Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

The troubling thing is that on occasion, Machiavelli has had information not available to us up here in the cheap seats.

While I am sure that Machiavelli does have some sources that the rest of us don't, I also know that he fabricates out of thin air much of what he writes. It is like reading Guede's statements. I know that some of it probably does have grains of truth, but I also know that a large portion is a total lie. The difficulty is learning how to tell difference.

 

[carbonjam72]

If I remember SH's theory correctly, it is totally immaterial (to his/her theory) where either of them were both between 9 and 10 pm, as well as at T.O.D. (regardless as to whether or not that time period or the T.O.D. coincided.)

SH's theory (and he can correct me if I am wrong) is something akin to Knox feeling guilty that she felt she had some indirect association with the murder, and then after that had happened returned to the cottage to effect a clean-up to mask who had done it.

Strangley this theory has legs among at least two journalists lately. One if Barbie Nadeau, whose favourite phrase is, "Knox knows more that she's telling us." Apparently CNN's Cuomo used that phrase recently too.

Yes, and Chris Cuomo got his job as a TV interviewer on merit because he's real smart, not at all because his father was a former governor of NY. Why must we be saddled with the stunted offspring of politicians?

 

[anglolawyer]

I saw no reasoning or wording in the English language translation of Hellmann's motivation report regarding the memory expert (Carlo Caltagirone) at all. I am handicapped by only having translated small sections of the expert's testimony. May be he made no statements worth refuting. But then IMO the judge should have mentioned that. Another possibility is that the translation of Hellmann's motivation report is not complete. But assuming that it is, I believe it is lacking the refutation or reasoning needed to address the false memory issue.

And regarding "arbitrary", it would be helpful if lawyers and judges defined their terms before or even after use, but this is not an ideal world. I did get 12 HUDOC case hits for the phrase "arbitrary reasoning".

ETA: Checking the hits, in a number of instances a judgment states that the ECHR did not find any arbitrary reasoning in a domestic court's decision. (So they know what it is well enough not to find it!)

No, you are right, Hellman does not cite the specific evidential basis for his findings but it cannot be inferred that those findings are not grounded in evidence. Where else, aside from the defence expert, can he have got all that stuff about her mental state? After setting it all out, he says:

However, this Court does not find that there is any significant objective evidence that, when she made her spontaneous statements and wrote her note, Amanda Knox was in not only a situation of considerable psychological pressure and stress but also even in a condition of not intending or wishing; so that, having accused of such a serious crime a person whom she knew to be innocent, she must in any case be held responsible for the crime of calumny, the constitution of which does not require any specific purpose from a psychological point of view, such as shifting the blame off of oneself [conseguire la propria impunità] (an aggravating circumstance alleged [here]). Generic criminal intent [il dolo generico] is sufficient, thus including the aim of escaping from a particularly oppressive personal situation.

I am guessing questions about her mental capacity were put to her expert and that he was not able to go so far as to say she lacked the ability to form criminal intent. We need a transcript of his evidence.

 

[Diocletus]

Yummi is worried. He's got issues with what Bruno said but also Judge Matone. He's preparing the ground for denouncing the judges if the ruling doesn't confirm the convictions. If they confirm, he'll dig over that ground.

Today is not what the guilters expected. Harry Rag thought that Mr Sollecito would be in prison by bedtime.

Now he's going on about how Bruno made comments about the murder being committed by more than one person. This is interesting. This is one of the points that the supreme court, in a pique of idiocy, determined in Guede's case and then illegally applied in the Knox/Sollecito case.

What Yummi doesn't say that Bruno said, however, is that those "other people" have to be Knox and Sollecito.

 

[Kauffer]

I remember when they were high-fiving each other about how he'd be locked up by Christmas.

I will say this . . . if I knew that, for example, Mr Maresca was going to be publicly humiliated for his role in this mess, I would be glad. I would read articles about it. I would not pop champagne, or invite my friends over, or pound the table with joy.

I'd just be glad to see a person get held accountable for hurting others. They've moved a long way past that ordinary sort of liking-justice and out into some kind of blood-lust territory. It's creepy as hell.

Yes. It's a study in itself. LJ wrote a nicely crafted post about the phenomenon earlier. I am not an expert, but there appears to be something pathological going on. I think Rome is an appropriate location, as far as they are concerned. They see the defendants in the arena, not the courtroom.

 

[Kauffer]

Now he's going on about how Bruno made comments about the murder being committed by more than one person. This is interesting. This is one of the points that the supreme court, in a pique of idiocy, determined in Guede's case and then illegally applied in the Knox/Sollecito case.

What Yummi doesn't say that Bruno said, however, is that those "other people" have to be Knox and Sollecito.

Well, well. Some developments in this case are predictable, others are not. I wouldn't like to say the cat has got amongst the guilter pigeons today, but their collective feathers are certainly a little ruffled. And these convictions don't appear to be of the slam dunk confirmation kind after this session.

 

[TruthCalls]

While I agree with you for the most part, I refrain from criticizing the Kerchers, mostly because it is both unseemly and a no win proposition to speak negatively about the parents of a murder victim.

I agree, and I thought I had pointed out I was steering clear of criticizing them. They have done some things I take serious exception to, but until I've been in their shoes - and I hope to God I never am - then I can not pass judgement on them.

My main point is it seems odd that they don't seem to be driven by the same things that I think I would be driven by. I would want to be certain of every fact. I would want to be certain that all guilty parties serve time. I would want to be certain that innocent parties do not serve time. The only way to attain these goals is to research and ask questions. To this point it seems the family is satisfied just sticking to the prosecution's case. I can not understand not seeking Gil out.

 

[Bill Williams]

I've never understood why people get their knickers in a twist about Masons anyway.

I've read its part of the drive by totalitarian society & government (Fascist, Nazi, Communist) to eliminate non-governmental or private organizations not controlled by the government - single allowed party. Plus, some Christian groups (for example, Catholic) have claimed there are pagan elements in the Mason symbols & ceremonies.

In the US, Masons are known for charitably funding hospitals. And their Shriners, who parade dressed as clowns. It's all very subversive. (Not)

ETA: George Washington, Lafayette, Ben Franklin and other US founders were supposedly Masons.

The one thing I will give Machiavelli is that there is some evidence that elements within a secret-group like Italian Masons perhaps did once have unaccountable influence over Italian life.

The equivalent in the US would be the Skull and Bones fraternity. It's a secret(ive) fraternity with an elite membership, and provides opportunity for this elite to meet (and perhaps pre-decide things) out of the glare of a democratic process.

Who really knows? When John Kerry ran against George W. Bush in 2004, it was the first time that two Bonesmen had run against each other for US President.

However, Masonic conspiracists in this case claim to know the actual amount of Euros needed to get Judge Hellmann to throw the case in 2011. I don't go with that.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sherlock's position has not shifted one iota since he first came to this site. He has learned not to try and argue the actual facts because he is soundly defeated every time. Instead, he wraps up a big bundle and claims they are all lies without examining any of them.

Soundly defeated, thanks for the laugh, again and again.

 

[acbytesla]

If I remember SH's theory correctly, it is totally immaterial (to his/her theory) where either of them were both between 9 and 10 pm, as well as at T.O.D. (regardless as to whether or not that time period or the T.O.D. coincided.)

SH's theory (and he can correct me if I am wrong) is something akin to Knox feeling guilty that she felt she had some indirect association with the murder, and then after that had happened returned to the cottage to effect a clean-up to mask who had done it.

Strangley this theory has legs among at least two journalists lately. One if Barbie Nadeau, whose favourite phrase is, "Knox knows more that she's telling us." Apparently CNN's Cuomo used that phrase recently too.

I think this is similar to the idea that there will be some kind of split decision by the ISC. A backwards deduction either based on hope or in SH's position his original belief in their involvement and unwillingness to set that aside. For me this is like Christians who see the wisdom of evolution and try and reconcile that with their religious beliefs.

 

[Diocletus]

The equivalent in the US would be the Skull and Bones fraternity. It's a secret(ive) fraternity with an elite membership, and provides opportunity for this elite to meet (and perhaps pre-decide things) out of the glare of a democratic process.

Who really knows? When John Kerry ran against George W. Bush in 2004, it was the first time that two Bonesmen had run against each other for US President.

Some conspiracy. Bush and Kerry don't even like each other.

 

[carbonjam72]

Well, well. Some developments in this case are predictable, others are not. I wouldn't like to say the cat has got amongst the guilter pigeons today, but their collective feathers are certainly a little ruffled. And these convictions don't appear to be of the slam dunk confirmation kind after this session.

Did Bruno say this about multiple assailants being a 'judicial fact' binding in this case? I think that's significant if its true.

The statement about "uncertainty" seems like a head tip to reasonable doubt. Yet the mention of 'judicial facts' that were never challenged by any party, much less by the defendants, is just scary.

It's truly difficult to believe the trial becomes so much of a sporting match, 'could go either way', and people's entire useful lives are on the line. Will they have any chance of a useful life? Well it depends on whether we believe in magical selective clean-ups.

The whole business is just so inconceivable. Is Italy still a viable country capable of self-government, when magical thinking is substituted for reality based reasoning?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If I remember SH's theory correctly, it is totally immaterial (to his/her theory) where either of them were both between 9 and 10 pm, as well as at T.O.D. (regardless as to whether or not that time period or the T.O.D. coincided.)

SH's theory (and he can correct me if I am wrong) is something akin to Knox feeling guilty that she felt she had some indirect association with the murder, and then after that had happened returned to the cottage to effect a clean-up to mask who had done it.

Strangley this theory has legs among at least two journalists lately. One if Barbie Nadeau, whose favourite phrase is, "Knox knows more that she's telling us." Apparently CNN's Cuomo used that phrase recently too.

Knox doesn't feel guilty at all. She was there when the attack started, and most likely started it herself. Yes, she knows way more than she telling.

 

[Numbers]

No, you are right, Hellman does not cite the specific evidential basis for his findings but it cannot be inferred that those findings are not grounded in evidence. Where else, aside from the defence expert, can he have got all that stuff about her mental state? After setting it all out, he says:

However, this Court does not find that there is any significant objective evidence that, when she made her spontaneous statements and wrote her note, Amanda Knox was in not only a situation of considerable psychological pressure and stress but also even in a condition of not intending or wishing; so that, having accused of such a serious crime a person whom she knew to be innocent, she must in any case be held responsible for the crime of calumny, the constitution of which does not require any specific purpose from a psychological point of view, such as shifting the blame off of oneself [conseguire la propria impunità] (an aggravating circumstance alleged [here]). Generic criminal intent [il dolo generico] is sufficient, thus including the aim of escaping from a particularly oppressive personal situation.

I am guessing questions about her mental capacity were put to her expert and that he was not able to go so far as to say she lacked the ability to form criminal intent. We need a transcript of his evidence.

You may have a point here. But I had assumed that Hellmann was referring to the Memoriales and to Amanda Knox's own testimony. It would be useful to have the memory expert's testimony in English.

But the part of your quote I bolded is also important; did Knox know that Lumumba was innocent at that point, or had the suggestion of the police led her to believe something (a) false and (b) she could not objectively know (assuming she was with Raffaele at his apartment at the time of the murder).

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, and Chris Cuomo got his job as a TV interviewer on merit because he's real smart, not at all because his father was a former governor of NY. Why must we be saddled with the stunted offspring of politicians?

Because who you know or blow is frequently more important than what you know . It has always been that way.

 

[RWVBWL]

4 Trials?
Mafia busters?
Dead priest rescue PM Mignini?

Gotta thank pictor
for the link to this excellent news report on the case by Peter Van Sant of 48 Hours.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKOa6B7Vgj0

Speaking of Mignini:
He's put his prestige out there, it's too late,
it's like the Duke lacrosse case, he just wouldn't back down.

 

[Dan O.]

Soundly defeated, thanks for the laugh, again and again.

Come back again some day when you care to debate the evidence and what is fact.

 

[acbytesla]

Knox doesn't feel guilty at all. She was there when the attack started, and most likely started it herself. Yes, she knows way more than she telling.

There is no reason for Amanda to feel guilty about anything. And your belief is built on air. There is no evidence that she had even said much more to the real killer "hello" and "may I take your order" a week before the murder. There isn't a shred of any evidence she was in the murder room that evening or ever. (although I would guess that sometime in the previous month she had been.) What in the world would make anyone pose such an idea when there isn't anything that leads to it?

 

[Kaosium]

Knox doesn't feel guilty at all. She was there when the attack started, and most likely started it herself. Yes, she knows way more than she telling.

A ridiculous assertion, how could anyone outside Knox and Guede possibly know this? Both of them have weighed in on this and both have said that Amanda wasn't there.

 

[Dan O.]

Knox doesn't feel guilty at all. She was there when the attack started, and most likely started it herself. Yes, she knows way more than she telling.

Sherlock Holmes knows way more than he has evidence to support.