Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #18

[Sonata]

Legally, the evidence did not support rape charges.

Yes, that's why I agreed with you.

 

[Sonata]

Hang on a moment, wasn't Knox charged with sexual assault?

 

[otto]

I could go on about things that have been discussed about the possible meanings behind these actions, which, yes, are suspicious.

However, the main point is, as you said of the possibility of sexual assault, it cannot be proven that either AK or RS were directly involved.

There's an awful lot of evidence suggesting that Knox and Sollecito were involved in the murder, which is why they were convicted and have spent the last four years in prison. That evidence does not disappear because there was a review of two pieces of DNA evidence.

 

[Sonata]

There's an awful lot of evidence suggesting that Knox and Sollecito were involved in the murder, which is why they were convicted and have spent the last four years in prison. That evidence does not disappear because there was a review of two pieces of DNA evidence.

I guess we'll see about that on the 28th.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

That bloody footprint on the bath mat points to someone other than Guede because the size/shape of the print is too short and wide for Guede.

Knox changed her story several times, with Dr Sollecito revealing one serious lie about the events on the evening of Nov 1. She claimed that she was eating dinner at 9:30, 10 or 11, but none of the above is true. She claimed that she was watching a movie, but that ended at 9:10. She claimed that she was at the cottage while some other guy murdered Meredith. She claimed all sorts of things, none of which could be verified. Sollecito cannot confirm that Knox was with him through the entire night. He claimed that he was on the computer throughout the night and that he slept until 10 - both proven untrue. They have no alibi and the fact that they could not give police a straight answer about their activities on the night of the murder is not trivial.

otto,

I am going to have to keep this short, but the police inadvertantly erased the meta-data on Raf's computer, such as the time at which the Stardust file was last accessed. Raffaele backed up Amanda's alibi in front of Judge Matteini and only seemed unsure whether or not Amanda left for a few minutes. The screensaver logs discussed in Raffaele's appeal indicate that he was on his computer. Again, Raffaele got up to make a musical playlist around 5:30, then went back to bed. That does not contradict his saying that he got up later. If you believe otherwise, where do you draw the line? If I get up to urinate and then go back to bed, does that count as getting up?

 

[Sonata]

There's an awful lot of evidence suggesting that Knox and Sollecito were involved in the murder, which is why they were convicted and have spent the last four years in prison. That evidence does not disappear because there was a review of two pieces of DNA evidence.

The point I was more trying to make was that if you take the evidence against Guede as a rapist/sex attacker and say it isn't enough, then I don't think you can take the evidence against Knox or Sollecito and say it is enough. Whilst the courts may not have agreed with me on this in the first instance, we have yet to see how this pans out in review.

My point is, just because the courts came to this conclusion, does not mean everyone should take it as a given. If we don't question authority with our own good sense we end up with a dictatorship. To me, you have actually raised the perfect comparison in the Guede rape debate, and I fail to see how anyone could be willing to say that you cannot prove that MKs sexual contact with Guede was nonconsensual and yet say that you can prove AK and RS murdered her.

That, to me is very selective and does not follow a consistent logic.

 

[SkewedView]

Are you thinking that all the other evidence in the case is up for review even though that was rejected at the beginning of the appeal?

Review means having new testimony etc brought into open court to add to that already available from the first trial. It does not have anything to do with his rulings on the points in the appeal docs, which will not be made until after deliberations and revealed in his motivational report.

 

[otto]

Hang on a moment, wasn't Knox charged with sexual assault?

Quite right! My mistake. For some reason I thought that sexual assault could not be confirmed. Guede was charged with sexual assault and I guess Knox and Sollecito were charged with aiding in that assault.

 

[SkewedView]

It has been said ad nauseum that the prosecution does not need motive to prove guilt, but in the same manner, contrary to what is portrayed on TV, a lack of a provable alibi is not a proof of guilt.

 

[otto]

otto,

I am going to have to keep this short, but the police inadvertantly erased the meta-data on Raf's computer, such as the time at which the Stardust file was last accessed. Raffaele backed up Amanda's alibi in front of Judge Matteini and only seemed unsure whether or not Amanda left for a few minutes. The screensaver logs discussed in Raffaele's appeal indicate that he was on his computer. Again, Raffaele got up to make a musical playlist around 5:30, then went back to bed. That does not contradict his saying that he got up later. If you believe otherwise, where do you draw the line? If I get up to urinate and then go back to bed, does that count as getting up?

Was that the metadata that supposedly showed that the keyboard lit up and this supposedly proved that someone was using the computer, even though there were no keystrokes?

In a murder investigation, when asked at what time someone woke up, I would think that getting up at 5:30 AM to do some things on the computer is relevant. They were being asked to account for their time, and every detail matters - surely they were able to figure out that much.

 

[otto]

Review means having new testimony etc brought into open court to add to that already available from the first trial. It does not have anything to do with his rulings on the points in the appeal docs, which will not be made until after deliberations and revealed in his motivational report.

Perhaps I have a different understanding about how the appeal works. I thought that the defense wanted most of the evidence to be reviewed. The court ruled that 99% of the evidence would not be reviewed. This suggests to me that this evidence is accepted by the courts.

Are you suggesting that even though the court rejected a review of 99% of the evidence, it will still be reviewed ... but not debated in court?

 

[otto]

It has been said ad nauseum that the prosecution does not need motive to prove guilt, but in the same manner, contrary to what is portrayed on TV, a lack of a provable alibi is not a proof of guilt.

The absence of alibis does not prove guilt. The lies do not prove guilt. The false accusation does not prove guilt. The bloody footprint does not prove guilt. The mixed DNA does not prove guilt. Each piece of evidence in isolation does not prove guilt, but add it all together and it has proven guilt.

 

[Sonata]

Perhaps I have a different understanding about how the appeal works. I thought that the defense wanted most of the evidence to be reviewed. The court ruled that 99% of the evidence would not be reviewed. This suggests to me that this evidence is accepted by the courts.

Are you suggesting that even though the court rejected a review of 99% of the evidence, it will still be reviewed ... but not debated in court?

99%? I think that's playing it down a bit...

They allowed the knife, the homeless witness and the bra clasp... am I forgetting anything?

Are you saying that there are 297 other pieces of evidence against them?

 

[SkewedView]

Perhaps I have a different understanding about how the appeal works. I thought that the defense wanted most of the evidence to be reviewed. The court ruled that 99% of the evidence would not be reviewed. This suggests to me that this evidence is accepted by the courts.

Are you suggesting that even though the court rejected a review of 99% of the evidence, it will still be reviewed ... but not debated in court?

The confusion on this issue is that the word review is being used for two different things:

Expert review, which of course requires testimony from new expert etc in court - these are the reviews which were mostly rejected.

Court review, which means the new Judge will look over the questioned interpretations of the original testimony, using the material already available, and then make his own decision regarding them. This does not require court time to do so, and would be a necessary step in the deliberative process regardless, as otherwise the Italian Appeals courts would function like parrots of the lower courts, as the dysfunctional and pretty much useless ones in the US do.

 

[SkewedView]

99%? I think that's playing it down a bit...

They allowed the knife, the homeless witness and the bra clasp... am I forgetting anything?

Are you saying that there are 297 other pieces of evidence against them?

As he is counting all of the points in the appeals as rejected items for review, Otto is correct in his statement. The appeals doc for RS alone is huge...

 

[otto]

The confusion on this issue is that the word review is being used for two different things:

Expert review, which of course requires testimony from new expert etc in court - these are the reviews which were mostly rejected.

Court review, which means the new Judge will look over the questioned interpretations of the original testimony, using the material already available, and then make his own decision regarding them. This does not require court time to do so, and would be a necessary step in the deliberative process regardless, as otherwise the Italian Appeals courts would function like parrots of the lower courts, as the dysfunctional and pretty much useless ones in the US do.

Thanks. So that would mean that the evidence that was presented in the first trial will be reviewed in terms of determining whether the correct interpretation was made?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Was that the metadata that supposedly showed that the keyboard lit up and this supposedly proved that someone was using the computer, even though there were no keystrokes?

In a murder investigation, when asked at what time someone woke up, I would think that getting up at 5:30 AM to do some things on the computer is relevant. They were being asked to account for their time, and every detail matters - surely they were able to figure out that much.

otto,

I am not sure what you mean. The file for Stardust was accessed in the early morning hours of 6 November, when the police were at his flat. Frank Sfarzo and possibly Andrea Vogt reported on this. A footprint made with bloody water on an absorbant, irregular surface is not likely to be able to conclusively match anyone, in my nonexpert opinion. However, Rinaldi's measurements do not overlay well on the actual footprint, and I think it looks more like Guede's big toe than Sollecito's. Would you mind attempting to relate the mixed DNA evidence to the crime? I think it is very weak.

 

[Monzoo]

Thanks. So that would mean that the evidence that was presented in the first trial will be reviewed in terms of determining whether the correct interpretation was made?

IIRC, it is not a question of evaluating the reasoning of the first trial, but evaulating the evidence itself. Hellmann et.al. will use the testimony (but not the arguments) from the first trial, and combine it with the additional testimony and arguments from the currrent trial. Massei's interpretations will have no bearing on Hellmann's decision.

 

[otto]

IIRC, it is not a question of evaluating the reasoning of the first trial, but evaulating the evidence itself. Hellmann et.al. will use the testimony (but not the arguments) from the first trial, and combine it with the additional testimony and arguments from the currrent trial. Massei's interpretations will have no bearing on Hellmann's decision.

That's all a bit confusing for me. There was a trial, a decision was made. There is an appeal and a couple of pieces of evidence are reviewed. But does it then revert back to a situation where nothing from the first trial counts anymore? That doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[otto]

otto,

I am not sure what you mean. The file for Stardust was accessed in the early morning hours of 6 November, when the police were at his flat. Frank Sfarzo and possibly Andrea Vogt reported on this. A footprint made with bloody water on an absorbant, irregular surface is not likely to be able to conclusively match anyone, in my nonexpert opinion. However, Rinaldi's measurements do not overlay well on the actual footprint, and I think it looks more like Guede's big toe than Sollecito's. Would you mind attempting to relate the mixed DNA evidence to the crime? I think it is very weak.

Actually, I don't really want to take the time to detail all the trace evidence and relate it to this four year old murder. I think that's been done by many from all over the world and it's all over the internet with different interpretations. The footprint was accepted as a match to Sollecito and rejected as a match to Guede. I know that the print has been photoshopped and modified to match Guede, but I could match it to the Queen of England with photoshop. Regarding the activity on the computer while Sollecito was being questionedby police, I don't see how activity on the 6th would omit a record of activity on the 1st. The Stardust file would have the last accessed time on the 6th, but records for the 1st show that there was no activity on the computer after the Amelie movie ended (without being turned off) at 9:10.