Amanda's Book Due Out April 30, 2013

Monday, December 20, 2010

Amanda Knox Appeal: Despite Victory Of DNA Review Needless Doubt Remains

December 20, 2010- Amanda Knox won a victory in her battle to have DNA evidence reviewed- the court granted that request, and then some. Still, of course, the prosecution put on a poker face and claimed it was nothing special and the verdict of guilty would still stand. Then, as if to upset the balance, anti-Knox factions countered that the Guede appeals documents would be available and even Guede himself might testify at the Knox/ Sollecito appeal trial. Is this particularly damaging to the Knox defense? More than a few think this is cause for worry about Amanda's chances- yet they are mistaken.  I should not be surprised at the continuation of lies and misinformation spread about as in the days when this case first caught public attention. I do have to point out that the 'smoke and mirror' days are over, yet some people are not getting the drift that times have changed. That Italy is not corrupt. That though a mistake has been made- justice is not beyond reach. Enter a man of principle- Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann- and justice is at hand.

It should be clear to all that this judge wants the truth, and was clearly not happy with this case as it stood. Thus he wants the DNA matter clarified, as it is clear from his words that at this point reasonable doubt exists. In referring to his decision to have the DNA re-examined he states: "conviction could only be secured against an accused if it was beyond all reasonable doubt.." And then he ordered that the suspect DNA would be re-examined by two DNA experts from Rome. He did this to "take away any reasonable doubt that may exist". In other words this judge believes at this point in time that reasonable doubt does exist. Therefore he is trying to get to the bottom of things that have for too long been allowed to remain in question. It is also clear that this judge believes that the original trial court was in error for not allowing the DNA to be subject to independent testing and he stated his opinion on this at the hearing of December 18th, Also there is to be a re-examination of the 'park bum' who got his facts wrong and stated the disco buses were running when in fact they were not running that night.

Of course this is a victory for Amanda but there is always that anti-Amanda faction who contends that now Amanda has to worry about Rudy Guede's appeal court papers that were allowed into her appeals trial. And that Rudy Guede may testify. To make short work of this one let me just say- How do you think that will hold up with the jury? He will of course say Amanda was there with Raffaele but when asked about his own part he will then say his usual lame story about sitting on the bowl listening to music as Meredith was being killed- a story no one has bought yet- and when he adds this lie to his lie about Amanda it will be clear to all that his words are worthless.

Yet in the meantime- all those pro and anti-Amanda sites are going full swirl. He said, she said, they did, they did not, and who knew? Going over all the evidence back and forth in order to make up their own minds about this case. After this is over 6 months from now there are going to be a lot of people going through 'Amanda Withdrawal' and will have to get their entertainment some place else.

To all those who stuck with Amanda & Raffaele through all of this and supported them in one way or another- each of you are a hero- Please continue to speak out until they are free.

To all those who thought or just wanted them guilty. To all those who just hated for the sake of hating and tried to make sure an innocent woman stayed in prison with a ruined life. May life kiss you back.

                                        
Victims: Meredith Kercher, Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and their families.
Heroes: Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann, Massimo Zanetti and the appeals jury.
Hall of Shame: Mignini and others too numerous to mention (you know who you are).
Truth Realized: "There are none so blind as those who 'will' not see".

27 comments:

Maria Theresa said...

I do have concerns about Rudy Guede testifying. Big concerns.

Guede should have received a life sentence for his horrific attack and murder of Meredith Kercher. Of course he was entitled to some reduction in sentence because he chose a fast track trial. But the reduction he received from 30 years to 16 years was way out of line.

The media hype was that the huge reduction was because Guede "apologized" to the victim's family. But I did not believe it and smelled a rat. The situation smacked of a secret back room deal.

Then later I read the book "Angel Face" by Barbie Nadeau. According to that book, Guede's lawyer Walter Biscotti cut a deal with the prosecutors for Guede to give testimony at the appeal against Amanda in exchange for a reduction in Guede's sentence. According to that book, Walter Biscotti told Barbie Nadeau over lunch in a restaurant that he had just cut such a deal. Then later that day, it was announced that the Appeals Court reduced Guede's sentence from 30 years to 16 years because Guede "apologized."

Everyone needs to keep their eyes on the ball. The prosecutors are going to use testimony against Amanda and Raffaele by Guede, bought and paid for with years of new found freedom for Rudy Guede. Rudy will be well rehearsed, well prepared by experts to provide the testimony and to withstand the cross-examination. This could be the ultimate corruption of the Amanda Knox case---a guilty verdict based on fraud.

Anonymous said...

An unforeseen newcomer will arrive on the scene unexpectedly and at first appear to destroy the prosecution's case. A reaction against newcomer will reveal the motive and the murderer.

My guess

Anonymous said...

Foxy's stubborn. Stubborn ingenuity or stubborn naivete, take your pick.

Guede's a big liar, but he was definitely at the cottage that night. He could demolish Amanda and Raffaele, if there were more in it for him than what he could get by retaining the secret, selling it to highest bidder.

There's also the desire of the liar to keep lying, it gives him power over people.

Whatcha gonna do when they come for you, bad boys bad boys?

Anonymous said...

Hall of Shame: Saint_Michael1, Steve Moore, Charlie Wilkes, Judge Heavey, Anne Bremner, Bruce Fisher, Curt Knox, Chris Knox, FOA etc. etc.

Beauty turns heads. Thank goodness such blind camp followers aren't in control of our court systems. Lady GaGa, J-Lo and Jolie would get a free ride...murder or not.

Anonymous said...

Michael1...why don't you figure out who the Monster of Florence is, without stepping on any toes?

Saint_Michael1 said...

To Maria Theresa- That is a good point to bring up about Guede. I do not have any special knowledge of the so-called deal involving Guede's sentence reduction, other than it has never been proven. Even though you saw this in print doesn't make it fact- perhaps it is- I really don't know.
My point is, that since Amanda was not there on the night in question what lie could Guede tell that would impress the jury? Also having Guede testify would then open the case up for the defense to counter Guede's testimony- and that would be to call in Mario Alessi. Now the judge put Alessi on a 'reserve the right' to testify- so he is not on the board at this time. I think that if Guede is allowed to testify that would place the judge in a position to also allow Alessi to testify, and I don't think the prosecution wants Alessi to testify. It would not be a good move on the prosecution's part to force the judge's hand to have to give in to counter testimony requests from the defense. Of course that would still come down to one murderer's word against another, but Guede testifying could present some sticky problems for the prosecution. We will see what happens, if it happens.
It is a good point to bring up, as Guede testifying would turn the heat of all the way around, but my personal opinion is I do not think it would be particularly damaging to Amanda and Raffaele, because it would then open up the door for Alessi's testimony. I do agree with you when you say we all need to "keep our eye on the ball" as considering who is sitting at the prosecution's table I expect to see them to throw a curve ball that has been soaked in motor oil. Keeping an eye on the ball is excellent advice. I think we all need to stay awake on this and keep a strong united front for Amanda and Raff because this is far from over. Thanks very much for your comments.

Saint_Michael1 said...

Monster of Florence? Sorry I can only deal with one monster at a time, and right now I am busy with the one from Perugia. I don't think he's chasing the monster of Florence anymore- bullying young American women are more his style these days.

apple said...

I sincerely hope you are right, and that the new judge and jury will see the case against Amanda as the sham that it is. The Massei report was ludicrous in its leaps of logic and jumping to conclusions--particularly regarding the staged break-in and the murder weapon. I noticed you had a post on the Massei report--I'd like to read more of your conclusions on that. I'm very happy to have found a forum where people are civil and not biased against Amanda.

Saint_Michael1 said...

I don't think the judges in this appeal are too happy with the Massei report either.
Hello Apple- Well some of the people are quite biased against Amanda who come on this site but the nastier comments do not get published. Unlike a lot of other sites I don't allow people to get nasty and call each other names- so for some people this site must be a real drag : )
There is a separate page on the Massei report that is listed at the right under 'Pages' and is called Motivation Report In Focus. That is something that is still in progress but about the 1st 100 pages have been dealt with in detail so far. Unless that is the post you are referring to. Thanks for commenting.

Kaosium said...

Here is what I don't understand about Rudy Guede:

He had the perfect opportunity to string up both Raffaele and Amanda *twice*--yet he demurred. When he was extradited he knew the police had arrested Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick, yet he came up with a story about a left-handed stranger instead. Even to get his alleged 'deal' he didn't offer much in the way of positive testimony, it was based on voices and silhouettes--something like that. I'm betting Mignini wanted a whole lot more than that, but Guede didn't give it to him.

Then he goes and tells Alessi and others in prison just what happened. He denies it now, no doubt at the behest of his lawyer, but why would he confess it at all to his cellmates? Why would Alessi and the others make it up if he didn't?

I truly wonder what Rudy Guede would say if he got on the stand. When it was most definitely in his best interests to lie (and his guardian said he was a shameless liar) and implicate Raffaele and Amanda up to their necks, he failed to do it twice. His lawyer now says he'll change his story--yet again--and implicate Raffale and Amanda even more, but what would be the point now that his trial is completed? Hope from the EU seems pretty much a longshot considering all the evidence collected against him.

Does anyone know if the status of Rudy would change if Amanda and Raffaele were acquitted? I can't see why it would, but the byzantine Italian system has been full of perpetual surprises to me in learning about it.

Anonymous said...

Alessi? He is a liar through and through. He raped a girl in front of her boyfriend, then he kidnapped a 17-month-old baby out of a highchair for ranson, ran off with him on a motorbike and beat him to death with a shovel when baby kept crying and Alessi feared police would hear him. Makes Guede look like an Eagle Scout.

He went on TV after the kidnapping brazen as a brass mule saying, "Children should not be touched."

His life is over, so he tries to use this high profile story to get attention. He sees poor foolish Rudy in prison, one liar knows another, takes one to know one. Alessi must be paying back his brother for some old insult or offense, tagging him as the killer of Meredith Kercher? He just wants to toy with police and tantalize. Nothing a con artist loves more than leading authorities on a goosechase, making fools of everybody, assuming power for a day. Aggressive types never stop playing their tricks. NEVER NEVER NEVER. A diamond always scratches glass. Always, to the day it dies.

Do not be deceived by sudden changes of heart, it's all a strategy, a pretense.

Alessi misses his beautiful life. He was a builder. Not wealthy, but a decent life where a man is producing something valuable every day. Sure better than rotting in jail. He's desperate. He ruined his wife's life, too. She was dragged in because she was part of his evil plan. She was to care for baby Onofri while Alessi gouged the family for ransom. So he's guilty in deep ways about this, one would think. Maybe not (sociopath), it's obviously his brother he's trying to hang out to dry.

In Amanda's appeal speech, she pointed to recent inmates as witnesses of her character. Is this all they have, jailhouse backscratchers?
It wouldn't surprise me if Madison Paxton has been paid to live in Italy as high profile "friend". I'm not saying she's putting on an act, her gentle loyalty to Amanda is touching and seems genuine, but maybe PR instinct is to ice the cake. The big theme "show of force" or "show of solidarity" by family presence in Perugia is calculated and partially guilt-driven. Hey, let them do what they please, you give good things you get good things, it all works out.

If Guede did cut a deal with prosecution to chop his sentence in half, it's because they know Guede was in the murder house, and he truly knows if Amanda and Raffaele committed the crime. It's common police strategy to cut deals with one criminal in exchange for bigger fish to fry, isn't it?

Guede's such a congenital liar, beware. He could have spared everyone this slow Calvary but no, he prefers to muddy the waters with lies. He had good reason to in 2007. Even his host "adoptive" family said that he was an awful liar. Not sure when this began, but if an early protective defense, dies hard.

But he knows the truth, that's the sad part. He does know the truth. GUEDE WAS THERE AT THE MURDER AND HELPED KILL MEREDITH.

He could pull the trigger on Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito any time. He won't have an easy shot being believed this time because he has lied so often, but if he does tell the truth, it will connect the dots in this case.

His lies have surrounded his target with fog and smoke so now it's harder to hit the bullseye. However, truth does have a way of ringing true and being confirmed by physical evidence.

Yes, Guede could surely shake things up. He can hold truth hostage a long draggy time if he sets his eyes on that high European appeals court (not sure about that) or if he wants to try to squeeze Sollecito family for favors, or just wants to see rich Italian boy forced to live the same life he's living (if Raf were innocent, which I doubt).

Past behavior is best predictor of future behavior. We'll probably see more half-lies half-truth and playing dumb, while letting his lawyers scream atrocious falsehoods like, "We're leaving no stone unturned" to prove his innocence. Comedy Central.

Sarah said...

Saint_Michael1t

Who are you?? I've asked about 4 Michaels if they are St Michael. Do I know you? Great work BTW! I love your Blog and thoughts on the case.

Sarah - IIP

Saint_Michael1 said...

To Kaosium- Guede has changed his story a number of times and his credibility as a witness is probably about zero. The same can be said about Alessi. What Guede could actually say on the witness stand to harm Amanda and Raffaele is anyone's guess. I don't think it would affect his status if Amanda and Raffaele went free other than he would then stand as the only murderer of Meredith- officially- but a great many people believe he is the lone killer anyway.
Guede's sentence stands at 16 years- confirmed by the Italian supreme court. Regardless of the outcome of the Amanda/Raffaele appeal Guede's got 16 years to do- no more can be added without new charges and hopefully he will serve everyday of that 16 years- which is way too low for such a brutal murder.

Saint_Michael1 said...

Hello Sarah- I don't think I know who you are either from just the name Sarah. Why do you think you would know me? If you want to say something you don't want published start your message as Do Not Publish as all messages are read by me before they are published. I'm happy to hear you like the forum.

freeamanda said...

All that Rudy bashing will finally turn against Amanda & Raffaele...
http://freeamanda.livejournal.com

Twittering for Amanda:
http://twitter.com/FreeAmandaKnox

Anonymous said...

"Past behavior is best predictor of future behavior."
That's a salient point. There's nothing in Amanda's background that fits with this crime at all. Nothing. Zero. There is abundant evidence of a person who is the polar opposite.
For Rudy? Not so much...

Saint_Michael1 said...

Well said- A person's past can point to future actions but of course there are exceptions. Yet in Amanda's case I think it holds true that this type of crime is simply beyond her. If she had ever shown a nasty streak to anyone I think the word would have heard about it by now.
Also a person's friends are a good gage to follow and in the case of Amanda her friends have stuck by her- they know she doesn't have a violent bone in her body.
Amanda reminds me of the old hippies- lost in the wrong generation. That and the Beatles makes me want to smile. She is bit bohemian perhaps but she is a peace loving little thing. It really burns me to hear people say she looks like a killer, cold heart, etc....
It doesn't really matter at this point- that girl is going to walk on this and all the Migninis in the world will be powerless to stop it.
As for Rudy? My opinion is he is damn lucky to have only 16 years to do. Thanks for your comments.

Saint_Michael1 said...

S- sent you an e-mail off forum.

Paul said...

I would think that if Guede does testify, then the semen stain gets tested. That alone could reveal him to be a liar. Am I wrong?

Saint_Michael1 said...

Hello Paul- If I am not mistaken I do think the judge did not allow for the stain to be tested- he ruled against it. I don't know if that is a 'reserve' judgement or it is permanently out.
Guede is already a proven liar who has changed his story over time- It's a matter of record. If I were the prosecution I would not put Guede on the stand and have him contradicted by the witness Alessi. They are both liars but one simply cancels out the other. Whether Guede testifies or not is not certain one way or the other. We'll have to wait and see on that. Thanks for commenting.

Anonymous said...

Merry Christmas and Peace on Earth,
to everyone absorbed by the Meredith Kercher murder case, whatever they believe happened.

And to the Knox and Mellas families and to their children and to the Sollecito family and their son. And to the Kercher family in England. And to Saint_Michael1 for allowing us to post comments despite our differences, and for keeping it clean.

Merry Christmas!!!

Happy New Year, too. 2011

Saint_Michael1 said...

Thank you- Merry Christmas to you too.

Anonymous said...

I think that they was railroaded in my oppinion they should have got a mistrail in the first place after everything was leaked to the press. I think there is resonable dought the evidence is no exisent at best. I could not have came up with a guilty verdict on the evidense that was produced it was a case with to many smoke and mirrors for me to say with out a dought that they are guilty of anything. I hope they win the appeal and get to go home and maybe have a chance at a some what normal life.

RoseMontague said...

Thanks for your continued attention to this case. To clarify your comment on the court wanting to clear up any reasonable doubt that may exist, the actual written order for new testing goes further than that:

The jury wrote in its motivation: "Respect for the rule laid down in Article 533 (imposition of sentence only if the accused is guilty of the offense complained of beyond a reasonable doubt) does not fully share the Court's decisions d 'Assizes of the first degree ....

Process Perugia: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

Saint_Michael1 said...

Thank you Rose for the info.

Anonymous said...

All other "physical evidence" aside, I don't understand Knox's or Sollecito's stories about what they were doing that night. Why would she say she slept till 10 a.m. and went home to shower on Nov. 2, but was actually seen buying cleaning products at 7:30 a.m. from a vendor (the receipt was found)? Why would Sollecito say he was on the Internet all night, when analysis of his hard drive shows no user activity after 9:21 p.m. Nov. 1? Why was Amanda so worried about the knife in her phone call to her mother if it had just been an ordinary cooking knife--nothing to be found or worry about? There is no reason for these inconsistencies if they were not doing anything at all connected to the events of that night and were at home the whole time. Either they were home all night or weren't. If not, what were they doing?

Saint_Michael1 said...

I suggest you dig deeper into this case as it is clear you have fallen for some bad info- There is a huge amount of misinformation floating about and has confused more than a few people. An example of this is the so-called buying 'bleach' or cleaning products early the next morning- This never happened- No evidence exists of Amanda buying cleaning products the next morning and the so-called bleach receipts are a myth.
As I said there is a great deal of misinformation about this case so you need to deep down a little deeper and use more reliable sources. Thanks for commenting.

Note

This forum is not endorsed by Amanda Knox nor her family or legal council. It is an independent venture for the purpose of an open public forum on Amanda's pending appeal in Italy. It is for educational purposes only.