Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #15

[otto]

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

Lawyers are not wingnuts that pull stuff out of thin air, they are hired by the defendant to advocate and speak for them. Whatever comes out of the mouths of the lawyers originates with the defendant.

 

[otto]

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.

I would ask that you, and anyone else that is so inclined, refrain from putting words in my mouth or discussing me. I'm here to discuss this case and I can assure you that if I were to have little discussions about another poster on the public board, the subject of those discussions would not be happy about it. It is rude, presumptuous, condescending and disrupts the discussion and atmosphere of the board. If you object, or require clarification, regarding something I post, I will be happy to clarify. I enjoy the debate, but not when it disintegrates into personal remarks.

If a lawyer expects to be taken seriously, then the requirement or expectation is to be consistent. Lawyers are free to respond to each piece of evidence with whatever story they like, but as soon as those stories are in conflict, the credibility of the defendant is placed in doubt. On the one hand Knox argues that Guede is the culprit, and on the other she claims that she would like to see the real murderer found. Inconsistencies like this are problematic for her defense. Witnesses presented by the defense should strengthen their legal position, but when the defendant privately disagrees with what they have presented in court, one wonders what exactly they are presenting to the court and why.

 

[Malkmus]

Lawyers are not wingnuts that pull stuff out of thin air, they are hired by the defendant to advocate and speak for them. Whatever comes out of the mouths of the lawyers originates with the defendant.

At what point did Amanda's lawyers state "Our defendant is claiming Rudy Guede is the murderer"?

The notion that Amanda is the one responsible for compiling all the evidence, expert testimony, etc., that points to Rudy is nonsense. So is the notion that lawyers do nothing but repeat things they're client told them. Or I suppose you think Amanda is the one who called forth witnesses to testify Rudy had broken into their home, or that he was aggressive towards women.

 

[Nova]

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



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!

Wouldn't "K" be MK in that context?

 

[Nova]

Lawyers are not wingnuts that pull stuff out of thin air, they are hired by the defendant to advocate and speak for them. Whatever comes out of the mouths of the lawyers originates with the defendant.

Absolutely not true. It may be true that the system holds defendants legally accountable for whatever their lawyers say, but it's preposterous to insist that lawyers are hand puppets for their clients.

If that were true, we'd have no need for defense attorneys. Defendants would defend themselves.

 

[Nova]

I would ask that you, and anyone else that is so inclined, refrain from putting words in my mouth or discussing me. I'm here to discuss this case and I can assure you that if I were to have little discussions about another poster on the public board, the subject of those discussions would not be happy about it. It is rude, presumptuous, condescending and disrupts the discussion and atmosphere of the board. If you object, or require clarification, regarding something I post, I will be happy to clarify. I enjoy the debate, but not when it disintegrates into personal remarks.

If a lawyer expects to be taken seriously, then the requirement or expectation is to be consistent. Lawyers are free to respond to each piece of evidence with whatever story they like, but as soon as those stories are in conflict, the credibility of the defendant is placed in doubt. On the one hand Knox argues that Guede is the culprit, and on the other she claims that she would like to see the real murderer found. Inconsistencies like this are problematic for her defense. Witnesses presented by the defense should strengthen their legal position, but when the defendant privately disagrees with what they have presented in court, one wonders what exactly they are presenting to the court and why.

otto, I merely referred to a position you had taken in numerous previous posts. And in fact, you take much the same position in your response here. So I have no idea what your problem is.

I repeat: a defense team has no burden to present a unified theory of the crime. It need only create reasonable doubt of the veracity of the prosecution's theory (or whatever theory the jury invents on its own, since the jury isn't obligated to agree with any particular view of the crime).

While I agree that a defense that is too all over the place risks losing the attention of the jurors, presenting the Alessi witnesses was a necessary gamble on the defense's part and doesn't in and of itself lock the defense into a multiple-assailant theory of the crime. In fact, the Alessi testimony isn't even evidence of multiple assailants: (at least under U.S. rules) only the parts of the testimony re Guede's actions are admissible for their content; the testimony re accomplices is admissible to prove that RG said there were others, but is hearsay with regard to what those others did.

In short, the defense has not proven there were multiple assailants.

 

[wasnt_me]

Wouldn't "K" be MK in that context?

I took it as AK's because I thought the dispute was why would Ak's lamp be in Mk's room. Is that not the dispute? If it isn't, I wouldn't be surprised that someone on this thread had us debating yet another dead end theory earlier.

 

[Nova]

I took it as AK's because I thought the dispute was why would Ak's lamp be in Mk's room. Is that not the dispute? If it isn't, I wouldn't be surprised that someone on this thread had us debating yet another dead end theory earlier.

You're probably right. I thought they meant MK because they were talking about the lack of light sources. But rereading it, I think they may just be saying it was the only light source in Amanda's room.

 

[wasnt_me]

It seems that in the MIC MOT report, the judge didn't believe RG when he "suddenly" had seen AK in the yard.

The December 7, 2007, before the G.I.P., he is said to have gone to the bathroom after the approach taken with m., and added: "I heard playing at the door, the Bell, but after I put the volume high and I did my needs", without any reference to a.; describing the moment you looked out the window of the room of r. for guardar out, after the flight of the unknown armed with a knife, said: "there was a room I entered that room because the window was visible, and you could see the courtyard and the street, I haven't seen anyone", then say you haven't seen or recognized anyone let alone.
It cannot be claimed, therefore, that the March 26, 2008 statements on having recognized the voice of a. port and having seen the figure at the height of the gate were a kind of completion of the previous narrative, perhaps because it was certain that there was time to ask and that g. would clear although second interrogation had been given over the 8 December: were a radical change of course, we must also take into account to assess overall reliability of the accused. The question implicitly announced few lines ago, is in fact: If the truth is that, i.e. If the door and on the gate, there was really a. and r. recognized her, because they said it immediately?

I add this in here, because some were saying that RG's testimony regarding AK and Rs is damaging. Perhaps it never was damaging in the first place, if this is interpreted correctly by me. of course Mic and Mass are two different judges, so....and then Hellman's different, too.

 

[otto]

Absolutely not true. It may be true that the system holds defendants legally accountable for whatever their lawyers say, but it's preposterous to insist that lawyers are hand puppets for their clients.

If that were true, we'd have no need for defense attorneys. Defendants would defend themselves.

That's not logical. Lawyers are required to interpret law and present arguments to the court within the confines of the law. Lawyers are not allowed to present information that they have concocted on their own. They present the defendant's position.

 

[otto]

otto, I merely referred to a position you had taken in numerous previous posts. And in fact, you take much the same position in your response here. So I have no idea what your problem is.

<snipped>

Perhaps an example will clarify my point. For example, I could say: Nova thinks that lawyers can waltz into court and present whatever wingnut theory they can think up; that what lawyers present in court doesn't have to relate to the defendant's statements and position.
:floorlaugh:

It would be absurd for me to post a comment like that here, as it discusses you in the third person; in effect excluding you, while at the same time ridicules your position.

Does that help?

 

[Nova]

That's not logical. Lawyers are required to interpret law and present arguments to the court within the confines of the law. Lawyers are not allowed to present information that they have concocted on their own. They present the defendant's position.

What the defense lawyer presents is by definition the "defendant's position."

But that isn't what you said in previous posts on the subject. I would explain how your argument has changed, but you have asked me not to quote or paraphrase you.

 

[Nova]

Perhaps an example will clarify my point. For example, I could say: Nova thinks that lawyers can waltz into court and present whatever wingnut theory they can think up; that what lawyers present in court doesn't have to relate to the defendant's statements and position.
:floorlaugh:

It would be absurd for me to post a comment like that here, as it discusses you in the third person; in effect excluding you, while at the same time ridicules your position.

Does that help?

otto, I don't think "ridicule" is what I did in this instance, but I am being more careful now.

 

[Allusonz]

@I_Must_Break_You ...


I see you've heard from the voice that does not trust the jury, so I'll add my 2 cents.

Sollecito's explanation for Merdith's DNA on the knife blade is very suspicious. As you point out, innocent people don't make up lies to explain DNA on a knife.

There is no logical explanation for Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp and not even flying DNA explains it as there was no source for it to fly from.

Knox and Sollecito lied about their activities on the night of the murder. There is no logical explanation for two educated individuals to lie about their timelines during a murder investigation unless they have something to hide.

Good question about Knox not flushing the toilet. She was fixing her hair next to a dirty toilet, still (according to her) unaware that anything was amiss at the cottage, and did nothing about it - very odd indeed.

There is no explanation for Knox's behavior that day. After realizing that something was wrong at the cottage, she still did nothing. According to her, she got the mop, strolled through town, arrived at Sollecito's apartment, mopped the floor, had something to eat, and then decided to mention the situation to Sollecito.

Filomina arrived at the cottage shortly after noon and noticed that the washer was warm. The contents were very wet. Two towels were tested for evidence but nothing was learned about them.

The bathmat barefoot print has been matched to Sollecito as it is too short and wide to belong to Guede or any other suspect. The smaller barefoot prints, revealed using luminol, have been attributed to Knox. Guede's footprints are all made with shoes and go from the bedroom straight out the front door.

The mixed DNA is in Filomina's bedroom. It is one piece of evidence that the defense has strategically avoided, but that could change with the new DNA report.

Knox knew too much about the murder for someone that didn't speak Italian and didn't see into the bedroom after the bedroom door was opened. Manner of death had not yet been announced when Knox told people that Meredith bled to death. That has never been properly explained. It has been suggested that one of Filomina's friend (who doesn't speak English) told Sollecito (who doesn't speak English) who told Knox (who didn't speak Italian). It has been suggested that Knox and Sollecito couldn't execute a murder because they didn't share a language, yet we are to believe that when it came to explaining the manner of death, they did share a language.

Knox's lamp was in Meredith's bedroom, and there was no DNA anywhere on the lamp. It is most likely that it was used during a clean-up, with some speculating that Knox lost one of her many earrings during the struggle and they were looking for it.

Guede did not officially identify Knox and Sollecito as accomplices until after his appeals were concluded.

And ... don't waste your time with the cook: Dempsey. She is not a journalist or a reporter, but rather a <modsnip> that is known for attempting to manipulate facts and information on the Meredith Kercher wikipedia article.

<modsnip>.

"In the half-hour or so spent at her apartment, she noticed small things that seemed out of place. The front door was open. In the bathroom she shared with Meredith, there were a few drops of blood on the sink and a stain on the rug that had not been there the day before. And there was an unflushed toilet in the bathroom that Filomena and Laura shared, unusual because they were very neat. Taken separately the oddities seemed unremarkable, she was able to explain each away, but Amanda had a sense of unease that she couldn&#8217;t put her finger on"

http://www.vashonloop.com/article/amanda-knox-crime-scene-investigation

FR did not arrive till approximately 1:00 which has been verified by cell phone records

A reading light is turned on by a switch. It is well documented that AK spent her evenings with RS. If you were to turn on a reading lamp would you touch the shade? or the little switch. This one is truly tough

Could I have a cite please that states AK was missing an earing

Could I have a cite please that states that DNA does not fly. Hint if you sneeze does it travel on the ground or through the air

 

[Allusonz]

@I_Must_Break_You ...


I see you've heard from the voice that does not trust the jury, so I'll add my 2 cents.

Sollecito's explanation for Merdith's DNA on the knife blade is very suspicious. As you point out, innocent people don't make up lies to explain DNA on a knife.

There is no logical explanation for Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp and not even flying DNA explains it as there was no source for it to fly from.

Knox and Sollecito lied about their activities on the night of the murder. There is no logical explanation for two educated individuals to lie about their timelines during a murder investigation unless they have something to hide.

Good question about Knox not flushing the toilet. She was fixing her hair next to a dirty toilet, still (according to her) unaware that anything was amiss at the cottage, and did nothing about it - very odd indeed.

There is no explanation for Knox's behavior that day. After realizing that something was wrong at the cottage, she still did nothing. According to her, she got the mop, strolled through town, arrived at Sollecito's apartment, mopped the floor, had something to eat, and then decided to mention the situation to Sollecito.

Filomina arrived at the cottage shortly after noon and noticed that the washer was warm. The contents were very wet. Two towels were tested for evidence but nothing was learned about them.

The bathmat barefoot print has been matched to Sollecito as it is too short and wide to belong to Guede or any other suspect. The smaller barefoot prints, revealed using luminol, have been attributed to Knox. Guede's footprints are all made with shoes and go from the bedroom straight out the front door.

The mixed DNA is in Filomina's bedroom. It is one piece of evidence that the defense has strategically avoided, but that could change with the new DNA report.

Knox knew too much about the murder for someone that didn't speak Italian and didn't see into the bedroom after the bedroom door was opened. Manner of death had not yet been announced when Knox told people that Meredith bled to death. That has never been properly explained. It has been suggested that one of Filomina's friend (who doesn't speak English) told Sollecito (who doesn't speak English) who told Knox (who didn't speak Italian). It has been suggested that Knox and Sollecito couldn't execute a murder because they didn't share a language, yet we are to believe that when it came to explaining the manner of death, they did share a language.

Knox's lamp was in Meredith's bedroom, and there was no DNA anywhere on the lamp. It is most likely that it was used during a clean-up, with some speculating that Knox lost one of her many earrings during the struggle and they were looking for it.

Guede did not officially identify Knox and Sollecito as accomplices until after his appeals were concluded.

And ... don't waste your time with the cook: Dempsey. She is not a journalist or a reporter, but rather a sockpuppet that is known for attempting to manipulate facts and information on the Meredith Kercher wikipedia article.

Again further proof that some posters will go to any extremes to try and make an argument valid no matter what the actual facts are.

There is no DNA of MK on the knife Hint it is in the experts document

The experts are also contesting the blood evidence which would include the one mixed DNA profile in FR's room. Hint it is also in their report

 

[Allusonz]

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

:maddening:

:crazy:

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

Payback is sweet after I ended up listening to that song after you made that last post...just teasing but it is a good song

ETA For most of the night btw rofl

 

[Allusonz]

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.

There is always case law which can be referred to simply look at the Innocence Project. There are many well documented cases

 

[Allusonz]

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?

Yes I have heard that as well. Usually though they write out the persons own words, not words they do not understand. Still scratching my head over that one. As well no the defense only received a copy of that letter the day it was read but I am certain they will find out the details regarding to how it came about

 

[Allusonz]

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

I believe you might of forgot that some of these inmates actually wrote the Court in the trial of the first instance and were ignored.....

Their claims were never investigated

This is about justice not fiction

 

[Allusonz]

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

There most certainly is. Unfortunately, some don't understand what this difference is