Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[piktor]

As I said, Fulcanelli, the only evidence you have is from the highly speculative Micheli report, and you have no idea which of those speculations were proven and which were not. You're treating what Micheli says as fact, when it isn't. It's really that simple.

If what you say is 100% true, katy_did, the appeal judges will automatically overturn the conviction and Knox/Sollecito will go free!

 

[katy_did]

The problem for the accused is their able lawyers did not/could not refute the prosecution's theory. If Michelli accepted the prosecution's narrative, it is because it makes sense and if it is so incredible as to defy logic, why was the defense powerless to refute the crazy prosecution theory. What is a judge to do- wait an eternity for the culpable to confess?

The appeal proceedings will either confirm the conviction sentence or overturn it.

Guede went first on appeal and the sentence was confirmed minus a few years, so his jail time is similar to the other two. This means the appeal judges endorsed, once again, the prosecution's findings. The Guede case is based on the same investigation for Knox/Sollecito. We should expect on appeal the same result for the two as was for Guede.

This is not a problem for the judges to solve. This is a problem for the accused and their lawyers to solve. If it is such a bad narrative, why can't the defence set everyone straight and free their clients?

How do we know the defence couldn't refute the prosecution's theories during the closed sessions? We just don't have the evidence to make that judgement.

Micheli's job was to decide whether or not there was sufficient evidence to send the pair to trial, not to determine whether there was sufficient proof to convict. Had it been the latter, there would have been no point in the trial at all. The case against Guede is very different to that against the other too, so I don't necessarily think that the verdict in his case sets the pattern for Knox and Sollecito's appeal. You can't really take Guede out of the equation here - the evidence is pretty much irrefutable - while the same isn't true for the other two.

 

[Fulcanelli]

As I said, Fulcanelli, the only evidence you have is from the highly speculative Micheli report, and you have no idea which of those speculations were proven and which were not. You're treating what Micheli says as fact, when it isn't. It's really that simple.

It's not 'speculative', it's built from the 'evidence'. You don't write it off so easily. Remember, that report was not only the basis of referring two individuals to trial and continued imprisonment while awaiting said trial, but also the sentencing of another individual to 30 years imprisonment.

And considering his report was upheld by the appeal court for Rudy Guede, I'd say that was a stamp of approval on his judgement.

 

[katy_did]

If what you say is 100% true, katy_did, the appeal judges will automatically overturn the conviction and Knox/Sollecito will go free!

I think they probably will go free at one or other of the appeals, but I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion from what I posted. All I said is that since we don't know what happened during the closed sessions, it's impossible to say that anything discussed in those sessions is 'proven'. For all we know, as with the fingerprints, the evidence may have been refuted.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

And you may also like to answer, why the defence has been so silent about this moonshine both publicly and in open court session, when this 'moonshine' was one of the core elements that sent them to trial in the first place?

I don't know about you, but for me, the silence is deafening...at least from the defence. Why is that?

Obviously the Sollecito and Knox defense teams were part of the Italian conspiracy to railroad the American chick. What other explanation can there be?

I guess Sollecito was just 'collateral damage' in that effort. Unavoidable, but necessary to nail the hussy. "You can't make an omelet ..." and all that.

If he had stuck to good Italian girls he wouldn't have been in the line of fire. Serves him right.

 

[Fulcanelli]

How do we know the defence couldn't refute the prosecution's theories during the closed sessions? We just don't have the evidence to make that judgement.

Micheli's job was to decide whether or not there was sufficient evidence to send the pair to trial, not to determine whether there was sufficient proof to convict. Had it been the latter, there would have been no point in the trial at all. The case against Guede is very different to that against the other too, so I don't necessarily think that the verdict in his case sets the pattern for Knox and Sollecito's appeal. You can't really take Guede out of the equation here - the evidence is pretty much irrefutable - while the same isn't true for the other two.

We know, because they were found guilty in a unanimous verdict, of not only Meredith's murder, but the illegal transportation of a knife, criminal slander and the fabrication of a crime, every crime Micheli had charged them with (except the theft). Or, was that not the case?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I think they probably will go free at one or other of the appeals, but I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion from what I posted. All I said is that since we don't know what happened during the closed sessions, it's impossible to say that anything discussed in those sessions is 'proven'. For all we know, as with the fingerprints, the evidence may have been refuted.

Go free? On what grounds?

You've yet to tell us what the 'new' element is that the defence is going to produce in order to overturn a unanimous verdict.

 

[katy_did]

It's not 'speculative', it's built from the 'evidence'. You don't write it off so easily. Remember, that report was not only the basis of referring two individuals to trial and continued imprisonment while awaiting said trial, but also the sentencing of another individual to 30 years imprisonment.

And considering his report was upheld by the appeal court for Rudy Guede, I'd say that was a stamp of approval on his judgement.

Of course Micheli's report is speculative, and in Knox and Sollecito's case the burden of proof is different to that which is needed in court. Hence, you can't repeat what he says as fact, as people are inclined to do with the issue of the body having been moved, since they don't have any other information to go on. Had the fingerprints been discussed during closed sessions, that evidence would still be being repeated as fact too, no doubt.

 

[katy_did]

Go free? On what grounds?

You've yet to tell us what the 'new' element is that the defence is going to produce in order to overturn a unanimous verdict.

The appeal is essentially a new trial, Fulcanelli. Hence it is entirely possible for the court to consider the same evidence and to reach a different conclusion. The disgracing of Mignini won't harm their chances.

By the way, I asked this before, but has there been an official announcement that the verdict was unanimous? I've seen Vogt's report, but I understood we'd need to wait for the judge's report to know that for certain.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Of course Micheli's report is speculative, and in Knox and Sollecito's case the burden of proof is different to that which is needed in court. Hence, you can't repeat what he says as fact, as people are inclined to do with the issue of the body having been moved, since they don't have any other information to go on. Had the fingerprints been discussed during closed sessions, that evidence would still be being repeated as fact too, no doubt.

It is NOT 'speculative', it is a LEGAL JUDGEMENT, created from the evidence. He sent a man to jail for 30 years on the basis of 'speculation', is that what you're seriously trying to argue? Spin yourself, but don't try and spin us. You'll get dizzy before I do love.

In regard to the body being moved, he went by the direct forensic evidence. That does not change.

I'm sorry, you are really grasping at straws clinging to 'possible' defence arguments offered during closed sessions and it's an argument of desperation. It would be an argument of strength, had the pair been found innocent and I was attempting to go against the verdict and argue their guilt. However, since they were found guilty in a unanimous verdict, it would belie any arguments that the defence were able to render strong arguments behind closed doors. Their existence is a fantasy subsitute for your lack of anything else.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The appeal is essentially a new trial, Fulcanelli. Hence it is entirely possible for the court to consider the same evidence and to reach a different conclusion. The disgracing of Mignini won't harm their chances.

By the way, I asked this before, but has there been an official announcement that the verdict was unanimous? I've seen Vogt's report, but I understood we'd need to wait for the judge's report to know that for certain.

Just like their trial was a new trial after being tried by Micheli...that went well

Again...your reason for believing an appeal stands a chance when 18 judges have found them guilty, with a final 8 finding them guilty in a unanimous verdict after a full 11 month trial with every trick and argument the best defence in the country could offer? They'll get off with exactly the same arguments, simply because it's a different set of judges...if it doesn't work the first time, try try again...is that the grand master plan and the basis for your faith? Is that it?

Come on Katy, you're bright. Your mistake would be not to realise that so are we.

 

[quadraginta]

Go free? On what grounds?

You've yet to tell us what the 'new' element is that the defence is going to produce in order to overturn a unanimous verdict.

Maybe a new Doug Preston novel book. Exposé of the diabolical plot, complete with 'reliable sources' and 'firsthand accounts'. The deeply ingrained flaws and blatant prejudice of the Italian legal system will be revealed for the entire world to see. Careers will be ruined. Heads will roll. Oprah will do a special segment. Boy, are they gonna be sorry.

Oughta knock their socks off. "Foxy" 'll be home in time for the book signings.

 

[piktor]

I think they probably will go free at one or other of the appeals, but I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion from what I posted. All I said is that since we don't know what happened during the closed sessions, it's impossible to say that anything discussed in those sessions is 'proven'. For all we know, as with the fingerprints, the evidence may have been refuted.

I very much doubt Micheli handed down a sentence on other than conclusions based on training, experience judicial guidelines and common sense.

The accused were found guilty and sentenced to 20-plus years in jail. These are not speculative years but real-life years.

These sentences were conclusive, not speculative. He even cites the law code that stipulates time alotted for crimes of the type commited by the guilty parties here.

If there is fault at the December 4 guilty verdict, it points directly to the accused and the defence- for allowing this to be. Do not blame the prosecution for presenting a credible theory plus factual evidence to back it up. Do not blame the judges for accepting the obvious.

As much as you may not like it, the wheels of justice turned and justice has been served.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I very much doubt Micheli handed down a sentence on other than conclusions based on training, experience judicial guidelines and common sense.

The accused were found guilty and sentenced to 20-plus years in jail. These are not speculative years but real-life years.

These sentences were conclusive, not speculative. He even cites the law code that stipulates time alotted for crimes of the type commited by the guilty parties here.

If there is fault at the December 4 guilty verdict, it points directly to the accused and the defence- for allowing this to be. Do not blame the prosecution for presenting a credible theory plus factual evidence to back it up. Do not blame the judges for accepting the obvious.

As much as you may not like it, the wheels of justice turned and justice has been served.

One only needs to read his report to see the raw evidence and the logical process in which he put that evidence together. The Micheli Report is a sterling piece of work and difficult to fault. Even katy, with her best efforts could only find an avenue of attack in regard to his conclusions regarding the fingerprint evidence. And even there, as I highlighted in a previous post, his reasoning was good.

Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy had nowhere to run and hide, despite having the best legal teams in the land and a concerted PR propaganda campaign behind them (or at least, 'some' of them did).

Any appeal, with even less experts behind them then before, with arguments already discredited is a forlorn hope

 

[Fulcanelli]

Maybe a new Doug Preston novel book. Exposé of the diabolical plot, complete with 'reliable sources' and 'firsthand accounts'. The deeply ingrained flaws and blatant prejudice of the Italian legal system will be revealed for the entire world to see. Careers will be ruined. Heads will roll. Oprah will do a special segment. Boy, are they gonna be sorry.

Oughta knock their socks off. "Foxy" 'll be home in time for the book signings.

Sure, as soon as Opera gets on the case, the Italians are bound to capitulate

 

[stilicho]

This is not a problem for the judges to solve. This is a problem for the accused and their lawyers to solve. If it is such a bad narrative, why can't the defence set everyone straight and free their clients?

We've been asking this for ages, haven't we? Either the elite lawyers for the accused are complete idiots or the FOA crowd is missing something. I will put my money on the latter.

 

[Fulcanelli]

We've been asking this for ages, haven't we? Either the elite lawyers for the accused are complete idiots or the FOA crowd is missing something. I will put my money on the latter.

The defence aren't missing anything, they are are just hoping the court and 'we' will.

So much for that, on to plan B (or is it plan C or D by now?)...and what is plan B...or whatever?

According to katy, there is no plan B...just leftovers for dinner again.

 

[tsig]

How do we know the defence couldn't refute the prosecution's theories during the closed sessions? We just don't have the evidence to make that judgement.

The guilty verdict?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Jama case

Seriously, did you even read the article? Are you going to go up on the stand and argue that Meredith wasn't even murdered? What kind of person says such a thing even in jest?

Stilicho,

With respect, I suggest that you have not understood the point I was trying to make. Do you think that contamination occurred in the Jama case? Why or why not?

Chris

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Garofano on the knife

But that's not what she said. That's what 'you' are trying to claim. Are you able to support this claim with any of the literature?

It is up to Dr Stefanoni to back up her claim that DNA can be detected when blood cannot with an example from the literature. On page 369 of Darkness Descending, General Garofano said, “Did they open the knife to see if blood had dripped between the metal part of the handle and the plastic? No? Pity. That would have been a sure place to find blood if there was blood. Secondly, they say it was cleaned with bleach. If an object is cleaned with bleach, there is no DNA left. And if any were left there would be the same amount of DNA belonging to Amanda Knox as to Meredith Kercher. Next to nothing…So the fact that there is a lot of Amanda Knox's DNA and a little of Meredith's doesn't sound logical to me.”