Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #17

[Malkmus]

~Respectfully snipped~

And above, Wasnt_me brought up a good point about the defense "shouldn't have to prove innocence."

My question is: Is this true in Italy? Does the prosecution have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt," similar to our standards in the US?

Also - Is the defense's job to make the prosecution prove it's case (as it is in the US) or does the defense in Italy have to go further?

Hope that makes sense,

Salem

I believe it is the same in Italy, as the judge in the current trial is stated as saying so:

Prosecutors argued that the court already had "all the elements to be able to come to a decision." A lawyer for the Kercher family, Francesco Maresca, also opposed the evidence review.
But in his ruling the judge referred to the Italian penal code which said that a "conviction could only be secured against an accused if it was beyond all reasonable doubt".
He said the refusal by the original court to refuse independent analysis of the DNA evidence, which defence lawyers had requested, had violated that principle.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...les-evidence-against-her-can-be-reviewed.html

 

[Nova]

Of course "reasonable doubt" has a slightly different definition in each U.S. state. They are all supposed to mean the same thing, but language being what it is, who can say if juries in every state reach the same understanding?

Now we move to Italy, with an entirely different legal tradition and where we are reading a translation of whatever Italian law actually says.

I agree with Malkmus that unless someone stumbles on a bilingual analysis that says otherwise, we have to assume the Italians mean the same thing with "reasonable doubt" as Americans do. But in truth, that may not be exactly the case.

 

[SMK]

Of course "reasonable doubt" has a slightly different definition in each U.S. state. They are all supposed to mean the same thing, but language being what it is, who can say if juries in every state reach the same understanding?

Now we move to Italy, with an entirely different legal tradition and where we are reading a translation of whatever Italian law actually says.

I agree with Malkmus that unless someone stumbles on a bilingual analysis that says otherwise, we have to assume the Italians mean the same thing with "reasonable doubt" as Americans do. But in truth, that may not be exactly the case.

@ Nova & Salem: In fact, Italian jurisprudence has a standard of reasonable doubt which is Kantian and universal:

To be more specific “In dubio pro reo” is a Latin legal term that means "When in doubt, in favor of the accused." This in lay terms is roughly equivalent to "Innocent until proven guilty." In doubt in favor of the accused. If there is a doubt about guiltiness, the judgement has to be in favour of the accused. This formula is taken from the Digest of Justinian I (D.50.17.125)

The Digest, also known as the Pandects (Lat. Digesta seu Pandectae, adapted from Gr. pandektes, all-containing), is a name given to a compendium or digest of Roman law compiled by order of the emperor Justinian I in the 6th century (A.D. 530-533). The digest is basically still a today the main source not only of the Italian law codes, but of of the all modern law systems, both of common and civil laws.

http://www.examiner.com/ny-in-new-y...newton-made-cnn-reputation-sink#ixzz1VEzrZ3Y8

 

[dgfred]

Fred - if you are referring to me, I do want you to know that I don't mind a little friendly back and forth. It is just that often - I can't tell what is friendly back and forth and what is not. If I can't tell, then yes, :slap: often happens.

Salem

No, not at all referring to you. I was speaking more of the avalanche of post from the other side of the debate. Any snarks deserve a slap/clip/slash from you. In fact I would like to hear more on your position if you have the time and inclination.

 

[dgfred]

The problem is there is no evidence for most of the "possibilities" listed. And the prosecution's burden is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not merely to list possibilities.

(In fact, I think very few of your possibilities are actually possible, given the time and language constraints, but I'm responding here for purposes of discussion.)

SMK asked me why was RG involved, and what could have been a scenario for the three accused getting together.

The prosecution's burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt concerning the overall evidence IMO, not because they can not provide a motive for killing Meredith. They do not have to prove motive beyond a reasonable doubt to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't agree with there being any language or time constraints even though the language one has been posted many times in this thread. AK spoke Italian well enough to be with RS all day/night for about a week, take classes, and function in general with the language IMO.

As for time constraints I am not sure what you mean at all. Neither has an alibi from around 9pm to about 6am the next morning computer/phone activity. RS last statement to investigators places AK out of his apartment from 9pm to 1am. Since their location during the time from 9pm to 6am can not be verified because they turned their phones off, I don't see any time constraints. No computer activity and no phone activity takes any problems with lack of time away, IMO.

 

[dgfred]

And the problem is that the facts can't be "nailed down" and never will be because the investigation was so sloppy.

When LE screws up, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the defense.

Sloppy overall or just concerning AK/RS? What about the case against RG?

Which parts to you consider screwed up? Doubt in what part(s) should be given?

Does giving the doubt in one (or a couple) area mean they are not guilty of being involved in murder? Do you want doubt given to the defense in every instance of disputed evidence... even if the judges/jurors didn't see it that way?

 

[wasnt_me]

:laugh::laugh: Seems so.....

But of course the PMF blog, once more, states that:

http://perugiamurderfile.typepad.co...-trace-of-them-in-meredith-kerchers-room.html

And as in my other above-quoted excerpts, they do give a somewhat plausible explanation for why Guede's DNA and prints would be more prevalent than his co-attackers. If one believes intuitively that the 3 were involved, than it can be backed up. I would say that logic points to their being not involved. Reasonable doubt is there, for sure, but does not seem to figure strongly in Perugia.

This blog is loaded with incorrect information. It also, as it rambles on with guessing AK and RS into the crime scene, proves the independent experts' point that the items from the crime scene could have been contaminated. It even errors by making noncrime scenes into crime scenes. It's hard for me to respect the anaylsis because it just isn't grounded in many facts at all.

When you're dealing with taking people's lives away, one cannot guess at it or "imagine" at it. That's what got AK in trouble, remember? Still to this date, there is no proof that PL was in the house, but his alibi is shaky and his phone pinged in the area. So why is he off the chopping block? What wait staff did he have at Le Chic to help prove he was there? Why only one customer to place him there? And why isn't it good enough that AK and RS place each other at their house, if one person can be enough to place PL somewhere else?

Not blaming him, just saying that according to the theory on that blog, PL ought to still be in trouble--unless there was more corroberation to his alibi that I missed. Hell, with the theory posed on this blog, I could be arrested for killing MK, and modern justice should not stand upon such shaky ground that any person off the street who can't remember where they were that night can be plugged into AK and RS's murderer slots.

I didn't see one piece of evidence presented by them that irrefutably placed AK and RS there the night of the murder. Smudged prints that "could be" theirs isn't enough. Wipe spots in the room are not enough, because it's illogical that they'd wipe up prints in the room and leave the bathmat, which is also in controversy. Unless we are told where LM and FR's dna, footprints, and fingerprints were ruled out, how can we compare that AK didn't have "enough" fingerprints in the house? Also taking into consideration that AK was staying with RS every night for a week and if the other girls' cleaned the rest of the house, well....well, that would explain why AK's prints weren't prevalent in comparision to theirs--oh, but there IS no comparison to theirs.

Where were Mk's prints found within the house? did they even print the washing machine?

The blog said no proof of presence isn't proof of absence, but I say no proof of presence is DEFINITELY not proof of presence.

 

[dgfred]

What is the incorrect information? Could you list it for us?

 

[wasnt_me]

Okie, am contemplating them, thanks!!:waitasec:

Maybe you can get some contemplation of some of your ideas in return?

 

[Allusonz]

Well, here goes. I'll try to dodge the slaps.

Pot plus (.....?) may equal less inhibition and possible violence, etc.

Could AK have met RG in town once she knew she was not going to work?

Could they have made a drug deal? Could they have met later or gone together to party at the cottage? Were they blitzed out of their minds?

Could AK have taken advantage of the fact that RG 'fancied' her?
Could AK have mention Meredith as a possible 'date' for RG instead of herself?

Could AK, after partying, have wanted to pull a prank on Meredith? A possible fake assault, or fake kidnapping sort of thing?

Could it have involved theft of Meredith's money? IIRC AK had not been paid and RS was low on funds in his account. RG also mentions money as a motive
and AK would have known where Meredith kept the rent money.

Could Meredith have been unhappy about AK's past behavior and partying at the cottage when she was hoping for a quiet study night? Fight began.

The lone wolf will never work in my opinion with the evidence of a staged break-in and evidence of RS (bathmat print), AK (dna mixed with Meredith's blood) in several locations added on top of the lies/no alibi/contradictions/evasion during questioning.

I see lots of possibilities.

Lots of could have's. The problem being is the facts that cannot be disputed such as RS's friend stopping by at 8:40, the phone call from RS's father, the fact that MK was walked partially home by her friend with an approx time of 8:56 as per the phone call which originated from the cottage, TOD as per the experts opinions including Dr. Lalli for the prosecution. 2 - 3 hours puts the TOD at 9:00 - 9:30, lack of evidence supporting a staged breakin as the law of physics do not support it

 

[dgfred]

Could have is what SMK asked for.

How does all that activity before 9pm effect their having no alibi past 9pm?

Time of death can not/is not/has not been seen by the court as being between 9 and 9:30.

At this point it is difficult to see that the staged break in has been refuted.
In fact it seems more to have been proven by the prosection backed by evidence and reasoning. The defense bringing in multiple inmates to testify to there being more than one killer that night also kind of shoots the theory of no staging in the foot IMO.

What 'laws of physics' show there wasn't a staging?

 

[wasnt_me]

And the problem is that the facts can't be "nailed down" and never will be because the investigation was so sloppy.

When LE screws up, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the defense.

Worth repeating, because if I were in the innocent shoes of a person on trial, I would certainly not be trying hear about "possibilities."

The murder for money "possibility" is highly unlikely to me given the following reasons:

1. I read that AK had $4,000 in her bank account.
2. RS's family is supposedly rich. That makes me doubt he'd kill for 300 euros. What was the urgent need of 100 euros each that couldn't wait for a bank to open? Their trip out of town? Because for one, they didn't go on it, and if they'd murderered to get the money to go, you'd think they would have gone. If they'd owed drug money, then they could have left town early, waited for a bank to open, and brought the money back. And did anyone in Italy hear of ATM's? Ak could have withdrawn from her $4000 for an emergency.
3. Plus, MK was sexually assaulted. If AK and RS strangely signed up to murder for a 100 euros split, surely rape wasn't also part of that agenda?
4. Why is AK stealing 300 euros from her roommate, but NOT the guy who was previously caught and apprehended for stealing from a nursey and allegedly from a law office?
5. AK didn't get her check from work? Firstly, did she make tips? Secondly, she had 250 euros on her. So RG killed for 50 euros? Is that right? Thirdly, how do we know for a fact whether she got paid, didn't get paid, RS had no money in his bank account to the degree that they would murder for 300 euros to be split among 3 people?

I might have more reasons upon further thought, but the kill for money or even for drug money doesn't make sense to me.

The kill for a sexual thrill???

I just have to save if RS was really a virgin, he got a sexual thrill enough to have his first sexual experience a week prior. I don't care what he might have had on his computer. Just because you looked at it, doesn't mean you'd do it. I have murder pictures of MK on my computer. Doesn't mean I want to go kill someone. I'll bet the most average person has looked at some crazy stuff on the net just because they clicked it out of curiosity, wanted to be grossed out or whatever.

I just don't see how you can talk 3 people from completely different backgrounds, who'd known each other a week or less, into murdering for a sexual thrill, a thrill that apparently only ONE of them got to experience.

I don't go for the prank, either, because the prank could NEVER have gotten so out of hand that the prankster and her BF decided to let the 3rd one invited in for the prank continue to rape the prank victim. I'd need to see scerenios were other people decided to prank someone in such an awful and dangerous way to even believe people do that to each other. And the likelihood of convincing two other people to go along with this prank? And why prank an assault or kidnapping? That's so random.

I can go with somehow "finding" RG in town, except he voluntarily placed himself at the cottage at a certain time, and if we believe the survellience video, he was actually in the vacinity of the cottage 20 min. before MK got there. The probablity that he was already in the house when she got where was high.

MK and AK fighting "again" because AK was partying? There had to be a first fight before it could be "again." Did we have testimony of the pair fighting? No. Do LM and FR state that AK was constantly partying? As a matter of fact, FR states that MK and AK hung out together on occasion, and so do the boys downstairs state this. Sounds like everyone was partying. MK stayed out till 530am the night before, so....and again, AK spent zero nights at the cottage after she met RS, so logic doesn't follow that they even go to the cottage the night of the murder to party.

If there's facts to disprove what I said, let's hear them, otherwise, as I said before, "imagining" scenerios is what got the police and AK in trouble in the first place, so we should steer clear of "imagining" things not based in fact.

 

[Allusonz]

This blog is loaded with incorrect information. It also, as it rambles on with guessing AK and RS into the crime scene, proves the independent experts' point that the items from the crime scene could have been contaminated. It even errors by making noncrime scenes into crime scenes. It's hard for me to respect the anaylsis because it just isn't grounded in many facts at all.

When you're dealing with taking people's lives away, one cannot guess at it or "imagine" at it. That's what got AK in trouble, remember? Still to this date, there is no proof that PL was in the house, but his alibi is shaky and his phone pinged in the area. So why is he off the chopping block? What wait staff did he have at Le Chic to help prove he was there? Why only one customer to place him there? And why isn't it good enough that AK and RS place each other at their house, if one person can be enough to place PL somewhere else?

Not blaming him, just saying that according to the theory on that blog, PL ought to still be in trouble--unless there was more corroberation to his alibi that I missed. Hell, with the theory posed on this blog, I could be arrested for killing MK, and modern justice should not stand upon such shaky ground that any person off the street who can't remember where they were that night can be plugged into AK and RS's murderer slots.

I didn't see one piece of evidence presented by them that irrefutably placed AK and RS there the night of the murder. Smudged prints that "could be" theirs isn't enough. Wipe spots in the room are not enough, because it's illogical that they'd wipe up prints in the room and leave the bathmat, which is also in controversy. Unless we are told where LM and FR's dna, footprints, and fingerprints were ruled out, how can we compare that AK didn't have "enough" fingerprints in the house? Also taking into consideration that AK was staying with RS every night for a week and if the other girls' cleaned the rest of the house, well....well, that would explain why AK's prints weren't prevalent in comparision to theirs--oh, but there IS no comparison to theirs.

Where were Mk's prints found within the house? did they even print the washing machine?

The blog said no proof of presence isn't proof of absence, but I say no proof of presence is DEFINITELY not proof of presence.

I am going to take this one step further. PLE including Mignini as he is in charge of the investigators and confirmed his role in the CNN interview focused on an individual/s and whether it was simply tunnel vision, the need to solve this crime asap, or a combination of these and other things, did not investigate this crime properly right from the get go. This lead to other potential suspects and alibis not being considered/investigated.

 

[Allusonz]

Could have is what SMK asked for.

How does all that activity before 9pm effect their having no alibi past 9pm?

Time of death can not/is not/has not been seen by the court as being between 9 and 9:30.

At this point it is difficult to see that the staged break in has been refuted.
In fact it seems more to have been proven by the prosection backed by evidence and reasoning. The defense bringing in multiple inmates to testify to there being more than one killer that night also kind of shoots the theory of no staging in the foot IMO.

What 'laws of physics' show there wasn't a staging?

The TOD testimony was given in the first trial. The fact the judge chose to overlook this testimony and come up with a different version of events does not eliminate the fact that this testimony indeed happened and is on record

ETA The prosecution presented no experts to explain how this was staged it was simply stated by the prosecution and accepted by the judge as he dismissed the testimony of the defense expert as he was not a rock throwing expert

The judge in this trial went to great lengths in the Motivational Report to jump hoops in order to justify this conviction much of which is not supported by trial testimony and known facts

 

[wasnt_me]

Lots of could have's. The problem being is the facts that cannot be disputed such as RS's friend stopping by at 8:40, the phone call from RS's father, the fact that MK was walked partially home by her friend with an approx time of 8:56 as per the phone call which originated from the cottage, TOD as per the experts opinions including Dr. Lalli for the prosecution. 2 - 3 hours puts the TOD at 9:00 - 9:30, lack of evidence supporting a staged breakin as the law of physics do not support it

But what if her friend was in on the prank? Huaah???? That's a thought!:floorlaugh:

 

[Allusonz]

But what if her friend was in on the prank? Huaah???? That's a thought!:floorlaugh:

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

I am still trying to figure out how the heck they were able to communicate this intricate crime to include groups, cleanups, etc., when none of them were conversant enough in either language. That alone should give pause as we have all seen how easy it was between the players (the door issue and cell phone message come to mind) to misunderstand what was being said by the various parties.

 

[dgfred]

The TOD testimony was given in the first trial. The fact the judge chose to overlook this testimony and come up with a different version of events does not eliminate the fact that this testimony indeed happened and is on record

ETA The prosecution presented no experts to explain how this was staged it was simply stated by the prosecution and accepted by the judge as he dismissed the testimony of the defense expert as he was not a rock throwing expert

The judge in this trial went to great lengths in the Motivational Report to jump hoops in order to justify this conviction much of which is not supported by trial testimony and known facts

So the judged chose to overlook the testimony that TOD was established as from 9 to 9:30???

Regarding your ETA: Is this another instance where the judged chose to overlook what is the defense position?

*Still no answer about the 'laws of physics' statement?

Why the dislike of Mignini if it was the judges that chose to ignore the defense positions regarding TOD and the staged break in?
If the judge is believing there is a staging, doesn't the spell doom for AK/RS anyway?
Why are there so many instances where one could even say 'the judge decided to ignore' regarding defense positions regarding evidence?
Will the judge ignore these same defense positions regarding these things in the appeal?

 

[wasnt_me]

The TOD testimony was given in the first trial. The fact the judge chose to overlook this testimony and come up with a different version of events does not eliminate the fact that this testimony indeed happened and is on record

So much evidence, though circumstanial, supports the earlier TOD. I'm not sure how it can be refuted.

1. MK getting home when RG said she did.
2. RG pinpointing the TOD with more accuracy than the investigators (when he was on the toilet, of course).
3. Lack of cell phone activity at a time when she did use her phone alot, according to her phone records.
4. Her jacket being wrested off her during the murder.
5. The broken down car and tow truck incident from 1030 to 1120pm during which none of those people saw lights or activity at the cottage.
6. Evidence from defense experts that the phones were at the garden by 1013pm.
7. The fact that her laundry wasn't taken out of the washer from between 9pm and a death at 11 or 1130 or whatever other later time. What was MK doing all that time in the cottage?
8. The fact that she never attempted to call her sick mom back after the 856pm attempt that never connected.

Even early news reports put the TOD before 1030pm. The TOD was moved back to accomodate the ear witness, who says she heard a scream around 11pm, an impossible scream that not even the family awaiting the tow truck heard.

 

[Allusonz]

Sloppy overall or just concerning AK/RS? What about the case against RG?

Which parts to you consider screwed up? Doubt in what part(s) should be given?

Does giving the doubt in one (or a couple) area mean they are not guilty of being involved in murder? Do you want doubt given to the defense in every instance of disputed evidence... even if the judges/jurors didn't see it that way?

This is MOO only fred. I believe that this was a very incompetent investigation not directed initially towards any particular person in that first day. I think other factors came into play as the investigation progressed

 

[wasnt_me]

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

I am still trying to figure out how the heck they were able to communicate this intricate crime to include groups, cleanups, etc., when none of them were conversant enough in either language. That alone should give pause as we have all seen how easy it was between the players (the door issue and cell phone message come to mind) to misunderstand what was being said by the various parties.

I'm gonna think up a guilty scenerio. It's gonna be hard, though, if I have to stay in the bounds of the evidence.

It might involve AK and RS wearing those white onesies that the police wore at the cottage.