Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #14

[otto]

Really, Otto, you should be more careful when declaring such things as facts. I think what this shows is that sites such as TJMK have been more misleading than anything the Knox family has ever said or done. Not to mention, I don't think you've ever been able to cite anything that is for a fact a falsehood on their part. You've tried to criticize the 50 hours of interrogation angle unsuccessfully, as well as the "no official interpreter" one. Whereas the information put out by the Italian press has for a fact (a real fact by the way) been misleading and was the very reason any PR was needed in the first place. Now what you've cited are quotes from the family expressing they think Amanda is innocent as if that's somehow damning...?

I think the false Knox claim is that after 54 hours of interrogation, being beaten and being deprived of the necessities of life such as food, water, sleep ... Knox lied to investigators and claimed that Patrick Lumumba murdered Meredith Kercher. Regarding the translator, the translation was sufficient such that Amanda twice signed statements translated to English (1:45 AM, 5:30 AM), confirming the content in the statements. What is the objection to the translation? Clearly Knox didn't object to the translation.

It is a fact that the information put forward in US news was that Knox was beaten and deprived the necessities of life for 54 hours (this was repeated in UK news by the Knox/Mellas parents) prior to lying about Patrick. That information was not true. Knox had a pizza meal with Sollecito at his friend's house, and then went to the police station. After 2 hours of questioning, one of which was without any common language (no translator) Knox told her lies. Knox parents are now facing charges for spreading these lies about Italian investigators.

 

[otto]

I should state what you do that it is all over the internet but here is your cite

But Presiding Judge Giancarlo Massei rejected the defense request and ruled that proceedings should go on. He argued that defense consultants were present when the DNA tests were carried out by forensic experts and said relevant documents had been made available a month and a half ago, suggesting that defense teams had enough time to review the DNA findings

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-09-14/news/17932422_1_dna-findings-dna-evidence-dna-tests

ETA In the one instance someone was actually appointed when the experts themselves could not be there

I have certainly read the opposite claim - that defense were invited to attend, but they claimed that they didn't have enough time to get to Rome (that's even been presented in this forum).

 

[Allusonz]

I have certainly read the opposite claim - that defense were invited to attend, but they claimed that they didn't have enough time to get to Rome (that's even been presented in this forum).

Are you stating Massei is lying?

 

[otto]

Are you stating Massei is lying?

That's a funny question. I think I wrote that I have now read conflicting information regarding whether defense lawyers attended the initial DNA testing. What I'm reading today, and what I recall from 4, 3 and 2 year ago is in conflict.

 

[Allusonz]

That's a funny question. I think I wrote that I have now read conflicting information regarding whether defense lawyers attended the initial DNA testing. What I'm reading today, and what I recall from 4, 3 and 2 year ago is in conflict.

Someone was appointed to represent the defense the one time they could not attend you will find many cites if you google

 

[Nova]

You lost me with the first sentence. It is a fact that the Knox/Mellas family hired a PR group as soon as Knox was arrested and it is a fact that this PR group has done everything they can to present Knox as a victim - that was the job they were hired to do. This included media contacts and managing media information such that Knox was presented favorably. It is a fact that the families of murderers have their own loss when a family member is imprisoned ... but that loss is of their own doing. That is, the murderer is not the victim of a crime, but is in fact the criminal that is experiencing the consequences of their actions.

Regarding the appeal, I was pointing out that Amanda's mother probably expected that a successful appeal (which was automatic for the three convicted murderers) meant a retrial, as is normal in the US. I do wonder if she realized that the Italian appeal meant that only some evidence would be revisited.

You and I can send out press releases, otto. That doesn't make a "PR machine." Of course, Knox and the Mellas hired PR people given that their daughter was being tried and convicted in the press.

BBM: Even if AK were guilty, how would that be the fault of her parents?

I'm sure the Italian system was explained to Mrs. Mellas.

 

[otto]

You and I can send out press releases, otto. That doesn't make a "PR machine." Of course, Knox and the Mellas hired PR people given that their daughter was being tried and convicted in the press.

BBM: Even if AK were guilty, how would that be the fault of her parents?

I'm sure the Italian system was explained to Mrs. Mellas.

I wonder if the Knox parents have set a new precedent for parents of murder suspects ... maybe add yet another twist to the TV murdertainment industry. Maybe the Anthony parents should have tried the same stunt.

I don't know ... how would a murderer's parents be responsible for the actions of their adult children?

If Amanda's mom understood the Italian court system, why was she, pre-verdict, on talking head programs announcing that the verdict from the trial didn't mean much and that the real trial was the appeal ... or do you agree that the appeal is the real trial?

 

[SkewedView]

I will make this statement and cite once more - the Italian first appeal is not at all like the US one - it allows for as full of a review of the first trial as is needed to ensure a fair trial - all the way up to being a full retrial if necessary. This is a robust appeals system that I admire in all the ways that I abhor the way the Italians tend to run their initial trials.

Right now the appeal is reviewing the main two DNA peices and some testimony, nobody can say if it will stop there, or if other items will be looked at in session. Please note that I said in session, because the Judge/Jury can also accept or reject the reasoning presented in the Massai report with regards to the relative values of the various opposing arguments (that is the area where I hate that report, the Judge pretty much ignored all of the defense's arguments with little to no logical basis other than 'but the prosecution said'). They can do such an opinion review whenever they wish, and probably wouldn't bother wasting everyone's time doing so during a court session.


Once again, see here:
www.heuni.fi/uploads/jrrqu.doc




Now as far as this "PR Machine" business...just how wealthy do you think these people are? Seriously, do you think they have more money than the Hollywood troublemakers, that they can change media coverage in ways that Charlie Sheen etc cannot? Do the people making these conspiracy theories even know how PR agencies work?

In cases like these they work to get press releases and info to media outlets, sure, but those outlets are under no obligation to use said materials, and usually don't. Firms also try to make use of social networking to make helpful contacts, but this strategy is mostly only effective for the more standard business oriented PR jobs.

Saying that this PR group has been in contact with CNN etc is like saying that the US President has been in contact with the Secretary of State - Um, yeah, that's part of the job.

In the end, PR firms are a useful tool, particularly for damage control, but they really aren't that effective outside of the business realm. Saying that 'everyone knows' something doesn't make it true, especially with regards to subjects that most people find distasteful (PR has a very bad rep with the general public, ironically enough).

 

[SMK]

I will make this statement and cite once more - the Italian first appeal is not at all like the US one - it allows for as full of a review of the first trial as is needed to ensure a fair trial - all the way up to being a full retrial if necessary. This is a robust appeals system that I admire in all the ways that I abhor the way the Italians tend to run their initial trials.

Right now the appeal is reviewing the main two DNA peices and some testimony, nobody can say if it will stop there, or if other items will be looked at in session. Please note that I said in session, because the Judge/Jury can also accept or reject the reasoning presented in the Massai report with regards to the relative values of the various opposing arguments (that is the area where I hate that report, the Judge pretty much ignored all of the defense's arguments with little to no logical basis other than 'but the prosecution said'). They can do such an opinion review whenever they wish, and probably wouldn't bother wasting everyone's time doing so during a court session.

Thanks for this, SV. Also, when I read the full appeals submissions by the Defense for Knox and Sollecito, they ennumerated many items of dispute, which although not granted formally, would hopefully become part of at least a general review. I cannot see why not, and as you say, may be done in session RE Massei's motivation report.

 

[SMK]

Saying that this PR group has been in contact with CNN etc is like saying that the US President has been in contact with the Secretary of State - Um, yeah, that's part of the job.

:clap::clap::clap:

 

[Monzoo]

Otto via the last thread...

In watching a few trials, I've come to realize that there always seems to be one key piece of evidence that is the turning point for the jury. In the Cooper case it was the computer search, in the Jason Young case it will probably be the gas receipt. In this case, it was not the DNA evidence. I don't remember exactly what it was, but I think it was something that Amanda said or did that was in complete conflict with innocence.

I would have to recheck to be sure, but according to memory, my understanding is that the appeal decision was to review the analysis of two pieces of DNA evidence and if that evidence was problematic, additional DNA evidence (not additional evidence) would be reviewed.

I doubt the staged break in will be considered during appeal because there hasn't been any reason to question that evidence. The theory seems to be that Rudy could have broken the window and climbed into Filomina's bedroom. The first problem with this is that Rudy's history for entering 2nd floor rooms is to climb onto the balcony and enter through French doors. That is what he did in the past. The cottage has a balcony that is easy to climb, French doors, and is facing the opposite direction of the road. I doubt Rudy would change his MO and enter the cottage in the most difficult and visible way when his familiar way was much easier. Are you aware of any legal argument for reconsidering the evidence of a staged break in?

I think there is too much evidence for the three convicted murderers to be found not guilty; too many factors that cannot be explained.

While the appeal is still ongoing, I don't think any of us can be certain about what decisions the Judge will make in regards to testimony. We should have an answer sometime in the Fall -- so we'll see then.

Thank you for your reply, although you didn't really answer my question. I ask when you would consider the correct verdict should be not guilty, assuming the list of evidence became discredited piece by piece. At some point, you will come to the conclusion that the prosection did not meet their burden.

Of couse I am assuming that you believe that a conviction should be based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[SMK]

From Monzoo's post above:

At some point, you will come to the conclusion that the prosection did not meet their burden.

Many people felt the prosecution did not meet their burden of proof in the original trial, and were surprised at the verdicts, which is why hope was held out for the appeal. Otto and others of course believe they did meet their burden, and are expecting the convictions to stand. Were they overturned, it would be interesting to see if for example people over at Perugia Murder File forums would still believe the court had spoken and the verdict must be accepted, or would they now flip and become as those of us who have questioned the convictions?

 

[SkewedView]

Realistically, the prosecutions case lives and dies based on one thing only, if it loses the contested DNA evidence:

If the court continues to say that RG couldn't have killed MK on his own (a ridiculous assertion IMO, but then this is the country whose judges thought for a while that all true rape victims would rather risk death than to cooperate in any way with an attacker), then they have a good chance of keeping the guilty verdict.

If, however, the appeals court has ever dealt with a knife attack (instead of just taking the prosecution's assertions at their word), they may decide that the 'lone wolf' theory has merit, and there you have your reasonable doubt - a viable alternate scenario that fits the evidence and actually makes logical sense.

I know, there are those that still think the 'staged robbery' thing would kill that, but realistically the 'evidence' of it shouldn't have been allowed into the trial in the first place, as the scene was altered before it was documented - a severe no-no to any impartial judge. The rest of the basis for that theory is based entirely on the 'experience and instincts' of the LEO who testified about it, which really doesn't hold enough weight to make such a case altering decision.



Personally, I think that followers of this case fall into one of two categories: those who feel that it is okay for the potentially innocent to be imprisoned if it keeps a potential murderer from going free, and those who feel the opposite. It's all about how you personally define Justice. Please note, I don't condemn people from having what I call 'the preventative' viewpoint on Justice, I more than relate to it - after all, how many times have we seen a case here where we said 'if only the perp hadn't gone free (after some earlier offense), this would never have happened!' That said, my sense of ethics forces me to side with doing as much as possible to prevent innocents from being victimized by the system, even if that means that some of the guilty go free - and in this specific case, I feel that there is far too much reasonable doubt for a guilty verdict to be Just.

 

[SkewedView]

Here's an interesting thought:

If RS was so weak-willed that he allowed some girl that he'd only known for a week to talk him into participating in the murder of an innocent girl, then how is it that he never broke down and confessed to anything, or at least went for the reduced sentence carrot of the 'fast track' trial, as RG did? :waitasec:

 

[otto]

There are some interesting evidence points for comparison in the case of Noara Jackson's murder of her mother and the murder of Meredith Kercher. The main points for the conviction of Noara were: no explanation for what she was doing at the time of the murder, staged break in. The main points for the defense were: no DNA in her mother's bedroom, no blood, unidentified DNA on the sheets, no bloody clothes.

The absence of DNA or blood from Noara in her mother's bedroom, even though she had a cut on her hand, was used to argue that she couldn't have committed the crime - very similar to the case of Knox and Sollecito. The break in was considered staged because of the unusual location of a broken window. Even though people had walked into the home - past the area of the staged break in - it was still viewed as a staged break in since it was the location of the broken window, and not the broken glass, that mattered.

18 year old Noara used soft drugs. She had no criminal record. She had a sense of entitlement. She covered her mother's face after the knife attack. Her DNA was not in her mother's bedroom even though she lived in the house. There were no bloody clothes or footprints pointing to Noara as the murderer. Noara's biggest problems were her absence of alibi and the staged break in. The cut on her hand was circumstantially connected with the night of the murder, but the absence of blood in her mother's bedroom gave doubt.

This has many similarities to the murder of Meredith Kercher - with circumstantial evidence being the strongest link between the murder and the three convicted prisoners. Regarding the staged break in at the cottage, not only is the location of the break in suspicious but the location of the broken glass on the floor also leaves many questions.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/10/48hours/main6383885.shtml

 

[otto]

Here's an interesting thought:

If RS was so weak-willed that he allowed some girl that he'd only known for a week to talk him into participating in the murder of an innocent girl, then how is it that he never broke down and confessed to anything, or at least went for the reduced sentence carrot of the 'fast track' trial, as RG did? :waitasec:

Fast track requires admitting some guilt. Knox and Sollecito have stuck together throughout ... with Sollecito still giving Knox little treats, chocolates and so on throughout the trial. If Sollecito admits any guilt, he takes Knox down with him.

 

[otto]

From Monzoo's post above:

Many people felt the prosecution did not meet their burden of proof in the original trial, and were surprised at the verdicts, which is why hope was held out for the appeal. Otto and others of course believe they did meet their burden, and are expecting the convictions to stand. Were they overturned, it would be interesting to see if for example people over at Perugia Murder File forums would still believe the court had spoken and the verdict must be accepted, or would they now flip and become as those of us who have questioned the convictions?

Why so much curiosity about whether people will change their minds if the verdict stands or is changed. Would you agree that they are guilty if the verdict remains the same?

 

[otto]

Realistically, the prosecutions case lives and dies based on one thing only, if it loses the contested DNA evidence:

If the court continues to say that RG couldn't have killed MK on his own (a ridiculous assertion IMO, but then this is the country whose judges thought for a while that all true rape victims would rather risk death than to cooperate in any way with an attacker), then they have a good chance of keeping the guilty verdict.

If, however, the appeals court has ever dealt with a knife attack (instead of just taking the prosecution's assertions at their word), they may decide that the 'lone wolf' theory has merit, and there you have your reasonable doubt - a viable alternate scenario that fits the evidence and actually makes logical sense.

I know, there are those that still think the 'staged robbery' thing would kill that, but realistically the 'evidence' of it shouldn't have been allowed into the trial in the first place, as the scene was altered before it was documented - a severe no-no to any impartial judge. The rest of the basis for that theory is based entirely on the 'experience and instincts' of the LEO who testified about it, which really doesn't hold enough weight to make such a case altering decision.


Personally, I think that followers of this case fall into one of two categories: those who feel that it is okay for the potentially innocent to be imprisoned if it keeps a potential murderer from going free, and those who feel the opposite. It's all about how you personally define Justice. Please note, I don't condemn people from having what I call 'the preventative' viewpoint on Justice, I more than relate to it - after all, how many times have we seen a case here where we said 'if only the perp hadn't gone free (after some earlier offense), this would never have happened!' That said, my sense of ethics forces me to side with doing as much as possible to prevent innocents from being victimized by the system, even if that means that some of the guilty go free - and in this specific case, I feel that there is far too much reasonable doubt for a guilty verdict to be Just.

If murder trial convictions relied solely on DNA evidence, there would never have been a conviction prior to the mid-80s - at which time DNA evidence was introduced in court. DNA is helpful in the conviction of murderers, but people are still found guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

Rest assured that people that believe the guilty verdicts were solidly based on the evidence do not hold the view that people should be imprisoned even if they are not guilty (your preventative view).

 

[otto]

Otto via the last thread...



While the appeal is still ongoing, I don't think any of us can be certain about what decisions the Judge will make in regards to testimony. We should have an answer sometime in the Fall -- so we'll see then.

Thank you for your reply, although you didn't really answer my question. I ask when you would consider the correct verdict should be not guilty, assuming the list of evidence became discredited piece by piece. At some point, you will come to the conclusion that the prosection did not meet their burden.

Of couse I am assuming that you believe that a conviction should be based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

As I said "I think there is too much evidence for the three convicted murderers to be found not guilty; too many factors that cannot be explained." That is, I don't think that all the evidence can be ignored, so I don't see a not guilty verdict. The only way for there to possibly be a not guilty verdict is for all three to tell the truth - starting with what Knox and Sollecito were doing between 8:45 PM and 6:10 AM.

 

[SMK]

Why so much curiosity about whether people will change their minds if the verdict stands or is changed. Would you agree that they are guilty if the verdict remains the same?

Yes, I am very, very curious about those at PMF, for certain reasons, and no, sir, I would not change my mind, for other reasons....