something to do with that. Quickly forget about the testifying prisoners and move on. Well done. But wait..wasn't the Italian police (or even the evil Mignini?) bashed before for leaking details about the case? Why is it ok now to leak this information? Strange.

This comment from Knox in the last few days is priceless:

Knox: "I did not kill her. I will never tire of repeating this. We lived together, we were friends, I would never have harmed her. I too want to find out who killed her," Knox told her lawyer, La Repubblica newspaper reported."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/amanda-knox-hopes-home-christmas/story?id=13974676

There I was thinking her story, most recently presented in court with all the prisoners testimony, was that Guede did it with some other guy. Now she too wants to find out who killed Meredith Kercher? What an incredibly bizarre statement for an innocenti!

 

[SMK]

Admitting he was with them is the same as admitting his guilt. After all he still claims his innocense. Admitting that he is a rapist and murderer won't make his life any easier in jail (and after) either.

It might if the prosecution offered him something. It is not unheard of. And he is likely surrounded by other criminals of his rank....

 

[SMK]

This comment from Knox in the last few days is priceless:

Knox: "I did not kill her. I will never tire of repeating this. We lived together, we were friends, I would never have harmed her. I too want to find out who killed her," Knox told her lawyer, La Repubblica newspaper reported."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/amanda-knox-hopes-home-christmas/story?id=13974676

There I was thinking her story, most recently presented in court with all the prisoners testimony, was that Guede did it with some other guy. Now she too wants to find out who killed Meredith Kercher? What an incredibly bizarre statement for an innocenti!

Why would it be bizarre, if she thinks Guede is talking about " a shadow and a voice", to want to find out who the real culprits are? In any case, I thought she had said she had WANTED to find out who killed MK, like everyone else, before she was arrested. She says it in the context of the early days:

"At times I cry and remember the first days," Knox said to Ghirga. "I was young and didn't understand all this. But now there's a light, the hope to be free. The hope of spending Christmas in my America."

She also repeated that she is innocent of Kercher's killing.

"I did not kill her. I will never tire of repeating this. We lived together, we were friends, I would never have harmed her. I too want to find out who killed her," Knox told her lawyer, La Repubblica newspaper reported.

 

[Malkmus]

This comment from Knox in the last few days is priceless:

Knox: "I did not kill her. I will never tire of repeating this. We lived together, we were friends, I would never have harmed her. I too want to find out who killed her," Knox told her lawyer, La Repubblica newspaper reported."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/amanda-knox-hopes-home-christmas/story?id=13974676

There I was thinking her story, most recently presented in court with all the prisoners testimony, was that Guede did it with some other guy. Now she too wants to find out who killed Meredith Kercher? What an incredibly bizarre statement for an innocenti!

Why is this bizarre? She wasn't there, she doesn't know for a fact who killed Meredith and if it was possibly more than just Guede. Would you expect her to say "I know who killed Meredith"? You'd have a field day with that one. But instead she is saying the opposite.

 

[Malkmus]

Admitting he was with them is the same as admitting his guilt. After all he still claims his innocense. Admitting that he is a rapist and murderer won't make his life any easier in jail (and after) either.

That's not the point. He doesn't have to admit he participated in the rape and murder in order to state AK and RS are definitely the killers. The question is why is he so vague about implicating them. If they were there with them and he is trying to blame them he could just say he was a witness to them killing her but had nothing to do with it. Instead, we get this vague maybe it was them accusation. IMO, it's because he knows it's bs and can't say it was them because they weren't there.

 

[sherlockh]

That's not the point. He doesn't have to admit he participated in the rape and murder in order to state AK and RS are definitely the killers. The question is why is he so vague about implicating them. If they were there with them and he is trying to blame them he could just say he was a witness to them killing her but had nothing to do with it. Instead, we get this vague maybe it was them accusation. IMO, it's because he knows it's bs and can't say it was them because they weren't there.

You seriously expected him to change his story yet again? Of course not. This is nothing new. It goes back to day one when he refused to admit him being together with the 2 other killers. He was in the toilet remember? It would have been stupid to point out his 2 partners in crime at that stage. He only started doing that when it became clear the other 2 tried to blame him, but I am not surprised he is still lying about his own involvement.