Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #18

[wasnt_me]

I don't think it matters much where I am based as I just get my information from the internet. But I am sure you are right that things are a bit different comparing US, UK and Italy.

There are different pics of Guede. In some pics he looks much darker than in others. I noticed some media have a preference for the darker looking Rudy then for the lighter version. I hope I am totally wrong on this.

I would think that to notice this "black" difference in photos of RG and deem it negative, one would himself have to believe that "blacker" black people make for negative images.....Just saying....

I personally do NOT notice RG being any darker or lighter in any of his photos......:waitasec:

 

[wasnt_me]

LOTS of craziness today...



http://twitter.com/#!/BLNadeau

I officially fear for AK and her family, and RS and his.

 

[wasnt_me]

That was a sarcastic response. I am not the 'camp' one here. Mods have warned several times against the 'they vs we' attitude in this thread. Accusing a whole 'camp' of making death threads while this probably comes from some lone nutter who is in his own little camp goes too far. It is sad.

Oh, okay, because it sounded exactly like you were REALLY accusing a camp of doing something. I guess it's safer just NOT to do it, since sarcasm does not read very well.

 

[sherlockh]

I would think that to notice this "black" difference in photos of RG and deem it negative, one would himself have to believe that "blacker" black people make for negative images.....Just saying....

I personally do NOT notice RG being any darker or lighter in any of his photos......:waitasec:

No, one believes that 'the black guy must have done it' attitude is still very much alive even in this day and age. I find that very sad.

 

[SMK]

Oh, okay, because it sounded exactly like you were REALLY accusing a camp of doing something. I guess it's safer just NOT to do it, since sarcasm does not read very well.

Yes, you know, I was being sarcastic and funny too, with the grrrr.....in any case, I am not interested in anymore sparring. Thanks, wasnt_me;

I came back to ask what you thought of the wording in this article (as of course certain forums are saying today that Hellman's refusal to grant new review meant he so fully and wholly believed the prosecution, he needed nothing further...:waitasec: )

American student Amanda Knox won another battle in her quest to overturn a conviction for murdering her British roommate in Italy when an appeals court rejected a prosecutor's request for more DNA testing.
The decision is good for Knox because it means that an independent review of DNA evidence - previously ordered by the appeals court and hugely favourable to Knox - will stand. It deals a blow to the prosecutors who had sought to counter the results of that review, which harshly criticised how genetic evidence was used in the case.
The ruling by Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann also clears the way for closing arguments, which are set to begin September 23 with the prosecution going first, followed by civil plaintiffs and the defence. Further retesting would have inevitably extended the 10-month long trial, now set to end late September or early October


http://www.smh.com.au/world/knox-trial-court-rejects-new-dna-test-20110908-1jyly.html#ixzz1XJtaAt62

 

[wasnt_me]

Yes, you know, I was being sarcastic and funny too, with the grrrr.....in any case, I am not interested in anymore sparring. Thanks, wasnt_me;

I came back to ask what you thought of the wording in this article (as of course certain forums are saying today that Hellman's refusal to grant new review meant he so fully and wholly believed the prosecution, he needed nothing further...:waitasec: )

I thought you were being serious, that someone who thought AK and RS were guilty was threatening Barbedau, or however you spell it, for changing her stance. That's a serious problem, and it does make me fear for AK and RS and their families. I guess it might be assuming to say it was a person who strongly believes in guilt, but I'm not sure why anyone who believed in innocence would threaten to kill her or harm her for reporting that they might be aquitted.

Anyways, as for him not allowing a retest of the retest, I think that he could be satisfied with the findings of his independent experts no matter which way he is leaning. If he thinks that they did a good job and the prosecution didn't succeed in discrediting them in his eyes, then he believes he has a valid report.

The question remains as to whether he and the jury feels the report has invalidated the original findings.

He might feel that the report was shoddy and the prosecution did a good job of upholding the original findings. He might decide that the original findings are meaningless and the knife and bra clasp are out.

The problem is that it's not piece-by-piece. Now that these findings are now in consideration, the final arguments have to help the jury determine what fits for them. For example, they can hold to the belief of the bra clasp and the knife despite the findings once they hear the closing arguments. Or they could be skeptical of anything else that comes out of the prosecutions mouth.

I don't really see how the prosecution can debate with success the luminol prints because of the disaster that's been made of their forensic work.

I don't see how they can successfully argue that there is no alibi once the defense brings up the disaster that was made of 75% of the computer evidence in the case. Once they hear that, I'm not sure the prosecution can convince the jury that the cell tower information they have is correct.

As for the TOD, it follows the same domino effect in my opinion. Once the court loses trust in the prosecution, and I mean in a bad way such as claiming papers are papers that aren't really papers, disrespecting the judge's expert witnesses, and antagonizing the judge in other ways we've heard about, I'm just not sure that the prosecution can be trusted by those who bear the weight of the decision.

If they are freed, what concerns me is if the prosecution has the gall to waste more money and time of what they claim is an already strained budget to appeal this AGAIN. And what would the appeal be like? Would they return to forcing the issue about the new expert report? Would they try to force the issue about that mobster prisoner and RS's father? I just wonder when does enough become enough in trying to convict? I understand that it's never enough if you're innocent, but I think the prosecution might start to look like they have a vendetta out for these two if they keep pushing after all this other stuff tumbles.

Will AK really go home? don't her parents and she have to return for the ridiculous slander suits?
ETA--what if she refused to set foot back on Italian soil for those cases? That would be interesting. I wouldn't blame her.

 

[wasnt_me]

I guess this will be wrapping up soon, unless there's a SC appeal. I suppose we'll be around talking about the slander case, though.

 

[wasnt_me]

One thing I wonder about is why the prosecution is going after this:

The court also rejected another prosecution request to put back on the stand a witness who had previously testified that his brother, a fugitive, had killed Kercher during a botched burglary. The witness, a jailed Naples mobster called Luciano Aviello, announced he wanted to retract and was questioned by Comodi in prison in July. The court ruled that transcriptions of that questioning would suffice.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/129372253.html

Are they intending to later sue RS's father for something? or put him in jail for something? The judge said he'd take a transcript of the questioning, but it doesn't say here that the defense or the civil lawyers also questioned him again. I'm not sure how they can use this information in a SC appeal, if they (prosecution) have to make one.

 

[wasnt_me]

I am not surprised that Ann Coulter has decided that those who believe Knox and Sollecito are innocent are just liberal hubristic idiots:

I just figured out who this was. I'm bad with names, but when I pulled up the article and saw the picture, I immediately said, "Oh, HER!!!!"

I'm shocked that she wrote such a propaganda riddled and inciting article about an international murder appeals trial of all things. And she wrote as if no "non liberal" could believe in their innocence. I just imagined being the sole conversative or progressive or independent reading this piece. The problem is that justice knows no political party lines, and I'm sure there are liberals who do not believe in innocence. I'm not sure why she bothered to write this, but I want a refund of my three minutes.

 

[ohiogirl]

Normally I would agree, but in this case the experts have done an excellent job of discrediting themselves. The video of the procurement of the bra clasp shows a cavalier attitude towards evidence handling. Stefanoni's handling of paper records shows disorganization at best. She states she did things and the video evidence shows she did otherwise. She goes into a situation where her professional reputation itself is at stake and she provides records she says that proves she did her job, and the records are the wrong records. It's comical.

To me, her statements as to how the evidence was handled holds no water. All it takes is touching Sollecito's DNA with a gloved hand and touching the clasp with a gloved hand. All it takes is touching any of the evidence that had Meredith on it and touching the blade of the knife. Intentional or unintentional, we now have numerous examples of Stefanoni behaving unprofessionally, and the evidence procurement specialists behaving unprofessionally.

I think the defense attorneys have also behaved unprofessionally, that the defendants themselves have shown poor judgement and displayed poor social skills. I think the independent experts should have re-tested the knife. I think the parade of criminals was laughable, and reeks of Sollecito's family trying to manipulate the courts.

This whole case reminds me of the old Louisiana courts, where back room deals and corrupt cops and prosecutors and defense attorneys engaged in endless sheninagins and the truth is beside the point. The whole thing is ridiculous.

In my opinion, there isn't enough evidence to prove the guilt of Amanda and Raffaelle. In my opinion, the evidence tilts towards their innocence, but it doesn't prove they are innocent either.

The whole thing is just a mess.

ITA with everything you have said. In defense of the defense, they are reacting to the corrupt prosecution with whatever they can, they have dealt with this kind of idiocy before and are doing what they can within the parameters they find themselves within.
within, within, within.
This is hardly a slam dunk, but corruption is hard to overcome when all seem to be invested in a corrupt prosecution.
foxy noxy indeed.

 

[ohiogirl]

Ann Coulter, wtf?

 

[Allusonz]

I officially fear for AK and her family, and RS and his.

I am going to expand this. I fear for a number of people that are associated with this case. As well I am certain it will become a case study not only for forensics but in many other aspects as well

 

[Allusonz]

ITA with everything you have said. In defense of the defense, they are reacting to the corrupt prosecution with whatever they can, they have dealt with this kind of idiocy before and are doing what they can within the parameters they find themselves within.
within, within, within.
This is hardly a slam dunk, but corruption is hard to overcome when all seem to be invested in a corrupt prosecution.
foxy noxy indeed.

I as well have to agree here. Whether is be corruption/complicity the prosecution seemed completely shocked that their requests were denied. There needs to be an investigation as something is very wrong in the land of oz...

 

[Allusonz]

I just figured out who this was. I'm bad with names, but when I pulled up the article and saw the picture, I immediately said, "Oh, HER!!!!"

I'm shocked that she wrote such a propaganda riddled and inciting article about an international murder appeals trial of all things. And she wrote as if no "non liberal" could believe in their innocence. I just imagined being the sole conversative or progressive or independent reading this piece. The problem is that justice knows no political party lines, and I'm sure there are liberals who do not believe in innocence. I'm not sure why she bothered to write this, but I want a refund of my three minutes.

hmmmmmm something like science does not change due to time zones or international boundaries

 

[Allusonz]

I thought you were being serious, that someone who thought AK and RS were guilty was threatening Barbedau, or however you spell it, for changing her stance. That's a serious problem, and it does make me fear for AK and RS and their families. I guess it might be assuming to say it was a person who strongly believes in guilt, but I'm not sure why anyone who believed in innocence would threaten to kill her or harm her for reporting that they might be aquitted.

Anyways, as for him not allowing a retest of the retest, I think that he could be satisfied with the findings of his independent experts no matter which way he is leaning. If he thinks that they did a good job and the prosecution didn't succeed in discrediting them in his eyes, then he believes he has a valid report.

The question remains as to whether he and the jury feels the report has invalidated the original findings.

He might feel that the report was shoddy and the prosecution did a good job of upholding the original findings. He might decide that the original findings are meaningless and the knife and bra clasp are out.

The problem is that it's not piece-by-piece. Now that these findings are now in consideration, the final arguments have to help the jury determine what fits for them. For example, they can hold to the belief of the bra clasp and the knife despite the findings once they hear the closing arguments. Or they could be skeptical of anything else that comes out of the prosecutions mouth.

I don't really see how the prosecution can debate with success the luminol prints because of the disaster that's been made of their forensic work.

I don't see how they can successfully argue that there is no alibi once the defense brings up the disaster that was made of 75% of the computer evidence in the case. Once they hear that, I'm not sure the prosecution can convince the jury that the cell tower information they have is correct.

As for the TOD, it follows the same domino effect in my opinion. Once the court loses trust in the prosecution, and I mean in a bad way such as claiming papers are papers that aren't really papers, disrespecting the judge's expert witnesses, and antagonizing the judge in other ways we've heard about, I'm just not sure that the prosecution can be trusted by those who bear the weight of the decision.

If they are freed, what concerns me is if the prosecution has the gall to waste more money and time of what they claim is an already strained budget to appeal this AGAIN. And what would the appeal be like? Would they return to forcing the issue about the new expert report? Would they try to force the issue about that mobster prisoner and RS's father? I just wonder when does enough become enough in trying to convict? I understand that it's never enough if you're innocent, but I think the prosecution might start to look like they have a vendetta out for these two if they keep pushing after all this other stuff tumbles.

Will AK really go home? don't her parents and she have to return for the ridiculous slander suits?
ETA--what if she refused to set foot back on Italian soil for those cases? That would be interesting. I wouldn't blame her.

You have made some excellent points. As for AK being able to return home I would think that the time spent in prison already might come into play. That though is simply a guess on my part

 

[Allusonz]

wasnt_me

Frank posted this some time ago can't remember when. It is a song called Amanda e libera by Al Bano. Thought you might like it :giggle:

Some of the words

Eyes dreaming days of freedom…
Amanda is a number, they constrained her into a rule….
A pack of vile men…
Amanda is free, inside a tear…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxAYdjSx3Ig

ETA Did I forget to mention it is in Italian ? :giggle:

 

[Allusonz]

There are persons in this case who should be locked up for a while, maybe even committed, but certainly not the ones they have behind bars now.

I have yet to hear a plausible series of events that fits with guilt. Cleaning only your own footprints without smearing cleaner or leaving traces of blood or erasing any of the real killers prints? Randomly carrying a 12in knife around just to go home while walking with your new boyfriend? Running into a guy you barely know, if you even remembered him at all, and deciding on some weird sex game with your roommate? Then you stage a break in that "just so happens" to match the exact technique of the guy whose dna is inside the victim? Seriously? This is the story we are supposed to believe?

It's all so unbelieveably preposterous that I am amazed that anyone with any amount of logic and common sense can swallow it.

MOO, of course.

If these convictions are upheld it will be such a travesty.

A great travesty

BBM and I have a list of 8 I believe and the names are not AK and RS. Excellent post and certainly have missed seeing your posts and the perspective they bring

 

[ohiogirl]

There is no question that Comodi said those things to Nick Pisa, and he and others made headlines of her "Ill wind blowing /Hellman is against us" remarks. Pisa would not risk being sued for slander by Mignini, and he is a journalist with the ethics of that profession. CNN now reports Comodi's later, watered down "we are still confident" statement, but there has been no retraction; her comments of this morning, and the articles with them, stand. Now being quoted in People magazine:

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20526358,00.html[/QUOTE
wow, who could sue for slander after all the foxy noxy headlines.
if acquitted, which, imo, should be the case, will the knox's have a huge slander suit against the british press, the italian government.
hope they take it all the way.

 

[ohiogirl]

Ann Coulter is evil. If they'd let her wear too-tight, age-inappropriate black cocktail dresses, she would have joined Al Quada years ago.

(ETA to be clear: I did not write the above because of her opinion on this case, nor would I say the same of those who agree with her on the Perugia matter.)

What is her motive to jump into this at this point?
She is not longer relevant and will espouse opinions that are controversial just to make her seem current.
idiot

 

[otto]

Exactly, just because she says it is not sure Knox will be free. It is sad

It seems that she upset someone when she pointed out the bigger picture, and commented that court observers were not entirely convinced that there was a victory today. No one expected that the prosecution would ask for another review, so it wasn't like there was a big hurdle to overcome and the decision to not allow another review overcame that hurdle. What happened is the prosecution asked that the DNA that was found on the blade be tested using the latest science. The Judge ruled that the court had heard all they needed to hear regarding the DNA; that they had enough information to form an opinion. It doesn't seem like much of a victory.

At the beginning of the appeal, all the points in the long affidavit were rejected except three. They have now been addressed and the court has enough information to make a ruling. It was stated, at the outset, that if there were new doubts raised, they would consider a review of additional appeal points. Nothing more was allowed (other than the lying prisoners).

All the other evidence that was accepted during the first trial, like the staged break-in, has been accepted by the court. There is no appeal, and the staged break-in is exactly that, nothing else ... just like all the other evidence that was not considered during the appeal.

It seems to me that the bigger picture is that there is an awful lot of evidence still standing between Knox/Sollecito and overturning the verdict. Will the Judge overlook that evidence, or will that be critical in the final ruling?