Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

It's the same in Italy.

Nice selective use of bolded type there.......

 

[Fulcanelli]

That would include an inventory list of all the household cleaning products and a cite for Laura's and Filomena's testimony saying they never used a product containing bleach.

1) I don't need to provide an inventory list. The court had one. I don't need to have one also to prove it was so.

2) Or maybe You could get off your backside and go read Laura's and Filomena's testimony for yourself, being on record, instead of demanding I go get it for you. If you've not even bothered reading their testimony, which is available and has been for over a year, that's not my problem.

3) Massei cites Filomena's testimony on this matter, a report which you claim to have read. Perhaps you need to read it a few times more yet.

You're a big girl now. You should know this stuff already. If you don't, then perhaps you were rather too hasty in coming down firmly on one side. Just sayin'.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Remind me again of what the argument was then. Because from where I'm sitting, it looks incontrovertibly like Lumumba actually said those things to the Daily Mail reporter. Whether or not he was lying when he said them is a different matter, but I can't see any sort of argument against him saying them.

Use your mouse. Use the search feature.

 

[Fulcanelli]

No, the defence were not arguing this. I can't believe that you can't understand the legal distinction.

The defence were arguing that the court cannot automatically ASSUME that Knox and Sollecito were together all that evening and night. The defence argued that Sollecito's position was that he was in his apartment all night and that Knox was with him, but that if the police/prosecutors had evidence that Knox was involved in the murder, then the court should not automatically assume that Sollecito was with her and therefore at least an accessory to the crime. Is that too difficult to understand?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Really, show proof. The coroner says she died 2 to 3 hours after eating. The judges agree she died 2 to 3 hours after eating. Except the judges seem to think she finished eating around 8pm rather than between 6pm and 7pm. The literature posted by numerous people confirm the Coroner's 2 to 3 hour range. The prosecution attacked the coroner's credibility and procedures rather than attack the 2 to 3 hour ToD. Why, because if the Prosecution attacks the coroners findings on stomach contents then it raises questions in every case in Italy that has a ToD determined by last meal and stomach contents. Do you really think Meredith is the only person in Italy thats ToD was determined by Last Meal? The prosecution raised questions about whether the coroner performed the autopsy correctly and gave an alternitive finding if the coroner performed it wrong. However, evidence has been shown that Dr. Lalli tied off the digestive track correctly.

The witnesses and other contextual evidence might also have something to do with it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of a legal argument, Fulcanelli. The Court isn't allowed to automatically transfer evidence from one person to another without providing a solid basis for doing so. If they do just that on the assumption Knox and Sollecito were together, they need to produce evidence of it. Since they didn't, Bongiorno called them on it, demanding solid proof or asking that her client be released: from memory, she talks about "the unwarranted assumption that the two could not not have been together that night". Even the clunky phrasing shows that she is talking about a purely hypothetical situation here. I'm quite sure she could have put it in more definite terms if she really wanted to argue Raffaele wasn't with Amanda that night.

Her purpose is to get her client released, and she's looking for any holes in the Court's argument to achieve that. This is one of them. But she is deliberately being non-committal on the issue of whether or not they were together (in this particular phrase), asking only that the Court provide proof of it. As I've said elsewhere, these are legal word games, and it's either naive or wishful thinking to read any more into it.

They are if one is using the other as their alibi and both happen to be accused of the same crime.

You could prove me wrong though and point out where the prosecution are not allowed to do this in the Italian penal code.

How does simply saying 'the prosecution are naughty' get her client off? The defence were not arguing procedure here, they were arguing the evidence.

 

[Fulcanelli]

ETA: Whoops, got wrong witness. Cite then? I wasn't aware Micheli judged Tramontano had made the whole thing up, nor that he was 'completely discredited'. Plus, Quintavalle also admitted he couldn't be completely sure the person he saw was Amanda...

Micheli Report

 

[Dan O.]

1) I don't need to provide an inventory list. The court had one. I don't need to have one also to prove it was so.

Proof by special pleading?

 

[Fulcanelli]

America has the Bill of Rights. Police can question an individual or take their statement without reading them their miranda rights. However, America is really strict on questioning of individuals without reading them their rights. Asking any question that self incriminates a person, is inadmissable in court, if the person has not been read their rights. Asking any question that would self incriminate a person, gives them the right to remain silent. If someone mentions lawyer and a police officer says, "that would only make it worse". He has just violated someones right to seek an attorney. They throw cops in jail for that in America. Witnesses have the right to have an attorney present even while giving statements only as a witness.

Also I believe its the 8th amendment that covers the right to bail.

Same in Italy.

 

[Fulcanelli]

No, the lawyers' argument was that you cannot transfer clues from one person to another automatically. One problem in interpretation may stem from Frank Sfarzo's use of the word "erroneous" when "unjustifiable" might have been better.

Yet the Italian High Court seems to disagree with you. Who's right on the application of Italian law...the Italian High Court, or halides1...hmm, that's a toughy, let me think...

 

[Fulcanelli]

What were they doing between 1:45 and 5:45, playing Chutes and Ladders? "Murder in Italy" makes it clear it was more of the same abusive interrogation tactics.

Amanda 'should' have gone to sleep. But she demanded to be heard again, causing the Mignini to be dragged out of bed at 3 am (she was nor a formal suspect and could only be heard by a judge).

Her choice.

 

[Chris C]

The witnesses and other contextual evidence might also have something to do with it.

What are you argueing here?

The witnesses say Meredith had pizza around 6pm to 630pm. The coroner says Meredith died 2 to 3 hours after eating. The judges agreed that meredith died 2 to 3 hours after eating. Except the judges say she ate at 8pm. So thats where they say the 2 to 3 hours start. So do you agree with the coroner, the judges or neither?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli,

I have rebutted some of Yummi's arguments about luminol previously. The burden of proof should fall on the prosecution to show that a substance is blood, not on the defense to prove it is something else.

Not when everything "else" is excluded.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Evidence? Her lawyer puts the start of the questioning after her phone call to Filomena at approximately 22:30, when she ended the call by saying "someone wants to talk to me". The interpreter was called and asked to come in between 23.00 and 23:30, somewhat strange if even the 'informal' questioning didn't start till midnight. No evidence I've seen suggests the interrogation was halted until she (the interpreter) arrived; indeed, given that it had informally started before she arrived, that seems unlikely. And the interpreter's own words indicate she arrived mid-interrogation, since she says that shortly after she arrived Amanda accused Patrick by saying "He did it, he's bad".

Do you have evidence for this arbitrary start time of midnight?

But she was doing cartwheels at 11 pm. Are you arguing she was doing her cartwheels while the police were questioning her? I could do with a laugh.

 

[Fulcanelli]

No need: not one of the judges has argued it would be impossible to climb up to the window, quite the opposite in fact (to paraphrase Micheli, it wouldn't take a Spiderman to climb up there; just someone who was fit and agile, as thieves who enter people's houses at night generally are, and as Rudy Guede certainly is).

They have argued that it's impossible in line with the evidence at the crime scene.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Hey maybe it was pathetic, petty, and childish to not flush and clean the toilet. However, being pathetic, petty, and childish doesn't make you a murderer. It just makes you pathetic, petty, and childish.

And the excuses that have to be made for her just keep stacking up...

 

[Fulcanelli]

Thats not an excuse to not test it. They tested plenty of dna evidence that couldn't be dated.

An excuse not to test it is not required. A valid reason to test it IS.

 

[Chris C]

An excuse not to test it is not required. A valid reason to test it IS.

I guess Rape and Murder isn't a valid excuse?

 

[katy_did]

They are if one is using the other as their alibi and both happen to be accused of the same crime.

You could prove me wrong though and point out where the prosecution are not allowed to do this in the Italian penal code.

How does simply saying 'the prosecution are naughty' get her client off? The defence were not arguing procedure here, they were arguing the evidence.

No, they were arguing against the precautionary custody order keeping the pair in prison, for which there are supposed to be 'serious indications of guilt' (never mind that all these 'serious indications of guilt' turned out to be false). Raffaele's defence was arguing that the Court could not arbitrarily transfer circumstantial evidence against Knox to Sollecito on the assumption they were together; they had to provide evidence that that was the case, not just assume it.

Whether you're correct in saying those "serious indications of guilt" are met if one suspect says they are with the other is not the issue, though I suspect you have no clue whether that is the case or not. The defence were arguing there were not sufficient indications of guilt against Raffaele. That's not 'procedural', it's the heart of the case.

 

[katy_did]

Amanda 'should' have gone to sleep. But she demanded to be heard again, causing the Mignini to be dragged out of bed at 3 am (she was nor a formal suspect and could only be heard by a judge).

Her choice.

Evidence?