Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Open Inquiry]

"Perspective"? You mean they may equate 1 + 1 = 3 simply by virtue of the fact that they are different judges? Amanda and Raffaele along with their defence teams have failed in 5 courts via a total of 19 judges already, capped by an 11 month long first degree trial arriving at a unanimous guilty verdict.

6th time lucky?

Given the concerns about the case and the evidence, it leads one to wonder why the court approached the evidence the way it did. A new court could detect a new pattern of the situation and view it differently.

 

[Fulcanelli]

New evidence during the appeal by the defence is only allowed in rare circumstances such as new technology or techniques that weren't available when the judge gave the verdict. That is information from someone close to the defense. I can check one other source. I am also looking for links.

Where did you get the information that it is allowed? Just wondering. There seems to be a discrepancy.

Why do you keep stating things as fact that are completely wrong when you have already told me several times that you need to go and look it up, yet have clearly not gone and done so?

Where did I get it? From Italian lawyers and legal experts. You can find them on PMF. You can post there and ask them directly if you wish.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Given the concerns about the case and the evidence, it leads one to wonder why the court approached the evidence the way it did. A new court could detect a new pattern of the situation and view it differently.

Whose concerns? Only the concerns of the defence and Amanda Knox's PR team. A defence that's concerned about the evidence. As opposed to what, a defence that's not concerned about the evidence?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I was referring to this statement by you: "There are no "lay people". There are only lay judges."

I then asked if the lay judges are citizens (ie not having to do with court).

Yes, they are citizens acting as judges, not professional judges, that's what "lay" means.

 

[Open Inquiry]

Why do you keep stating things as fact that are completely wrong when you have already told me several times that you need to go and look it up, yet have clearly not gone and done so?

Where did I get it? From Italian lawyers and legal experts. You can find them on PMF. You can post there and ask them directly if you wish.

I told you that the person who told me might have been mistaken, misinformed. I will ask that person again. I am also checking in other places such as articles.

 

[Open Inquiry]

Yes, they are citizens acting as judges, not professional judges, that's what "lay" means.

I was explaining why I asked about 'citizens'. Anyway... I wasn't asking anew. I explaining in case it was unclear.

 

[Open Inquiry]

Whose concerns? Only the concerns of the defence and Amanda Knox's PR team. A defence that's concerned about the evidence. As opposed to what, a defence that's not concerned about the evidence?

Let me rephrase:
Given the concerns about the case and the evidence _of many_, it leads one to wonder why the court approached the evidence the way it did. A new court could detect a new pattern of the situation and view it differently.

It is a categorical argument. Meaning, since there are questions about the prosecution's case (questions that exist of many), it could logically be that the new set of people in the court could yield a different outcome.

For one thing, the Judge's Report itself is radically different than the prosecution's theory.

 

[Open Inquiry]

...told me several times that you need to go and look it up, yet have clearly not gone and done so?

Btw, I did look it up. It was in an email. Also as I said before, I am looking other places as well.

You can find them on PMF.

Thanks, I will check it out.

 

[Dan O.]

It wasn't you but Dan O (I think) who suggested on this thread that we stop being "idiot-like jurors" and work with some of the information we have at hand.

I never said anyone on JREF was an idiot. In fact, I specifically exclude our elite posters...

[Post 2659]
We are not in a court so we have time to explore the alternative scenarios where facts are not available to exclude them. Only juror like idiots will conflate the details in different scenarios and assume that one must be a lie because they both cannot be true. Nobody here is such an idiot because the forum rules won't permit it.

I have mentioned certain idiots...

[Post 1830]
Without further confirmation, it seems that this may have been a false detail inserted in the press release to help weed out false confessions. But that would go against by prior belief that Mignini is an idiot.

And relevant to the current discussion:

[Post 1917]
And Patrizia Stefanoni's claim that her lab has never been contaminated tells me that she is either an idiot or a compulsive liar. There is always some degree of contamination in any environment. What's important is whether the contamination has affected the results. We determine this by the repeatability of the experiment and negative results in negative controls. In the current example of the DNA on the kitchen knife we have neither a repeatable result nor a negative control.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I told you that the person who told me might have been mistaken, misinformed. I will ask that person again. I am also checking in other places such as articles.

The only criteria required of the defence to introduce new evidence is that the evidence is relevant to the charges for which the defendants have been found guilty. You don't even need to go and look it up in articles, you simply need only go and review Rudy Guede's appeal. His lawyers requested the admission of new evidence. The new evidence was refused, although not because it was new evidence, but because the judge ruled that the new evidence was irrelevant (superfluous, peripheral) to the charge Rudy had been found guilty of (it wouldn't effect the outcome).

 

[Fulcanelli]

Let me rephrase:
Given the concerns about the case and the evidence _of many_, it leads one to wonder why the court approached the evidence the way it did. A new court could detect a new pattern of the situation and view it differently.

It is a categorical argument. Meaning, since there are questions about the prosecution's case (questions that exist of many), it could logically be that the new set of people in the court could yield a different outcome.

For one thing, the Judge's Report itself is radically different than the prosecution's theory.

'Who' is the many? How many? Concerned as a result of what, the Knox PR campaign?

As for the fact the judges scenario differs in some ways to the prosecution scenario that isn't a problem, since the exact scenario can never be known for certain, only those who were there could know for sure. The scenario could only ever be a 'suggestion' by the prosecution, their best guess and at the end of the day the judges' best guess. It isn't important, because Amanda and Raffaele were not found guilty on the basis of any proposed scenario, either false, true or partly true. They were found guilty on the 'evidence' and on the evidence the prosecution and judges were in full accord.

 

[Open Inquiry]

'Who' is the many? How many? Concerned as a result of what, the Knox PR campaign?

As for the fact the judges scenario differs in some ways to the prosecution scenario that isn't a problem, since the exact scenario can never be known for certain, only those who were there could know for sure. The scenario could only ever be a 'suggestion' by the prosecution, their best guess and at the end of the day the judges' best guess. It isn't important, because Amanda and Raffaele were not found guilty on the basis of any proposed scenario, either false, true or partly true. They were found guilty on the 'evidence' and on the evidence the prosecution and judges were in full accord.

It actually weakens the case since Amanda was not ruled as the instigator and it wasn't premeditated.

What do you think the reason for the PR team is? What do you think is the goal?

 

[Fulcanelli]

The prosecution never argued it was premeditated in the first place.

Whoever was the instigator doesn't effect guilt or sentence. Leader or follower, it's still murder and the sentence is the same.

 

[Open Inquiry]

The prosecution never argued it was premeditated in the first place.

Whoever was the instigator doesn't effect guilt or sentence. Leader or follower, it's still murder and the sentence is the same.

The knife was said to have been brought to harm Meredith (and known of by Raffaele to have been brought for that purpose). But this might have been from an untrustworthy source.

Amanda as instigator was part of what supported the case. The case as a whole was part of the validity of the evidence. Especially since the sweep of the crime scene did not yield Amanda and Raffaele as suspects, suspicion of the police did. Forensic evidence was gathered later.

Time is limited at the moment so I may not have fully argued the above. It might need a few more points.

 

[stilicho]

I probably misread something. Regardless, I can't believe they spent ANY time talking about this incident in court, to the point of introducing a Daily Mail article as evidence. How can someone not laugh at this? Maybe if they have no legal background I can understand I guess....

Oh yeah, one more thing about this "noisy party", HB. For some completely unknowable reason, the people paying for AK's defence actually flew Andrew Seliber all the way from Washington state to Italy to testify that the party wasn't all that noisy.

This cannot have been the idea of Ghirga or Dalla Vedova. As you've suggested, the "noisy party" is a laughable sideshow. But, for some strange reason, AK's PR team thought it might be nice to have a clean-cut-looking kid flown in to explain that it really wasn't as noisy as everybody thought.

What do you make of this? If you'd been accused of murdering your roommate, would you even dream of staging something like that in your defence? I sure wouldn't.

Make of it what you will.

 

[stilicho]

What sorts of pieces do you think he might be missing?

shuttIt,

I have also contacted Dr. Waterbury. He consults in the field of forensics. DNA forensics is not his specialty, but his work is checked by an anonymous DNA forensic specialist. In reading his blog I am always impressed with scientific way he approaches control experiments. I am a biochemist myself, and I have not seen any errors in the way he has presented this material.

Chris

Both of these are appeals to authority and arguments from incredulity.

I don't accept Waterbury as a reliable source for exactly the reasons you've both suggested above. You don't know where he got his information or what he has withheld from his "study". Or you do know where he got his information and haven't confirmed that it's complete.

"Anonymous expert" doesn't fly either here, or in court, or anywhere in the real world. Scientists subject their findings to peer review. Conspiracy loons don't.

Waterbury doesn't have to be refuted. It's up to him to provide his sources and his proof of peer review as any garden variety scientist would.

If each of you are on such good terms with this charlatan then demand the same level of scientific honesty you would of anyone else. Until he provides complete documentation then he is just what I said--a charlatan.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Oh yeah, one more thing about this "noisy party", HB. For some completely unknowable reason, the people paying for AK's defence actually flew Andrew Seliber all the way from Washington state to Italy to testify that the party wasn't all that noisy.

This cannot have been the idea of Ghirga or Dalla Vedova. As you've suggested, the "noisy party" is a laughable sideshow. But, for some strange reason, AK's PR team thought it might be nice to have a clean-cut-looking kid flown in to explain that it really wasn't as noisy as everybody thought.

What do you make of this? If you'd been accused of murdering your roommate, would you even dream of staging something like that in your defence? I sure wouldn't.

Make of it what you will.

Pretty sure that's not the reason he was called to testify. I'm pretty sure it was the prosecution and the Kercher's attorney who brought it up; but I'm glad you can show some reasonableness in admitting it's a side show. So why it was ever discussed in court is beyond me. It's completely irrelevant and the fact that some people put so much emphasis on it is mind boggling. Anyone who does, I can't take seriously.

Do you actually know they paid for him? I seem to recall in the British documentary Madison Paxton saying she paid her own way (could have been another source though). It could be the same for Andrew.

Now to your last question, if I was accused of murder...are you asking me if I would present character witnesses? That would depend on the jurisdiction. In the United States, no, because unless you put your character at issue as a criminal defendant you don't open the door to the prosecution for character evidence. In Italy the prosecutor or the civil parties can bring in character evidence against you before the defense has even made a decision whether to introduce it or not--so yes, I think it would be necessary to bring in character witnesses to rehabilitate my reputation (and it does seem that the judges thought they were "good kids" so it might have actually helped her).

 

[stilicho]

Especially since the sweep of the crime scene did not yield Amanda and Raffaele as suspects, suspicion of the police did. Forensic evidence was gathered later.

Authorities likewise refused Sophie Purton permission to leave Italy in the early days, OI.

Miss Kercher's friend and fellow student, Sophie Purton, had been refused permission to leave Italy.

(Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7080400.stm )

Perugia authorities interviewed Meredith's English friends, the boys downstairs, her other uninvolved roommates, and others, while the medical examiner produced his results. They scoured the neighbourhood for witnesses. RS and AK weren't jailed until 06 NOV and only after preliminary investigations were complete--not a "sweep", whatever that is.

What source are you using to suggest that AK and RS were considered to be suspects and not witnesses before 06 NOV?

 

[stilicho]

Do you actually know they paid for him? I seem to recall in the British documentary Madison Paxton saying she paid her own way (could have been another source though). It could be the same for Andrew.

I don't know who paid for their trips. Fulcanelli probably does. I would have to dig for a cite but it seems as though almost all of the family's trips were paid for by someone else.

It "shouldn't" matter, of course. But this is one of those cases where it's almost insanely difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.

We do know that David Marriott, PR consultant, is still managing the Knox/Mellas team as the appeals process continues:

David Marriott, a spokesman for the Knox family, e-mailed a statement from the Knox family to KING5 News....

(Source: http://www.king5.com/news/local/Italy-judges-give-reasons-for-Knox-guilty-verdict-86355402.html )

That's not their legal advisors but a PR consultant. Maybe we're in different cultures or something but when I stand in court I want to be represented by my lawyers and not a TV personality. This case is topsy-turvy that way. The lawyers are relatively obscure while the Anne Bremners are cartoonishly prominent.

I guess it's just a game for them.

 

[Dan O.]

Do the Italian police routinely tap the phones of witnesses?