Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

Sure he did. Mignini opened an investigation into the Narducci case because of hearsay linking Narducci's death to some people he was already investigating. He eventually concluded that Narducci belonged to a Satanic cult that commissioned the MOF killings to obtain body parts for their rituals. According to Mignini, Narducci was killed by cult members because, as a narcotics addict, he had become a security problem.

No Charlie, that's not how it went. Mignini simply connected Narducci to those who had been convicted for their roles in the MOF murders. It was the prosecutor who had convicted them years before who made thje link to Satanic cults and indeed, one of those convicted admitted that he and his co-convicted were part of one. This all had nothing to do with Mignini, he was never even involved in that case.

 

[Fulcanelli]

"profound lack of familiarity"

"deliberate attempt to mislead"

Good to see that everything's back to normal on this thread....

In fact, I fully understand the current limitations of sub-judice rules in the USA. But thanks for reminding me of what I already know. And you also seemed to home in predominantly on the mid-trial news conferences that are routinely given in high-profile cases in the USA. These are obviously each side's attempts to put a "spin" on what's going on in the trial, and are different from what I was actually talking about.

What I was talking about was the freedom (or otherwise) of the media to publish - long in advance of a trial - actual evidence that will be presented at trial, and the freedom (or otherwise) of the media to "go to town" on a defendant's character, lifestyle, past life and previous misdeeds. As you well know, many American states (and federal statutes) limit pre-trial exposure of these sorts of things. And I believe that I used the qualifier "moderately" in my description of the US. If you're arguing that every state in America allows as much pre-trial publication of evidence and defendant character analysis as Italy, I'd argue that you were wrong.

And lastly, some of the tone of your post seemed to imply that you thought I believed that the lack of sub-judice rules was only potentially detrimental to the defence side of any case. However, I didn't argue this: in fact, arguably the strict sub-judice rules in force in the UK came about after the Crown lost cases in court due to prosecution-damaging pre-trial publicity. After all, there IS a remedy for bad procedure if the first trial ends in conviction (i.e reversal on appeal). But if the defendant is CLEARED, then the prosecution - by and large - has no redress to an appeal, let alone a retrial.

Then prove your case. Take Florida with its Sunshine Laws. If your assertion is correct, then statistically Florida must have a higher conviction rate combined with a higher rate of miscarriages of justice, in comparison to other states. In the case of Florida, do the statistics support your claim?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I think this was in Frank's post on Knox's appeal. Curatolo mentioned buses ferrying people to and from town in his testimony, but apparently those buses weren't running on 1 November. So the defence have produced evidence of that for the appeal (a witness who works for the bus company, from memory). Originally Curatolo also said there were students in the square wearing Halloween masks, so sounds as if whatever he saw it may have happened on 31 October, rather than the night of the murder.

Halloween masks were never a pasrt of his testimony. However, the claim that it was is a favourite hobby horse of Candace Dempsey. 'nuff said.

Well, I posted logical reasons why he might have locked it, which you haven't really addressed here. I'd argue it makes much less sense for Amanda and Raffaele to have locked it in order to delay the discovery of the crime, given their actions the next appear to have done the opposite (i.e. hastened its discovery).

They've already been addressed in this thread. You may love repeating yourself, but I don't.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I do indeed know how the real world works, and I have been an immediate witness in probably 1/2 a dozen car crashes over the last 30 some-odd years. With that in mind, I find it very important to write down what I witnessed myself afterwards or give my information to a police officer right away, since the details are fresh in mind.
Did Mr. Curatolo do that? I doubt it...

Witnessing a car crash Doesn't even remotely compare to this. If you see a car crash, it is quite clear to you right at that very moment that you've seen something important...you've witnessed the actual 'event'. In Curatolo's case, he never witness the crash (the murder), all he saw was two young people loitering in a basketball court, hardly an uncommon event. He had no reason to think it significant or important.

So getting back to this particular case.
Someone without a normal residence who states in court that many, many months earlier that they were at some particular place at exactly 9:27 or 9:28pm on a Thursday night, reading a particular newspaper on a cold night while sitting on a bench, and who can positively ID 3 people that he saw from a distance that same night, which he did not pick out of a police line-up or by thumbing thru mug shots, is full of it, in my opinion.

Curatolo didn't set the trial date, the judges did. How can you blame him for that? He came forward and gave his statement to police in November 2007.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Well, exactly. The prosecution only discussed the lamp in a situation where the defence were unlikely to directly challenge it, i.e. during Amanda's cross-examination. If they'd introduced it as actual evidence, as with the knife, bra clasp, footprints for example, it would have been properly analyzed and discussed, as they were. I'd argue Mignini's tactic in asking Amanda about the lamp on the stand (asking her whether they tried to break down the door in order to get it back, yet oddly, never asking why she didn't notice the cable) was in order to sway the jury with the suggestion the lamp was significant while never being required to produce evidence to support those suspicions.

What are you talking about? The defence could stand up and object during her cross examination at any point and frequently did. Moreover, Amanda could refuse to answer any question she wanted, or stop her testimony falling back on the right to silence at any point. Finally, the defence were well aware of the lamps...it was all in the case file and been fully disclosed to them...it wasn't sprung on them as a 'surprise' by the prosecution. No foul here.

Because using it might have contaminated possible evidence of the killer at the crime scene...?*

You are right, though, that that would be the obvious thing to do for anyone who didn't have that as a concern (i.e. any of the three accused), rather than going next door to get a lamp.

*Oh wait, we're talking about Battistelli, right? Well in that case, you're probably right, he would just have gone ahead and used Meredith's light switch. My mistake.

The whole apartment was the crime scene, including Amanda's room and lamp, so that argument has no legs.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I agree 100% here. I think the confession being disallowed backfired on the defence to an extent, because, as you say, the damaging parts of the statement had already been leaked to the press anyway. If it had been discussed in court, perhaps more questions would have been asked about the interrogation itself. Even if no recording had been made (something which seems very unlikely) there would presumably still have been transcripts of the interrogation which would have put it into some sort of context (assuming they would have been admissible in court, anyway). Instead, the jury were left with sound bites which were probably more damaging than a proper discussion of the confession would have been.

The defence could have admitted the statements at any time during the trial.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Those are both pretty insubstantial reasons to believe him, though - if AK/RS don't have an alibi, then anyone could say they'd seen them anywhere and be believed in the same way. Neither reason shows his testimony to be accurate (especially as the only evidence we have that Knox and Sollecito were in the square at that time is...Curatolo's testimony). Reading back Frank's description of Curatolo on the stand, you have to admit that his performance was...interesting!

Only, Frank's description was 'unique'. All the other journalists present and the judges found him convincing.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Well, then we're just back to the problem of producing a strong alibi if you're spending a quiet night at home, as Knox and Sollecito claim they were doing. Patrick only had an alibi by luck rather than design, after all...

It wasn't 'luck', it was a 'real' alibi. There's a big difference. Not only did Amanda and Raffaele not have alibis, the alibi each of them gave was a pack of lies, as proven by the evidence.

 

[stilicho]

Ironically, I am about to contradict myself by saying that there might very well now be a case for sub-judice rules to be loosened (but not abolished) in countries like the UK. But not because of the intrinsic problems with sub-judice rules "per se". Rather, because the global, borderless nature of certain communications media - most notably, of course, the World Wide Web - have rendered it very difficult to enforce sub-judice rules in some countries but not in others. It's potentially a kind of "all or nothing" participation game, since media in those countries where there are no sub-judice rules can easily publish information that can immediately find its way to the desktops of people who live in countries with strict rules.

This is more of a problem in Canada than it is in the UK. Cross-border media outlets often violate publication bans. It creates the impression that our system is somehow less evolved than that of the Americans. And jurors can wind up being influenced by rumours of what's being reported to a greater extent than if they'd just read a properly researched news story.

See the Robert Pickton case here:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Inter...+trial+challenged.(ROP+Local+News)-a099057775

"We think it's important for the court to weigh the small likely impact of non-Canadian Web sites on the jury pool in Vancouver against the enormous infringement imposed by the court's order on the speech and press rights of a worldwide community of Internet producers and readers," Tomlin said.

I am personally opposed to publication bans as they are an infringement on freedom of speech. I don't personally believe that due process is necessarily eroded by having more information in the public domain. I also don't believe that jurors--who have to be acceptable to each side to begin with--are suddenly going to abandon their stated impartiality because they saw something on TV.

Those are just my own opinions and have little to do with Amanda's trial. For all I know, the professional and lay judges in Italy are easily mesmerised by publicity surrounding a case and only think what the newspapers tell them to think.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Why does this matter? I can't see why anybody would waste time on this case now.

They are because a) certain people are challenging the verdict and b) the case is coming up for appeal and c) because the actual trials are not over with yet. Amanda Knox is facing a trial on a new charge. Her parents are also facing a charge and that will be heard in court over the next couple of months. And Raffaele Sollecito's family (along with a few other people) are also facing charges. If any of those charges are confirmed by the court, there will be further trials.

In short, this case is far from over.

 

[Fulcanelli]

BenBurch,

I am hoping that progressive Italians use this case as a motivation for reform. The lack of the release of the electronic data files that underlie the DNA result, is contrary to the principle that a defendant can examine and challenge the evidence against him or her. Other commenters here either disagree that the files have not been released, disagree that they should be released unless specifically called for under Italian law, or both.

halides1

In response, I quote The Bard from PMF:

Then you get THIS from halides:

'I am hoping that progressive Italians use this case as a motivation for reform.'

Know what? I am hoping that AK will use 26 years in the slammer as motivation for reform...

Pffffff....

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=46357#p46357

 

[stilicho]

Well, then we're just back to the problem of producing a strong alibi if you're spending a quiet night at home, as Knox and Sollecito claim they were doing. Patrick only had an alibi by luck rather than design, after all...

It's a little worse than that. RS lied to police about the phone call from his father. AK moved the time of their supper until she thought it fit with the time of Meredith's death.

If they had not lied in their statements to the police then Curatolo would not be as tough to discredit.

 

[stilicho]

Unless she gets sent to 'Club Fed' where Karla spent time.

P.S. Its probally a good guess your from Canada, where abouts? I myself, am from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. I'm betting a lot of people here have never heard of Saskatchewan, I get that a lot when travelling outside the country...

I'm a Riders fan. I try not to pin down my location because these are the interwebs and there are some people who you'd rather not provide personal information to.

Like Amanda, Karla was able to turn on the charm or the tears at the drop of a hat (or the opening of a drawer). There are many similarities between these two killers.

 

[43degreesNorth]

Well, I posted logical reasons why he might have locked it, which you haven't really addressed here. I'd argue it makes much less sense for Amanda and Raffaele to have locked it in order to delay the discovery of the crime, given their actions the next appear to have done the opposite (i.e. hastened its discovery).

Possibly it is more like they wanted someone else to 'discover' the crime. Someone else needed to open the door so they all could be in 'shock' together and less attention focused on themselves. The door had to be locked for this illusion.

 

[Mary_H]

So because you don't know, you assume the police also didn't, then assert it as fact. Why should that knife have been taken out and tested? It has a serated edge, bread knife or not. Meredith was not murdered with a serated blade. The police knew this.

I am a little puzzled by this knife disucssion. As I understand it, this was the situation in which the knife was taken from the kitchen drawer:

Armando Finzi, an assistant in the Perugia police department's organized crimes unit, first discovered the knife in Sollecito's kitchen drawer. He said the first thing he noticed upon entering the place was a "strong smell of bleach." He opened the drawer and saw "very shiny and clean" knife lying on top of the silverware tray.

"It was the first knife I saw," he said. When pressed on cross-examination, said his "investigative intuition" led him to believe it was the murder weapon because it was compatible with the wound as it had been described to him. With gloved hands, he placed the knife in a new police envelope, taped it shut with Scotch tape, then placed it inside a folder, he said. There were smaller and bigger knives in the drawer, but no others were taken into evidence from the kitchen, he said. A small knife was taken into evidence from Sollecito's bedroom, along with other items.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/401876_Knoxvogt01.html

Is this no longer the case?

 

[katy_did]

Halloween masks were never a pasrt of his testimony. However, the claim that it was is a favourite hobby horse of Candace Dempsey. 'nuff said.

Righto, he just said there were people wearing "masks" then, did he? Well, that changes things completely, obviously.

They've already been addressed in this thread. You may love repeating yourself, but I don't.

The original post wasn't addressed to you, so you didn't need to repeat yourself at all if you didn't want to. I was setting out the logical reasons why it isn't at all implausible Guede may have locked the door, which, no, you've never convincingly addressed.

 

[katy_did]

Possibly it is more like they wanted someone else to 'discover' the crime. Someone else needed to open the door so they all could be in 'shock' together and less attention focused on themselves. The door had to be locked for this illusion.

Possible, yeah, although I would have thought the logical thing would be to stay the heck away from the place and let someone else discover it. But it's possible Guede locked it too, for the reasons I was setting out in my post; I think his motives were even stronger and certainly more obvious.

 

[katy_did]

It's a little worse than that. RS lied to police about the phone call from his father. AK moved the time of their supper until she thought it fit with the time of Meredith's death.

If they had not lied in their statements to the police then Curatolo would not be as tough to discredit.

Or, AK wasn't sure exactly what time they ate dinner and only knew it was late, hence her uncertainty as to the time (something probably not helped by both of them being high. Pot may not cause amnesia, but it can cause uncertainty as to when particular things happened).

The trouble is, when these 'lies' occurred during the interrogation, we're then back to arguing whether or not the 'confession' (in AK's case) was coerced. I'm assuming people wouldn't call a coerced confession a 'lie'. AFAIK, the only time either of their stories changed was during that interrogation, and that in response to lies from the police that they knew AK had left the apartment, they had hard evidence placing her at the scene, etc.

 

[katy_did]

The defence could have admitted the statements at any time during the trial.

Which is precisely what we were discussing, if you'd taken the trouble to read the posts.

 

[katy_did]

The whole apartment was the crime scene, including Amanda's room and lamp, so that argument has no legs.

LOL, so Battistelli tramping all round Meredith's room would have had no impact whatsoever in terms of contaminating the crime scene?

Well he obviously thought so anyway, so perhaps you're right. In crazy world.