Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 27

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacyhs said:
Did you expect anything else? The PGP's ability to dig in even when confronted with unequivocal evidence otherwise is remarkable. We'll add this one to the ever growing pile...make that mountain... of unsupported and false claims.
Click to expand...

I'm shocked at your attitude. You probably think they were blowing smoke when they claimed that Andrew Gumbel and Raffaele were about to apologize to Giuliano Mignini after Mignini had been embarrassed by his lawsuit against them.
 
Stacyhs said:
Did you expect anything else? The PGP's ability to dig in even when confronted with unequivocal evidence otherwise is remarkable. We'll add this one to the ever growing pile...make that mountain... of unsupported and false claims.
Click to expand...

A Nevada court last night has ordered a new trial for Kirstin Blaise Lobato.

One of the grounds cited was that a confession not backed up by forensics is a dangerous ground on which to convict. Although the court didn't say it explicitly, Lobato has always denied she'd confessed.

Remind you of anyone?
 
Bill Williams said:
A Nevada court last night has ordered a new trial for Kirstin Blaise Lobato.
Click to expand...

I'm just reading about this case. Seems pretty weak. Though I'm guessing she never told anyone about her alleged sexual assault until after the murder which is probably why the prosecution didn't buy her innocence. I also read she was offered a 3 year plea deal. Sometimes you cut your losses...
 
bagels said:
I'm just reading about this case. Seems pretty weak. Though I'm guessing she never told anyone about her alleged sexual assault until after the murder which is probably why the prosecution didn't buy her innocence. I also read she was offered a 3 year plea deal. Sometimes you cut your losses...
Click to expand...

One of the reasons Cassazione in 2015 overturned the 2014 convictions of Sollectico and Knox, was because of the Nencini court's lack of clarity on T.O.D. so that the defence had no meaningful way of establishing alibi.

Apparently that rationale was used in this Lobato order for a retrial. Lobato had had ineffective counsel in that her lawyer had not pressed the blow-fly evidence at trial; since the deceased had not had blow-fly larvae on him, his TOD was (apparently) soon before his body had been found.

Therefore Lobato had had an alibi that her lawyer failed to advance at trial.
 
Bill Williams said:
A Nevada court last night has ordered a new trial for Kirstin Blaise Lobato.

One of the grounds cited was that a confession not backed up by forensics is a dangerous ground on which to convict. Although the court didn't say it explicitly, Lobato has always denied she'd confessed.

Remind you of anyone?
Click to expand...

I was not aware of the details of the Lobato case so I've done a bit of reading up on it. Wow. Yes, there are many similarities to the Knox/Sollecito case: how the police conducted the investigation, the complete lack of any forensic evidence tying Lobato to the case and the existence of evidence pointing to a male killer, et. al.
Most similar is the police's misinterpretation of something Lobato said just as the Perugia police misinterpreted Knox's "See you later" text which led them to believe Lobato had just confessed.

Also very similar is the police's need to manipulate the time of death of the victim because Lobato was provably 200 miles away at the time of Bailey's likely death.

But, I'm sure Lobato is guilty as sin because the Innocence Project, which clearly and obviously supports murderers, took up her case, the police are always competent and unbiased in their investigations and the defense experts were shills. :rolleyes:
 
The case does have one striking difference with the Knox case though, which is in the Knox case the victim's assailant left a ton of evidence at the scene which clearly and precisely identified him, long before the first trial.

I've never seen another case ever where they know the killer but continue to pursue a case against others.
 
bagels said:
I'm just reading about this case. Seems pretty weak. Though I'm guessing she never told anyone about her alleged sexual assault until after the murder which is probably why the prosecution didn't buy her innocence. I also read she was offered a 3 year plea deal. Sometimes you cut your losses...
Click to expand...

If you're referring to the attack where she said she used a knife, yes, she did tell several people about it at least a month before Bailey's murder.
 
Stacyhs said:
If you're referring to the attack where she said she used a knife, yes, she did tell several people about it at least a month before Bailey's murder.
Click to expand...

*In Grinder voice* is there proof of this? Did they testify to this at trial? That should have been the end of the case. It would have been had I been on the jury.
 
bagels said:
The case does have one striking difference with the Knox case though, which is in the Knox case the victim's assailant left a ton of evidence at the scene which clearly and precisely identified him, long before the first trial.

I've never seen another case ever where they know the killer but continue to pursue a case against others.
Click to expand...

Semen was found in Bailey's anus. Was it ever tested and run through the police database in order to identify the man? A bloody shoeprint of a man's size 10 boot was also found at the scene...and no one tried to claim it was a woman's.
 
bagels said:
*In Grinder voice* is there proof of this? Did they testify to this at trial? That should have been the end of the case. It would have been had I been on the jury.
Click to expand...

Yes, the attack that Lobato had told others about had occurred in May. Bailey was killed in July.

At least nine witnesses said Lobato told them about the attempted rape before July 8, but none were allowed to testify in court during the retrial, because the judge ruled their evidence was hearsay. Yet the probation officer, Ms Johnson, was allowed to repeat what she had heard from her teacher friend, Dixie Tienken.
Click to expand...

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-...e/news-story/1d6acb157df95ad25191e880fb728fb9

So witnesses were not allowed to testify what Lobato had told them, but Johnson was allowed to testify what she said another person had told her what Lobato said. Go figure the logic on that one out.

That parole officer, Johnson, lied about being Lobato's parole officer (she, in fact, had never even met Lobato).
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
But, I'm sure Lobato is guilty as sin because the Innocence Project, which clearly and obviously supports murderers, took up her case, the police are always competent and unbiased in their investigations and the defense experts were shills. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Another sign that she is guilty as sin is that former FBI agent and CNN analyst Steve Moore thinks she's innocent. Never mind that she was 200 miles away when the crime was committed - she's a witch like that other lady.

I hear there's also been a PR campaign to promote her innocence. Sure sign she's guilty.
 
Stacyhs said:
Yes, the attack that Lobato had told others about had occurred in May. Bailey was killed in July.



http://www.news.com.au/world/north-...e/news-story/1d6acb157df95ad25191e880fb728fb9

So witnesses were not allowed to testify what Lobato had told them, but Johnson was allowed to testify what she said another person had told her what Lobato said. Go figure the logic on that one out.

That parole officer, Johnson, lied about being Lobato's parole officer (she, in fact, had never even met Lobato).
Click to expand...

If it was ruled hearsay then she must not have been willing to testify? Otherwise it shouldn't be hearsay.
 
bagels said:
If it was ruled hearsay then she must not have been willing to testify? Otherwise it shouldn't be hearsay.
Click to expand...

The nine people that Lobato had told about the late May attack were not allowed to testify. But for some illogical reason, Johnson was allowed. Johnson was willing to testify and did so even though she had lied to police about being Lobato's parole officer. How is that logical?
 
Of course we know that the police would never, ever lie or try to coerce people into saying things that aren't true. However (the italicized words are added for clarity):
Six days after Blaise’s arrest, Thowsen (the investigating officer) returned to Lincoln County and interviewed Dixie (the friend Johnson claimed has told her about Lobato) and several other people. Dixie’s taped statement of Blaise’s conversation with her differed in important details from Johnson’s claims of what Dixie said Blaise said to her. Particularly, Dixie said that Blaise was staying with her parents – not hiding out, and Dixie did not say her parents were doing anything to hide or get rid of her car, or camouflage it by painting it. Nor did Blaise ask her not to tell anyone about the assault she described. Dixie told Justice:Denied during an interview that Thowsen talked to her for quite some time before turning on his tape recorder. While the tape recorder was off, Dixie said Thowsen tried to pressure her to shape her statement to what he wanted her to say Blaise told her, not what she recollected.
Click to expand...
 
Stacyhs said:
The nine people that Lobato had told about the late May attack were not allowed to testify. But for some illogical reason, Johnson was allowed. Johnson was willing to testify and did so even though she had lied to police about being Lobato's parole officer. How is that logical?
Click to expand...

IDK but clearly Lobato had a weak defense team if they didn't put her on the stand to dispute the confession which she could back up with 8 witnesses. The confession was already part of the evidence so not much to lose (and certainly not much to lose anyway since they lost in every trial so far).

I think with the bug evidence she'll have a good chance getting an acquittal at her next trial now that she has competent lawyers.

I always hesitate to compare any case to the Knox case because I think the Knox case is uniquely egregious in a way we shouldn't marginalize. Unlike Lobato, Knox never confessed to committing any act of violence ever. The police told her she had trauma induced amnesia and forced her to sign a statement that she was in her kitchen while the murder was happening. The police learned who the killer was two weeks after that when they discovered the rapekit contained the DNA of a burglar who was at the scene covered in blood, spotted alone on CCTV at the scene before the murder, confessed to a friend he went to the murder alone and left alone, had knife marks on his hand he voluntarily connected to the murder, had a history of two story rock bashing break-ins just like the break-in at the cottage, and had no connection to Knox, but they ignored all of that in pursuit of a case against a girl they beat a statement out of. And then the highest court in the country, under judge Chieffi, made it a permanent national decision on behalf of the entire country.
 
bagels said:
IDK but clearly Lobato had a weak defense team if they didn't put her on the stand to dispute the confession which she could back up with 8 witnesses. The confession was already part of the evidence so not much to lose (and certainly not much to lose anyway since they lost in every trial so far).

I think with the bug evidence she'll have a good chance getting an acquittal at her next trial now that she has competent lawyers.

I always hesitate to compare any case to the Knox case because I think the Knox case is uniquely egregious in a way we shouldn't marginalize. Unlike Lobato, Knox never confessed to committing any act of violence ever. The police told her she had trauma induced amnesia and forced her to sign a statement that she was in her kitchen while the murder was happening. The police learned who the killer was two weeks after that when they discovered the rapekit contained the DNA of a burglar who was at the scene covered in blood, spotted alone on CCTV at the scene before the murder, confessed to a friend he went to the murder alone and left alone, had knife marks on his hand he voluntarily connected to the murder, had a history of two story rock bashing break-ins just like the break-in at the cottage, and had no connection to Knox, but they ignored all of that in pursuit of a case against a girl they beat a statement out of. And then the highest court in the country, under judge Chieffi, made it a permanent national decision on behalf of the entire country.
Click to expand...

I agree that Lobato has an excellent chance of an acquittal based on the facts of the case.

Amanda was not beaten. She was cuffed on the back of the head 3 times which is coercion and illegal. Saying she was beaten is an exaggeration that the PGP will seize at every opportunity in an attempt to discredit her supporters. Unlike the PGP, we do not need to exaggerate to support our side.
 
Stacyhs said:
I agree that Lobato has an excellent chance of an acquittal based on the facts of the case.

Amanda was not beaten. She was cuffed on the back of the head 3 times which is coercion and illegal. Saying she was beaten is an exaggeration that the PGP will seize at every opportunity in an attempt to discredit her supporters. Unlike the PGP, we do not need to exaggerate to support our side.
Click to expand...

The PGP are delusional idiots and the case is over.

IMO the closest case to the Knox case in the US is the David Camm case, though it still has some notable differences: he had something resembling a motive, and they didn't catch the real killer until after the first trial. Also the highest court overturned the conviction, instead of pulling a Chieffi and ******** onto the rule of law.
 
We might start getting some Chieffi-level decisions with some of these Trump judicial appointees though.
 
bagels said:
We might start getting some Chieffi-level decisions with some of these Trump judicial appointees though.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's pitiful when a nominee to a lifetime federal bench position can't even answer basic questions about the law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom