Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[HumanityBlues]

Is it necessary that he attend the trial to have that information?

Often yes. We have various snippets from articles, some in Italian, some in English, which give us about 2 or 3 minutes worth of reading for sometimes what is 8 hours of testimony. If Fulcanelli wants to make a claim like that, I would sure like to know if he has any transcripts of the testimony or closing arguments. It's one thing to argue that something was said, because it was reported. It's another to say if something wasn't said or contested. I would like to know the basis for that other than it wasn't reported.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Hold on. Let's say that a prosecutor introduces something irrelevant during the trial. Doesn't the defence team dispute this either through objections or other means? If the prosecutor then affirms the irrelevant evidence in the closing argument, then isn't it essentially ignored by the judge and/or jury?

I can almost guarantee you, by using my mysterious gift of clairvoyance, that the cornerstone of the conviction will not be handwriting analysis. It probably won't even be mentioned. If it is then that should be a very good basis for appeal.

I agree, I doubt it will be even be mentioned in the sentencing report; if it is, that would be pretty bad. That phrasing I used was tongue and cheek btw, I didn't mean it literally. No prosecutor would actually admit any evidence they entered was irrelevant. It was a joke, but I guess it wasn't that transparent.

 

[stilicho]

I have to ask, but where does it say on the page in your quote that Mignini used (or quoted) a handwriting analyst?

I even did on word search on the page for "handwriting", so I feel a bit stupid that everyone is talking about the fact, but I cannot see it.

This source (same news agency, different date) gives a rather different impression of the summation: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/AmandaKnox/amanda-knox-murder-trial-evidence/comments?type=story&id=9113616. "Unnamed criminologist" sounds a little different that "130 witnesses".

Maybe it ought to say "129 witnesses and an unnamed criminologist".

 

[stilicho]

Often yes. We have various snippets from articles, some in Italian, some in English, which give us about 2 or 3 minutes worth of reading for sometimes what is 8 hours of testimony. If Fulcanelli wants to make a claim like that, I would sure like to know if he has any transcripts of the testimony or closing arguments. It's one thing to argue that something was said, because it was reported. It's another to say if something wasn't said or contested. I would like to know the basis for that other than it wasn't reported.

Here's a fairly recent example: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5620057&postcount=3686.

At issue is whether the defence teams argued that Meredith visited RS's apartment. Maybe we can ask Fulcanelli for the source. Would this one be a good place to start?

It's my understanding that plenty of the evidence or the prosecution's case was simply ignored by the defence. That might be untrue if what you're suggesting is right.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Here's a fairly recent example: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5620057&postcount=3686.

At issue is whether the defence teams argued that Meredith visited RS's apartment. Maybe we can ask Fulcanelli for the source. Would this one be a good place to start?

It's my understanding that plenty of the evidence or the prosecution's case was simply ignored by the defence. That might be untrue if what you're suggesting is right.

I'm not saying that there are no ways to discern whether the defense did not contest certain things; however, it's just something people need to be careful about. If there's a credible reason for stating that they didn't contest it, I'm not going to banter back and forth about it. I just worry people will get into the "it would have been reported" statements.

Ok Stilch, now you gotta make me a promise. If the judge's sentencing report coming out soon in any way references the now famous "unnamed" criminologist, you have to promise to have my back in demanding a mistrial!

 

[odeed]

This source (same news agency, different date) gives a rather different impression of the summation: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/AmandaKnox/amanda-knox-murder-trial-evidence/comments?type=story&id=9113616. "Unnamed criminologist" sounds a little different that "130 witnesses".

Maybe it ought to say "129 witnesses and an unnamed criminologist".

Any of them a handwriting analyst/expert?

HumanityBlues provided a link which supposedly was evidence of his claim that Mignini used the handwriting analysis in summing up as new evidence. I still cannot find any sources except for the perugia-shock blog that it was used.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Ok, what Fulcanelli is fine since Knox said it herself. So my guess is the defense wouldn't have contested it true. But I would be less inclined to say it either way if he had just said the defense hadn't contested it since he wasn't in court and presumably has no transcripts.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Any of them a handwriting analyst/expert?

HumanityBlues provided a link which supposedly was evidence of his claim that Mignini used the handwriting analysis in summing up as new evidence. I still cannot find any sources except for the perugia-shock blog that it was used.

You know what Odeed, I think you are right. I must have put two and two together from the Perugia-Shock blog. Well, maybe we can figure it out I suppose. There seem to be two scenarios then. The first being that they are the same person, or in the alternative, that there was not one, but two unnamed "experts" (using that term loosely), one about the handwriting and one observing the behavior. If that's the case that honestly makes things exponentially worse and even more blatantly and unfairly prejudicial.

What kind of court allows a prosecutor to just throw out what an unnamed criminologist or fringe-science handwriting analyst says and not even allow any sort of right to confront that witness? That's blatantly unconscionable.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

You know what Odeed, I think you are right. I must have put two and two together from the Perugia-Shock blog. Well, maybe we can figure it out I suppose. There seem to be two scenarios then. The first being that they are the same person, or in the alternative, that there was not one, but two unnamed "experts" (using that term loosely), one about the handwriting and one observing the behavior. If that's the case that honestly makes things exponentially worse and even more blatantly and unfairly prejudicial.

What kind of court allows a prosecutor to just throw out what an unnamed criminologist or fringe-science handwriting analyst says and not even allow any sort of right to confront that witness? That's blatantly unconscionable.

Woah, hold on.

Where is the cite that there was a handwriting analyst? As of yet, that is unproven.

As for the "unnamed criminologist", there were 130 witnesses. I find it hard to believe that Mignini would call 130 witnesses and then leave a criminologist unnamed. I find it seems more likely that the newspaper didn't catch the name of the criminologist and thus labeled him/her as "unnamed" even though this wasn't truly the case.

Or perhaps in his closing statements, Mignini referenced a specific testimony without naming the individual. That's just as likely as him having called 130 witnesses and leaving out a criminologist he referenced during his closing arguments

 

[HumanityBlues]

Woah, hold on.

Where is the cite that there was a handwriting analyst? As of yet, that is unproven.

As for the "unnamed criminologist", there were 130 witnesses. I find it hard to believe that Mignini would call 130 witnesses and then leave a criminologist unnamed. I find it seems more likely that the newspaper didn't catch the name of the criminologist and thus labeled him/her as "unnamed" even though this wasn't truly the case.

Or perhaps in his closing statements, Mignini referenced a specific testimony without naming the individual. That's just as likely as him having called 130 witnesses and leaving out a criminologist he referenced during his closing arguments

There's the cite for the handwriting: http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/11/migninis-rage-against-knox-and.html. Maybe you can argue that the blogger just made it up. Do you think he was called at trial? I don't, but if you do, let's see it.

Two sources said unnamed criminologist. ABC and Andrea Vogt of the Seattle PI. Here is the quote from the PI:

"Eliminated, he argued, by a young woman with a particular psychological profile. Citing the observations of an unnamed "noted criminologist" he described Knox as "narcisitic, aggressive, manipulative, angry, transgressive and easily given to disliking people who she disagreed with or whose ideologies differerd." She also tended to try to dominate and was obstructive, he added."

That sounds a lot like the description on Perugia-shock as well. You can read the the Vogt article here: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/412538_knox21.html

That's three different sources that didn't name him. Personally I find it unlikely that they would all just leave the name out like that, two of them saying "unnamed" explicitly

You wrote: "Or perhaps in his closing statements, Mignini referenced a specific testimony without naming the individual." I doubt it. That doesn't even make sense.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>
Two sources said unnamed criminologist. ABC and Andrea Vogt of the Seattle PI. Here is the quote from the PI:

<snip>

That's three different sources that didn't name him. Personally I find it unlikely that they would all just leave the name out like that, two of them saying "unnamed" explicitly
You wrote: "Or perhaps in his closing statements, Mignini referenced a specific testimony without naming the individual." I doubt it. That doesn't even make sense.

I can think of one reason that would have multiple outlets employing the exact same terminology which doesn't require multiple sources.

That would be if they share the same source.

I have seen very little about this case presented in our national media which isn't copied pretty much verbatim from the FOA playbook. Last week Oprah did a "hard-hitting" show which consisted almost entirely of handing a microphone to Knox's parents and smiling politely.

There was a lot of reference to cartwheels.

 

[odeed]

...

"Eliminated, he argued, by a young woman with a particular psychological profile. Citing the observations of an unnamed "noted criminologist" he described Knox as "narcisitic, aggressive, manipulative, angry, transgressive and easily given to disliking people who she disagreed with or whose ideologies differerd." She also tended to try to dominate and was obstructive, he added."

...

I do not see anything wrong in Mignini referring to someone as "noted criminologist" if that criminologist gave evidence in the trial, or even if he/she gave evidence in Guede trial, and that evidence was relevant to the AK and RS part of the trial. It would be the same as saying "Police investigators" or "DNA expert" to highlight the evidence, instead of naming them individually.

Now if were to refer to "some blogger" or "a forum post", then he could be ridiculed.

 

[HumanityBlues]

I do not see anything wrong in Mignini referring to someone as "noted criminologist" if that criminologist gave evidence in the trial, or even if he/she gave evidence in Guede trial, and that evidence was relevant to the AK and RS part of the trial. It would be the same as saying "Police investigators" or "DNA expert" to highlight the evidence, instead of naming them individually.

Now if were to refer to "some blogger" or "a forum post", then he could be ridiculed.

That's ridiculous. You're basically saying you have no problems with witnesses being able to testify against people without being cross examined. There are very odd ideas of due process floating around here.

The whole point is this person didn't testify at trial and the person was unnamed. That person did not give evidence in the trial. There was no right to cross examine that witness and confront him. These are universal standards of fairness that you seem to advocate against. Interesting.

"I do not see anything wrong in Mignini referring to someone as "noted criminologist" if that criminologist gave evidence in the trial, or even if he/she gave evidence in Guede trial, and that evidence was relevant to the AK and RS part of the trial."

That is a very odd thing to support.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

That's ridiculous. You're basically saying you have no problems with witnesses being able to testify against people without being cross examined. There are very odd ideas of due process floating around here.

The whole point is this person didn't testify at trial and the person was unnamed. That person did not give evidence in the trial. There was no right to cross examine that witness and confront him. These are universal standards of fairness that you seem to advocate against. Interesting.

"I do not see anything wrong in Mignini referring to someone as "noted criminologist" if that criminologist gave evidence in the trial, or even if he/she gave evidence in Guede trial, and that evidence was relevant to the AK and RS part of the trial."

That is a very odd thing to support.

my bolding

How is the bolded part an odd thing to support?

You realize the bolded part completely undermines your response, right?

 

[HumanityBlues]

my bolding

How is the bolded part an odd thing to support?

You realize the bolded part completely undermines your response, right?

I was actually referring to this: "even if he/she gave evidence in Guede trial"--which seemed to imply that as long as it was given as evidence in any trial, you are ok with it. A very strange take on things because obviously the accused in the other trial would have no chance to confront the witness. Is that what you're advocating? Really?

If your contention is you have no problem with witness evidence where the accused do not get to cross examine/confront witnesses, that's really messed up. That's a basic human right that's universally recognized. When people talk about what a "fair trial" is, the opportunity to confront witnesses is right up there as one of the most important factors.

 

[odeed]

I was actually referring to this: "even if he/she gave evidence in Guede trial"--which seemed to imply that as long as it was given as evidence in any trial, you are ok with it. A very strange take on things because since obviously the accused in the other trial would have no chance to confront the witness. If that's what you're advocating? Really?

If your contention is you have no problem with witness evidence where the accused do not get to cross examine/confront witnesses, that's really messed up. That's a basic human right. When people talk about what a "fair trial" is, the opportunity to confront witnesses is right up there as one of the most important factors.

In my defense I'll plead ignorance of the law, and that I made some assumptions which made me put that quote in. One assumption was that Guede, Knox and Sollecito were being prosecuted for the same crime, and that evidence against Guede (such as his motive to take part in the murder) may be relevant to Knox and Sollecito trial.

Also, another assumption, that the lawyers for Lumumba (and I think Kercher's parents lawyers) were allowed to question witnesses in AK/RS trial, so it might of been possible for AK/RS lawyers to question Guede witnesses during his trial, in attempt to blame the entire thing on him (which I think they tried to do in the AK/RS trial).

Also did the defense object to Mignini statements?

 

[HumanityBlues]

In my defense I'll plead ignorance of the law, and that I made some assumptions which made me put that quote in. One assumption was that Guede, Knox and Sollecito were being prosecuted for the same crime, and that evidence against Guede (such as his motive to take part in the murder) may be relevant to Knox and Sollecito trial.

Also, another assumption, that the lawyers for Lumumba (and I think Kercher's parents lawyers) were allowed to question witnesses in AK/RS trial, so it might of been possible for AK/RS lawyers to question Guede witnesses during his trial, in attempt to blame the entire thing on him (which I think they tried to do in the AK/RS trial).

Also did the defense object to Mignini statements?

No worries. Here are the correct questions that I think matter, and they would be a rephrasing of your basic questions, because I think there is common ground here.

Asking whether the defense lawyers objected is probably the wrong question, because it's irrelevant unless there are grounds for objection. So the first question, and I honestly don't know the answer, is whether there would be actual grounds for an objection---which if there wasn't, that is very troubling. Then it would be appropriate to know if they objected.

To your other point, the Kerchers were parties in the criminal suit against Guede. Knox and Sollecito presumably were not, and thus would have no right to confront and cross examine any witness that testified in that trial. The two trials were completely separate.

So I think we probably have the same take on it then--as long as they had the right to cross examine a witness, then there is no problem. That is fair. But I don't think that's what happened here.

 

[Kestrel]

According to this article quoting Professor Mastronardi, the Italian courts do recognize graphology.

But is it really possible to obtain these facts from the writings of a person? According to Prof. Mastronardi yes. “There are tests of psyco-graphology and of graphometry (a method for assessing personality characteristics that is based on measurement and statistical processing of graphic symbols found in the writing of the individuals surveyed, ed) recognized by the Court to infer a specific pathology which have their scientific validity.

It would be nice to track down the original article published in Il Messaggero in October of 2009 . All I have found so far is the translation on Perugia Murder File.

 

[quadraginta]

According to this article quoting Professor Mastronardi, the Italian courts do recognize graphology.





It would be nice to track down the original article published in Il Messaggero in October of 2009 . All I have found so far is the translation on Perugia Murder File.

Yes, it would be. It would also be helpful to get an actual legal opinion by someone involved in a professional legal capacity in Italy.

I say this not to be too nit-picky, but because the composition of the cite leaves some room for doubt. It begins with ...

After the demand to reopen in part the trial charge of Rudy Guede to obtain a psychiatric evaluation, his lawyers, Valter Biscotti and Nicodemo Gentile have entrusted to Vincenzo Mastronardi an expert consultant on graphology Rudy’s handwriting.

... and later says ...

According to Prof. Mastronardi yes. “There are tests of psyco-graphology and of graphometry (a method for assessing personality characteristics that is based on measurement and statistical processing of graphic symbols found in the writing of the individuals surveyed, ed) recognized by the Court to infer a specific pathology which have their scientific validity.

All this in an effort by Guede's defense team to attempt an appeal or perhaps at best a sentence reduction, apparently attempting some sort of dim. cap. explanation for statements he made which got him where he is.

So in sum it says that an "expert" in psychology hired by the defense team for Rudy Guede makes a claim in a newspaper that something is "... recognized by the Court to infer ...". There are many claims made by hired defense "experts" in public venues which are not borne out in practice in the courtroom. Even forensic techniques with far more legitimacy (which would be nearly any of them) can be subject to considerable challenge when subject to dueling "experts". "Recognized by the court" is a phrase which may have a far different meaning when made to a newspaper than when made to a judge.

I'm not ready to see a fatal indictment of the legal system in this, yet. I'm struggling to see what the exact application to Knox's trial is at all, given the discussion in the cite provided.

 

[stilicho]

It's another to say if something wasn't said or contested. I would like to know the basis for that other than it wasn't reported.

I just thought of another one and it's a contention of mine. It wasn't sourced because I expected the FOA people here to provide it.

The contention is that AK suffered from a self-diagnosed psychological malady that caused her to selectively lose her memory. The symptoms were described in her own words during the trial and have been excerpted several times on this thread. It's the affliction that caused her to experience visions, to enter a state of confusion, to be overcome by imaginings, yet still clearly recall details about hopping on bathmats, cleaning her infected ears, Filomena's computer, the status of Meredith's door, and so forth.

I have stated that no psychiatrist was called by the defence--at least not to my knowledge--to confirm the existence of such a malady. I would be pleased to know if there was one called as well as the characteristics and treatment of said affliction. According to AK, it strikes once in a lifetime and only when you're unable to explain your whereabouts on the night your roommate was murdered.

(The cynic in me says that this affliction is otherwise known as lying and getting caught but I'm no psychoanalyst.)