Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #17

[Allusonz]

There is proof that Amanda, at some point in time, used her own bathroom. That's it.

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

Sorry you made me do it!!! I am beginning to think the only way that could be proven in some eyes is if it was recorded

One republic's apologize comes to mind :innocent:

 

[Allusonz]

It should have been over 14 September 2009 with the motion to void the trial that is outlined in Frank's "Too Low" post.

http://web.archive.org/web/20100806235709/http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/09/too-low.html

Transcript attached

I agree. This should of been the show stopper but why would Massei ruin a perfectly good record of denying defense motions? I mean it only was regarding the prosecution not disclosing evidence :giggle:

ETA Sorry RM I have a quirky sense of humour thus you will have to bear with me here

 

[Allusonz]

I think it means he feels there is sufficient evidence in the court record and appeal filings to make a decision on the other evidence. It's a new trial, it just doesn't require the evidence to be retaken. The judge is free to come to a completely different conclusion than Massei based on the same evidence.

Must agree with this as well. I believe he has evaluated the evidence from the trial of the first instance and has already formed an opinion regarding the remaining testimony

 

[RoseMontague]

Ok I don't get this report. They basically spend the entire time speaking to Pisa, Nadeau, and Voght? What is wrong with this picture? Besides the fact that they may as well of said whom their source was

Do like Graham's statement at the end about sources

This mixed blood thing just goes on and on. Massei didn't buy it and if Hellman(n) buys it I will be shocked. It's like some of the stuff The Machine likes to repost that has already been refuted. Maybe they think if it is repeated often enough somebody will believe it (or maybe they are the ones that have bought into this falsehood).

 

[SMK]

This mixed blood thing just goes on and on. Massei didn't buy it and if Hellman(n) buys it I will be shocked. It's like some of the stuff The Machine likes to repost that has already been refuted. Maybe they think if it is repeated often enough somebody will believe it (or maybe they are the ones that have bought into this falsehood).

I no longer think Perugia Murder file is any accurate gauge for the future. When the independent review was granted for the DNA on the bra clasp and knife, PMF sneered at those of us who thought this was a positive thing for the defense, assuring their followers that "the independent review will merely uphold the original findings."

 

[sherlockh]

Hi, and welcome! I would say the general consensus here is divided, so not really a consensus but two lines of thought ; with one camp believing in innocence, and a smaller camp holding formidably to guilt. I read often at Perugia Murder file and they are holding steady to what seems to me to be a lot of refuted material. As I have said before, I think with Hellman and the jury, they must already have reached their own consensus. To my thinking, "doubt in favor of the accused" must surely hold with Knox and Sollecito, but as there are so many intelligent people who somehow have the need to interpret absolute guilt, I am taking nothing for granted here, Rose.

What ''smaller" camp? Most people who think the right people are in jail move on. Is that really so difficult to understand? The appeal isn't half as interesting as the original trial. Hellman is preparing this case for the Supreme Court and he is doing a good job in that.

The only thing I am curious about is if he will change the timeline as I think Massei's timeline doesn't make sense. I think there is something to say for an earlier arrival time by the 2 at the cottage, and an earlier TOD (around 10:30pm) but it won't change anything about the convictions. I see you are already saying that if Hellman gets it right he will release them. In other words, if he confirms their convictions he got it wrong so we will just at another judge to the long list of brainless judges who got it all wrong :snooty:

 

[SMK]

What ''smaller" camp? Most people who think the right people are in jail move on. Is that really so difficult to understand? The appeal isn't half as interesting as the original trial. Hellman is preparing this case for the Supreme Court and he is doing a good job in that.

The only thing I am curious about is if he will change the timeline as I think Massei's timeline doesn't make sense. I think there is something to say for an earlier arrival time by the 2 at the cottage, and an earlier TOD (around 10:30pm) but it won't change anything about the convictions. I see you are already saying that if Hellman gets it right he will release them. In other words, if he confirms their convictions he got it wrong so we will just at another judge to the long list of brainless judges who got it all wrong :snooty:

I said "smaller camp" as I was thinking: SMK, Nova, Malkmus, Miley, wasnt_me, Old Steve, Allusonz, Rose, ChasingMoxie, ohiogirl
vs
Otto, Fred, sherlock.

.....okie?:waitasec: Make sense? It was in regard to Rose asking about the consensus at Websleuths....

I did not say Hellman "will be brainless if he gets it wrong". :snooty: I am hoping he will see that the convictions were unjust, that "doubt in favor of the accused" must stand....

 

[sherlockh]

I said "smaller camp" as I was thinking: SMK, Nova, Malkmus, Miley, wasnt_me, Old Steve, Allusonz, Rose, ChasingMoxie
vs
Otto, Fred, sherlock.

.....okie?:waitasec: Make sense? It was in regard to Rose asking about the consensus at Websleuths....

I did not say Hellman "will be brainless if he gets it wrong". :snooty: I am hoping he will see that the convictions were unjust, that "doubt in favor of the accused" must stand....

I am not an 'in a camp' kinda person so leave me out of it. I am an individual who refuses to get brainwashed by the AK propaganda team repeating over and over that there is ZERO evidence. It is simply not true. There is plenty of evidence. If AK was standing right in front of you telling you how she killed Meredith you would excuse her by saying she was hypnotized by the evil Mignini. Some people just want to believe what they want to believe. Don't get fooled by internet gossips! Zero doubt. 100% Guilty!

 

[SMK]

I am not an 'in a camp' kinda person so leave me out of it. I am an individual who refuses to get brainwashed by the AK propaganda team repeating over and over that there is ZERO evidence. It is simply not true. There is plenty of evidence. If AK was standing right in front of you telling you how she killed Meredith you would excuse her by saying she was hypnotized by the evil Mignini. Some people just want to believe what they want to believe. Don't get fooled by internet gossips! Zero doubt. 100% Guilty!

I am not the brainwash-PR campaign type, so leave me out of it.:snooty::snooty::snooty: Do NOT tell me I would say she was hypnotized by the "evil Mignini", either. I LIKE Mignini and have everywhere defended him. If she confessed, I would think her 100% GUILTY, so do NOT presume to speak for me, please. Would you like it if I said if Guede confessed he did it alone, you would still not believe it? Presumption is very, very naughty.

 

[sherlockh]

I am not the brainwash-PR campaign type, so leave me out of it.:snooty::snooty::snooty: Do NOT tell me I would say she was hypnotized by the "evil Mignini", either. I LIKE Mignini and have everywhere defended him. If she confessed, I would think her 100% GUILTY, so do NOT presume to speak for me, please. Would you like it if I said if Guede confessed he did it alone, you would still not believe it? Presumption is very, very naughty.

You know very well that she already confessed to her involvement, and Guede already confessed to the involvement of the other two. My presumption wasn't really about you personally but more in general. It is based on an incredible list of the most far fetched scenarios and excuses made up for these two convicted sex murderers. I am sorry but I just can't believe another confession will change a thing. The 'small camp' of people who by now still believe in their innocence do so because they really want to. No matter what. JMO.

 

[ohiogirl]

I think the most incredible list of farfetched scenarios and excuses are the circumstances that brought this trial about in the first place. jmo

 

[SMK]

You know very well that she already confessed to her involvement, and Guede already confessed to the involvement of the other two. My presumption wasn't really about you personally but more in general. It is based on an incredible list of the most far fetched scenarios and excuses made up for these two convicted sex murderers. I am sorry but I just can't believe another confession will change a thing. The 'small camp' of people who by now still believe in their innocence do so because they really want to. No matter what. JMO.

Knox did not hold to the so-called "confession". Why did Guede not take his back, and say, "I really was not there, after all"?

On the contrary, I would LIKE to think they were guilty. I originally did think they were guilty and had no problem viewing them as killers. Now I would feel less burdened if I felt AK and RS were guilty, but alas, the evidence leaves me with a huge margin of reasonable doubt.

What will you make of things if Hellman overturns the convictions?

Personally, if something could turn up tomorrow, such as someone wearing a wire and taping Knox and Sollecito admitting they did it, I could turn dirt on them, and condemn them, with no difficulty.

ETA: Personally speaking, I am not at all invested in their innocence; I just believe there is not enough evidence to justify conviction.

On PMF however, there seems to be a real investment in their guilt, and if the convictions are overturned, I am sure they will not accept it as we do not accept the convictions now. But what that says about them psychologically, remains obscure, and a mystery to me...

 

[SMK]

I think the most incredible list of farfetched scenarios and excuses are the circumstances that brought this trial about in the first place. jmo

Agreed.

 

[SMK]

Latest from Joseph Bishop on the role of the Milan police in not detaining Rudy Guede:

The Amanda Knox Case: New Questions Emerge Surrounding the Role of the Milanese Police

had link wrong, here is the correct one

http://www.groundreport.com/World/The-Amanda-Knox-Case-New-Questions-Emerge-Surround/2941100

 

[ChasingMoxie]

Latest from Joseph Bishop on the role of the Milan police in not detaining Rudy Guede:

http://www.ericsteinhart.com/FLESH/flesh-chabs.html

Umm, I think maybe that's a different link...

(unless of course the Milan police have input into the "Revision Theory of Resurrection" - wait, I know, maybe it was RG's "digital ghost" that broke into the cottage! Although that still doesn't explain the digital ghost poo, hmm...)

:floorlaugh:

 

[Malkmus]

Latest from Joseph Bishop on the role of the Milan police in not detaining Rudy Guede:

http://www.ericsteinhart.com/FLESH/flesh-chabs.html

Very interesting article. Although I think your link is wrong...

 

[Malkmus]

Umm, I think maybe that's a different link...

(unless of course the Milan police have input into the "Revision Theory of Resurrection" - wait, I know, maybe it was RG's "digital ghost" that broke into the cottage! Although that still doesn't explain the digital ghost poo, hmm...)

:floorlaugh:

I googled it:

http://www.groundreport.com/World/The-Amanda-Knox-Case-New-Questions-Emerge-Surround/2941100

 

[SMK]

so sorry Malkmus and Chasing Moxie; i have corrected the link and placed it here as well!! :blushing::blushing:

http://www.groundreport.com/World/The-Amanda-Knox-Case-New-Questions-Emerge-Surround/2941100

It seems Nina Burleigh's book has enlightened Mr. Bishop regarding Guede:

With the recent publication of Nina Burleigh’s new book, The Fatal Gift of Beauty, new details are emerging about the actions of the police in Milan.

[. . . ]

Failure of the Italian Police to Investigate Rudy Guede after the murder

At this point, Police should have been on a mission to learn anything and everything they could about Rudy Guede. If they had tried they might noted his propensity to lie; his tendency to act without accomplices; that he often ransacked the crime scene over an extended period of time; that he entered though elevated windows broken with rocks; that he ate from the refrigerator; that he stole cell phones. Most important of all was his use of knives as weapons and his aggressive pursuit on the local student bar scene of young women who by all accounts showed little interest in him.

One of the most important of these criminal acts by Rudy Guede occurred in Milan on the morning of October 27, 2007, only six days prior to the murder. Rudy Guede was caught red-handed having broken into a nursery school as the owner, Maria Del Prato, arrived in the morning with two repairmen. There were thus three eye witnesses to this intrusion. The importance of these incidents cannot be emphasized enough. When questioned by police, Guede refused to answer questions about why he was there and told police that he was South American which was a lie. When police examined his backpack they found a laptop and cell phone that they quickly determined had been stolen from a Perugian law office a few days earlier.

The similarities between Guede’s modus operandi in the law office break-in and what was found at the Meredith Kercher crime scene was stunning. In both incidents he had entered through an elevated window broken with a rock, he had no accomplices, he stole a cell phone, and he extensively ransacked the scene for no apparent reason. In the nursery school break-in he was also found to have stolen a large knife from the school’s kitchen and to have been in possession of a woman’s gold watch. Why would Rudy Guede need a woman’s gold watch? Despite having definitive knowledge of his participation in two burglaries, Milanese police never charged Rudy Guede with anything. They simply put him back on a train to Perugia where he could be somebody else’s problem.

 

[Malkmus]

(snip)Hellman is preparing this case for the Supreme Court and he is doing a good job in that.(snip)

What do you mean by this? I don't quite understand.

 

[SMK]

What do you mean by this? I don't quite understand.

Am curious to hear sherlock's reply. What I had taken him to mean is: Hellman is making it easier for the prosecution to appeal to high court? :waitasec: