Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #15

[Malkmus]

If Knox doesn't know who murdered Meredith, then why is her defense argument that Guede did it?

There's a huge difference between someone not knowing who killed someone, and their lawyers arguing some else probably did the deed.

 

[Malkmus]

I guess this case really just comes down to what side you believe, I've read the responses to my questions, and thank you all for your input. But really everything can be taken two ways and everything you guys say, the exact opposite is proposed on sites such as truejustice.org. Really I still believe they are guilty, I noticed with Malkmus' response was he kept asking what something proved... well I never said it proved anything they were just questions I had that stuck out as possible little building blocks that just didn't fit or make sense with the pro-AK angle to me. What does RS being scared of RG "making up strange things" prove, in itself nothing, but it sure is an odd thing to say or way to word that (sorry it just is). I also have found the alibis to very confused and full of lies, so that really comes down to whether you believe there was police pressure or not (even though that is a pretty much he said/she said debate). Anyways again thanks for the answers, was curious if there was something I was missing on my initial look at the case, but so far I don't believe there is... but like I said I always keep an open mind, but I'm still surely leaning toward guilty as charged.

Your welcome

everything can be taken two ways

Which is why I believe there is reasonable doubt.

 

[Nova]

It is the lawyer's prerogative to determine that prisoners with a history of presenting false testimony in trials is not going to provide exculpatory evidence, therefore the lawyer is not obligated to parade the lying prisoners through the courtroom.

While it is true that the defense team had the technical right to decide Alessi & Co. were not credible and therefore keep them off the stand, apparently that isn't how the defense saw them.

 

[Nova]

"otto is functioning under the misapprehension that the defense must develop and be bound by a single, unified theory of the crime. That is not true" ???

What exactly does the above mean? I don't recall giving you permission to speak for me....

I wasn't speaking for you, otto, I was paraphrasing what you yourself had posted.

You said or implied in numerous posts that the defense has now locked itself into a multi-assailant theory. I merely asserted that defense attorneys are not required to stand by the testimony of every defense witness. They can put people on the stand who cast doubt on the prosecution's case, even if those witnesses conflict with one another.

You and I will agree, I'm sure, that too much of that may hurt the defendant in the jury's eyes. But Alessi's testimony re accomplices is actually hearsay. The defense isn't obligated to believe those remarks and incorporated them into its theory.

 

[Nova]

If Knox doesn't know who murdered Meredith, then why is her defense argument that Guede did it?

Because he did. But his statements have always claimed others were involved. It's only natural that AK wants to know the whole truth of what happened to her friend.

 

[Nova]

I guess this case really just comes down to what side you believe, I've read the responses to my questions, and thank you all for your input. But really everything can be taken two ways and everything you guys say, the exact opposite is proposed on sites such as truejustice.org. Really I still believe they are guilty, I noticed with Malkmus' response was he kept asking what something proved... well I never said it proved anything they were just questions I had that stuck out as possible little building blocks that just didn't fit or make sense with the pro-AK angle to me. What does RS being scared of RG "making up strange things" prove, in itself nothing, but it sure is an odd thing to say or way to word that (sorry it just is). I also have found the alibis to very confused and full of lies, so that really comes down to whether you believe there was police pressure or not (even though that is a pretty much he said/she said debate). Anyways again thanks for the answers, was curious if there was something I was missing on my initial look at the case, but so far I don't believe there is... but like I said I always keep an open mind, but I'm still surely leaning toward guilty as charged.

BBM: Why is that an odd thing for RS to say? He was already in jail; any number of false statements about AK and him had been leaked to the press. In theory, RG had everything he needed to make up a false account of the crime starring AK and RS. (In fact, that's what RG eventually did.)

Of COURSE, RS was concerned. Who wouldn't be?

 

[wasnt_me]

Uhhh... no. I don't believe Rudy could do anything in these videos.

Maybe more like this:

YouTube - ‪A Good Title‬‏
YouTube - ‪FAT MAN CLIMBS UP WALL‬‏

Anything is possible, but is it PROBABLE. Should find a video of an out-of-shape dude breaking in to a similar scenario. If he could do it, Rudy certainly could.

Both, entertaining, hilarious and true!

But that little boy scares me, so always remember to lock your upstairs windows!!!!!

 

[wasnt_me]

July 4 AGI news:

http://www.agi.it/english-version/italy/elenco-notizie/201107041213-cro-ren1029-meredith_amanda_s_lawyer_examination_rules_out_knife

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/07/04/italy.knox.parents/

Speaking of judge Micheli, I was reading his report last night. The translation is terrible but oh his reasoning is even worse, and I see now where the other side got all its talking points.

RG's trial was a complete joke.

 

[wasnt_me]

I don't think the judge only realized this today since CNN had an article up before this trial that he would withdraw from the case. Maybe it is just a procedurial issue that he has to withdraw today? I have no idea why he was assigned to this case in the first place. Maybe it was just his turn

I have to agree with that. I see his assignment as just as bizzare as running the civil trial with PL and AK concurrently witht the criminal trial of AK and RS. I thought that was just how they did things, but I saw something very wrong with having the same jury on those two cases at the same time.

 

[wasnt_me]

I haven't posted about this case before and just recently became interested in it.....

Before I get into the meat of your post, just wanted to say:

:slapfight:arty::newyear::wagon::welcome4:

 

[wasnt_me]

:welcome:


You are mistaken on a number of these points of which I will provide either links to help you become more informed to enable you to make a more informed decision regarding your opinions.

First off. No one on any of these forums has examined AK medically to make any type of diagnosis with respect to her. Period. There has been nothing which has been presented by the prosecution/defense to allude to any disorder thus I take great exception to anyone that tries to base a diagnosis on any individual unless an individual has been examined by a professional rather than tabloid fodder. This I have found throughout the threads here to be a standard practice by posters but a dangerous one......

[/url]

So glad you did this. I thought I had my work cut out for me because I was about to go back and just find old posts and copy and paste to answer the questions.

:rocker:

 

[wasnt_me]

As far as the lamp is concerned, RG---for however much we can believe him---said the lamp was there already.

RG....added that, as far as he could remember, the black lamp that had seen some photographs of the acts of the proceedings, placed on the floor in MK's room, probably there was when he had rescued, having had the impression that the beam of light coming from a different direction.
The lamp in question, meanwhile, had been recognized by r. and m. as part of the decor of the room of k., which was devoid of light points (and indeed, in the survey, had not been found other sources of illumination in the room).

Translation of the Michaeli MOT Report.

Let me know if I interpreted what this says incorrectly, because reading the translations is confusing.

I think R and M are FR and LM. I think K is AK in the above statement.

btw, it's raining here. A wet 4th of JULY!

 

[wasnt_me]

As well the judge that sentenced him thought he could do it and rejected the opinion of the prosecution

True. Mic just held the opinion that he didn't believe it, because he didn't believe the entry way and he didn't believe also that RG would use the front door, or something crazy like that?

Anyways, he also contended that RG should have just jumped back out the window instead of having to go out the front door. As we saw from the youtbe antics of others, RG probably COULD have gotten back out the window, but the judge talks as if MK's presence in the house didn't change the dynamics of escape.

The judge doesn't believe that the door being locked from the inside precluded RG's escape, which led to the confrontation. He says that even if it were locked, RG should ahve just gone out the window.

The judge does not take into accoun that MK might have been in the kitchen, the hallways, or standing in front of FR's room, freaking out because the window is broken.

The judge doesn't take into account that MK could have entered, saw a light on ONLY in the bathroom, and went over there and opened the door and saw RG on the toilet.

The judge does not take into account that RG could have successfully gotten all the way back to FR's room, made a noise, or somehow alerted MK before he actually got out the window.

I don't understand why this judge dismissed these possibilities. There's probably several more things that COULD have occured which would cause RG to have to confront MK rather than sneak back out the window.

The judge even has in his report that incident where RG had to threaten a man with a knife to get out of his apartment. And at that crime scene, guess what was stolen? Money and credit cards, same as at MK's.

That scenerio proves that not only will RG confront a homeowner with a knife, but he has no problem being in your house with YOU in it, too!

 

[wasnt_me]

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

Something like One Republics Apologize :innocent:

Oh, dammit! now I want to hear that song!

:maddening:

:crazy:

 

[wasnt_me]

While on a my short vacation without cell phones, internet etc I was able to review the experts opinion and it is my belief that this opinion is much stronger and takes things much further that I had even initially thought.

I think what the defense would be wise to do now is show other cases, if possible, where Steph's results have been called into question. Do we know of any others right now? Someone should email Frank to do an article or two on that.

 

[wasnt_me]

They may try but I will suspect that her testimony considering there are no SAL cards to back up her testing will not hold up. The experts noted this in their report. We could be looking at even more perjury

It's ironic, at length Mic rebutted contamination in his MOT report for RG. He did it without the fsa files apparently, because we JUST got those in 2011.

Mic also defending the collection procedures, which I guess includes gift-wrapping a mop. He swore by the glove changing in the collection procedures. I tell you, the Mic report is more entertaining than the Mass report.

 

[wasnt_me]

Snipped for space and BBM

Amazing that the writing is so different and of all people Mignini read this out. Even more amazing although why it should be is why it had not been disclosed to the defense hhhhhhmmmmmm

Yes, I thought it was very strange when you guys said the defense protested this letter as having not seen it before, because of course, we all knew about it for months and months. However, it does make sense that the Prosecution would not let them see the actual letter, as they would conclude what we have concluded---someone else penned it. After being withheld from seeing the fsa files and the TMB results, I put nothing past the prosecution.

However, someone from the Randi board brought this to Frank's attention, and he stated that it's possible that a prison scribe wrote it "for" RG.

Now, if that's true, we can tell, because the language is different from language RG uses in the diary. It's also a more scathing letter. RG sounds really mad in it, and that's not how he sounded in the diary. Additiomally, they said that Alessi was like a mentor to RG, so sseems like to me, he might not have been very willing to publicly flog him. Now RG could have told Alessi the lies or might not have, but I think with the other prisoner suddenly deciding that he didn't hear or see anything, we might assume that some pressure was behind the works. Pressure on these prisoners and pressure on RG to refute the statements.

I wouldn't be surprised if RG dictated the letter, but got pissed upon reading the final result. That might be why he bucked about the letter in court.

I don't see this as a stretch, because after all, didn't someone write AK's Nov 5th statement for her, but in her presence?

 

[wasnt_me]

I guess this case really just comes down to what side you believe, I've read the responses to my questions, and thank you all for your input. But really everything can be taken two ways and everything you guys say, the exact opposite is proposed on sites such as truejustice.org. .... Anyways again thanks for the answers, was curious if there was something I was missing on my initial look at the case, but so far I don't believe there is... but like I said I always keep an open mind, but I'm still surely leaning toward guilty as charged.

Thanks, you'll forgive anyone if they seem a little assertive in their claims. We've been battling this out for 15 threads, at about 40 something pages each, 4 years. And I just came to it in April 2011 when we were only at thread 9.

I does come down to what the judge and jury will believe. It's probably helpful to read all sites. From the sounds of it, you've been on pro-guilt sites, which will not help you at all see the other side.

Pro-innocent sites like injusticeinperugia.com might help you see more clearly the other side of things. You are stil welcome of course, to your opinion in the case.

Usually, it is hard to say what's in someone else's mind when crazy things happen to them, so all we can do is go by the facts, not why or why didn't someone react a certain way.

The essential parts in the case, I believe are:

• 1. DNA evidence--however, we do not know if it's reliable.
• 2. TOD--which is in dispute, but by following the evidence, can be pinned down to DEFINITELY between 8:56 and 1013pm.
• 3. Murder weapon--doubt has been successfully cast that we actually have the actual murder weapon, so that's out.
• 4. Footprints--we have RG's footprints in blood (and possibly semen) in the murder room. Some of RG's footprints have a glass impression in them, which means he was around broken glass at some point before or after MK was bleeding. He claims the window hadn't been broken; however, how does this glass get on the bottom or his shoe, in blood, then?
• 5. alibis--RG's friends do not support his alibis. AK and RS alibied each other, but the investigators sought to turn RS and AK against each other, which called the alibi into question. However, we do know that RS is alibied up to at least 9:26pm. AK, since she doesn't have to be at his computer, is accounted for at least until about 850pm, I'd say, because we don't know for 100% certainity when RS's friend stopped by the house to relieve RS of his duty that evening, and we don't know how long the talk took.
• 6. Witnesses--many of the witnesses have been successfully discredited. I'd have to go through them each one by one to show you how, but it's too much for just this one post.
  7. relationship of the accused and motive: Strangely, Ak and RS had known each other only a week, and they didn't hang with RG at all. RG did not have a kingly command of English. I hear RS didn't, which is probably why he and AK spent so much time horizontally. Anyways, RG also didn't' have a cell phone, and we saw no calls between the couple and RG. So how do the three manage to collaborate to pull this crime off with the language and techinical barriers?
  8. Timelines. RG gives us a timeline. While we can't believe his every word, he was caught on CCTVV (though he desputes it) at about 750pm and again 820pm. He admits arriving at the house early then leaving to get his kabaab. He then admits to returning at 830pm. Though he keeps saying he dind't have a watch on. Don't know if ipods tell time, but RG manages to peg the exact time MK got home and he places himself right there, saying they had a date for that exact time. AK and RS are NO WHERE in site and have alibis for that time frame. RG then says the attack happened about 920 to 930pm. These are by his own admissions, and it totally fits the timelines of him having time to "save her," clean off his feet and jeans, rifle through her purse, get her cell phone and money, and cover her, lock her room, and take off. If RG hadn't voluntarily admitted to these things, I wouldn't believe him, but at the time he stated these things, he didn't know what the police knew about the TOD, so he was speaking frankly about what time he actually thought it was. This to me, is the strongest indicator that he acted alone. RS and AK were alibied strongly until at least 850pm, but they have a computer alibi which extends to 926 or 946pm. With that timeframe, all they could possibly do is go to the cottage and perform a clean up. That's when MOTIVE comes into play, because why in hell would they clean up on a crime they weren't even there for?
  
  My questions are rhetorical. Answer them if you can, but i'm not putting them to you as a challenge, only as fodder for more discourse.
  

 

[wasnt_me]

There's a huge difference between someone not knowing who killed someone, and their lawyers arguing some else probably did the deed.

Which is exactly why we had prisoners on parade the other week.

 

[wasnt_me]

While it is true that the defense team had the technical right to decide Alessi & Co. were not credible and therefore keep them off the stand, apparently that isn't how the defense saw them.

It's not my understanding that they had a right to do it or not. It's my understanding that all witnesses are supposed to be heard in open court if they have relevant information pertaining to the case. We really need a definitive answer on whether that's true. I see nothing wrong with the prisoners on parade, because it is equal to the prosecution calling to the stand:

1. The lying RG. Obivously, he is the biggest liar in the case, so why is the defense being hammered on "lying" witnesses, but not the prosecution? RG unfortunately being the last face MK saw, we have to take his statemnts and anyalize them heavily in a search for any possible truth.
2. the befuddled homeless man, who is on drugs and cannot get his days straight.
3. The half deaf lady, who can't get her nights straight, either, but can magically hear screams 70 meters away, from a supposedly closed cottage through her own closed window, and also can discern how many patters of little feet she hears.
4. The store shop owner who testifies to AK at the crack of dawn NOT buying bleach that was NOT used in any clean up.
5. The oliver thrower, who runs from a knife brandishing AK in the streets, but stops to give directions to a lost driver.
6. The guy who claims RG, RS, and AK were together, leaving the cottage at a time RS proved to be elsewhere, and also AK in a red coat she never owned.
7. Stephani--who claimed she never tested the luminal prints for blood, when indeed she had, but just didn't get the results she wanted.

Surely, there are others I forgot about, but you see my point. That's why I'd like to know if it was a defense desire to have the prisoners heard or if it's the true course of Italian court proceedings to hear from anyone with knowledge of the case and then weigh their credibility into the verdict.