Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[katy_did]

And it says something about the people who *choose* to read or watch it.

Hmmm, some interesting value judgments going on here to be sure. What does it say about them?

 

[RoseMontague]

Once again, I think for the third or fourth time, what I said was "hugely germane" was the story of being in bed until 10-10.30 on the 2nd against the computer and cell phone records. I have said repeatedly I think it is one of the biggest problems for the defence.

I think you left out the corner shop part but it is clear you are going to continue with other matters. I do think thoughtful made a decent attempt to salvage Quintavalle, maybe she will come over and discuss it at some point.

 

[SomeAlibi]

So you're still not answering the question I put to you, then?

(Are you saying that Comodi didn't know the time at which the call was made when she said Amanda called her mother "at 12. At midday"? And that even though she based her entire argument around the timing of the call, she hadn't bothered to check it?)

The time reference is sloppy but I don't understand what point is being sort to be made by it? To what end does it advantage the prosecution to say it was earlier?

I'm off to bed now. By the way, I'm not going to be here for all very long as I consider there's only so much that can be said about this case that hasn't been said before and positions are so entrenched that there's not really any point in me trying to convince any of you diehards. I am posting for a while just to see if anyone who is more in the middle reaches their own conclusions from the debate as to who has a more credible argument but I haven't got the personal time to continue at this volume of posting. However, it does give you a chance to sling questions at a criminal lawyer who believes in the guilt of the three defendants and is very long in the tooth on cases such as these. To that end, ask away - I always give my honest reply, whether you agree with it or not.


A question I'd be interested in your answers: in this case there has been huge amounts of discussion about wanting to "frame" or "cherry-pick" the guilt of the two in this trial. That has frequently been portrayed by some (not saying anyone here) as anti-americanism. What I don't understand is why any of you think an Italian court would recklessly, maliciously "frame" or "cherry-pick" its way to the guilt of an Italian boy who is the son of a prominent medic. Can you help me with that? Genuinely baffled.

 

[SomeAlibi]

Hmmm, some interesting value judgments going on here to be sure. What does it say about them?

Rape is not entertainment and that those who seek out entertainment forms with it are rather disgusting?

 

[SomeAlibi]

I think you left out the corner shop part but it is clear you are going to continue with other matters. I do think thoughtful made a decent attempt to salvage Quintavalle, maybe she will come over and discuss it at some point.

I realise that every part of this case has been discussed over and over again, but I really don't think I can add anything to the full exposition of this (Quintavalle) on both sides that was conducted here already - that's all.

 

[RoseMontague]

That is incorrect because if it was in dispute the appeal would directly challenge Tavernese's version and contend it never happened. Quite clearly, what they are saying is that they acknowledged it happened but they are using Tavernese's own words to say there was no evidence of repetition. This is rather obvious imho.

Quite clearly, in my view, they are saying that Massei is not giving the full context of the argument in making his decision on another piece of evidence.
Here is how Raffaele's appeal makes this point:

Naturally, in all judgments the exposition of the facts is an essential part of the provision. However, when one is faced with an in-depth illustration of hearings and witness testimonies (quotes which in this case are partial or inaccurate), whilst the space dedicated to the reasoning that guided the Judges to accept one theory rather than another is almost non-existent, this signifies that the judgment has not fulfilled its duty to explain its reasoning.
The imbalance between the exposition of evidence and reasoning requires that the provision be reprimanded because, alongside the extremely long summary of the trial, the enunciation of the choice to embrace one theory [rather than another] translates into a sort of act of faith in one of the various hypotheses under consideration.

 

[platonov]

Exactly, we have the luxury of a distant and sober look, of which the jury was deprived. The constant media smear, pressure of local politics and prevailing witch hunt mentality did its' part.

Exactly ?? I made the distinction between your approach and that of the defence lawyers and the clients and you bring up the jury (which has already delivered a verdict )

The fact that said jury had access to all the evidence & testimony as opposed to you (& I), you trump with 'distance' and sobriety. I fail to see the advantage.

As far as I'm aware the jury was sober (if Italian*) - I hope you and I aren't expected to defend ourselves on that score.

* see Kaosium (and others) for why this is a problem.

 

[katy_did]

Rape is not entertainment and that those who seek out entertainment forms with it are rather disgusting?

What if it's contextually appropriate, a necessary part of the story? Or should it not appear in fictional form at all?

How about murder, isn't that worse?

 

[Kestrel]

And it says something about the people who *choose* to read or watch it.

 

[platonov]

A What if it's contextually appropriate, a necessary part of the story? Or should it not appear in fictional form at all?

B How about murder, isn't that worse?

A That appears to be what what this case [and 'debate' ] is about. Unfortunately its not fiction.

B Indeed, but as it was followed by/led to murder the distinction is blurred in this case.

 

[Trigood]

It was Filomena that called Amanda at 12:34, not the other way around way around. Amanda only called Filomena once, at 12:08, 26 minutes before she even returned to the cottage. Once back at the cottage she did not call Filomena to discuss the situation.



Yet even with this "escalating concern" she didn't even bother to call either of Meredith's phones again for the next 21-25 minutes before the Postal Police arrived. In the entire 44 minute period between Amanda's first call to Meredith's English phone (12:07) and Raffelle's first call to 112 (12:51), Amanda spent only 23 seconds trying to get hold of Meredith by telephone.



No, that didn't happen at the 12:51 call (the police told him to call back), that happened at the 12:55 call.



The Postal Police most likely arrived between 12:55 and 1:00, 21 to 25 minutes after the pair arrived back at the cottage. Why so long to call the police?

What is also largely neglected by the Innocentisti is that the Postal Police's arrival was totally coincidental, and had nothing whatsoever to do with Raffaele's call to the Carabinieri (how could it? different crew).

 

[act1roson]

What is also largely neglected by the Innocentisti is that the Postal Police's arrival was totally coincidental, and had nothing whatsoever to do with Raffaele's call to the Carabinieri (how could it? different crew).

How do the "Innocentisti" neglect it?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

cleanup

SomeAlibi,

What cleanup?

 

[JREF2010]

Exactly ?? I made the distinction between your approach and that of the defence lawyers and the clients and you bring up the jury (which has already delivered a verdict )

The fact that said jury had access to all the evidence & testimony as opposed to you (& I), you trump with 'distance' and sobriety. I fail to see the advantage.

As far as I'm aware the jury was sober (if Italian*) - I hope you and I aren't expected to defend ourselves on that score.

* see Kaosium (and others) for why this is a problem.

"all the evidence".....thats so far away from being remotely possible with this case.

more like, the list of missing evidence and refused opportunity to go into detail leaves the jurors/lay judges ignorant of the truth. "All the evidence" was never presented.

starting with a missing interrogation recording, destroyed hard drives, erased critical pc activity by incompetent "experts", slanderous media leaks,...etc..etc..; the missing evidence is too long to list, though its already known at this stage of the legal battle.

"all the evidence" is sadly, never going to be seen in this case. Intentionally or due to negligence of the squad, time will tell.

 

[Kaosium]

After the Deluge...

London John

I think you (and others) are not getting the 'credibility ' issue - defendants statements, alibis and testimony are considered as evidence by the court - in fact if I may hazard a guess perhaps some jurors apply more weight to them than to minutiae of forensics which have so exercised this forum.

I can't help but think this post illustrates better than any other the 'failure to communicate.' I do indeed get the credibility issue, but I think perhaps we disagree on what the minutiae is, and what is really important.

I've seen dozens of posts here today on absolutely meaningless issues. What Amanda said about mops, what was the deal with the phone calls, who said what about sleeping in--none of that matters. Taking the most paranoid, twisted, and bizarre explanation of each you cannot change the fact that nothing on God's green earth can explain how they participated in the murder and left no trace of themselves or a clean-up.

Thus the true minutiae is that which has no bearing on whether Amanda and Raffaele actually murdered Meredith Kercher, like whether they slept in completely or someone got up to putz around on a computer and answer a phone call the next day. If 'credibility' is the issue, then the prosecution has earned itself a place in infamy. The longer this goes on, two appeals pending, the more likely Amanda Knox will take her place alongside Dred Scott, Captain Dreyfus, John Proctor, and other people otherwise unimportant yet whose suffering at the hands of an unjust court are still remembered.

They are already starting to make movies about it, and the outcome is yet in doubt. The end of the story is still up to the Italian system, and if they think Amanda and Raffaele's 'credibility' is in doubt because of these irrelevancies posted, then the final act will be the indictment of that system.

 

[Kaosium]

Exactly ?? I made the distinction between your approach and that of the defence lawyers and the clients and you bring up the jury (which has already delivered a verdict )

The fact that said jury had access to all the evidence & testimony as opposed to you (& I), you trump with 'distance' and sobriety. I fail to see the advantage.

As far as I'm aware the jury was sober (if Italian*) - I hope you and I aren't expected to defend ourselves on that score.

* see Kaosium (and others) for why this is a problem.

I'm not sure what you meant by including me in this post.

At any rate if the jury had gotten the answer right, then no one would care. It is not the jury that most see as the problem, but the way the prosecution lied its way to 'victory.'

Aren't something like one third of cases like these overturned by appeal in Italy anyway? Thus obviously not even the Italians consider the first jury's verdict sacrosanct.

 

[Kaosium]

And it says something about the people who *choose* to read or watch it.

We're talking about Japanese comic books, right? So, what are you trying to say about Japan?

You sound like my Women's Studies professor trying to convince us the most successful (in real dollars) movie of all time, "Gone with the Wind," was an indictment of all society for the scene where Rhett takes Scarlett up the stairs.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Ouch.

Oh dear, SomeAlibi
I see you'd like to score a point very much, but I'm afraid not just this time yet

You wrote:

Your idea that it was Comodi who introduced that "Amanda called before anything had happened" is not correct. The source for that is one Edda Mellas.

The logic of your statement is quite funny. You realized you can't just wrote "it wasn't Comodi who introduced, because it was Edda who introduced". You had to wrote it was Edda who was the source. But it's not actually a secret that it was Edda's words that were taken out of context and twisted. And that way your statement is no longer logical. I thought a lawyer would be more precise

Still, the excerpt you provided is very useful:

Edda Mellas: But this was before anything happened except for the fact that the house was...​

Keeping that in mind let's now take a look at Comodi's imprecision:

Manuela Comodi: Even your mother was amazed that you called her at midday, which was three or four o'clock at night, to tell her that nothing had happened.​

Quite a creative twisting of words isn't it? And very effective.




BTW interesting omission in that cite. The house was... ? Was what? Full of dances and general rejoicing?
Or maybe broken into, bloodied and a friend was missing?


Thanks, and have a great Sunday you all

 

[SomeAlibi]

SomeAlibi,

What cleanup?

A single piece of evidence puts it beyond doubt: the bathmat print. The blood is over the entirety of the foot. There isn't a jury in the world that's going to believe that that came out of nowhere and that the perpetrator did not walk up to that bathmat. The fact that there are no footprints on the tiled floor on the way from Meredith's bedroom to that mat shows clearly they have been cleaned from the tiles. QED.

This is one of the reasons Amanda invented the bathmat shuffle of course, to try and produce an extremely weak alibi for why the area leading to the bathmat had been cleaned.

Massei also notes points about a fingerprint on the lightswitch etc but you don't believe that either presumably. The perpetrator cleaned themselves off in the sink and the bidet leaving Meredith's blood traces there and water was run to wash hands and feet that's also a cleanup. Strangely, Rudy Guede didn't leave a single trace of his DNA in that process. There's a reason for that. I won't go into the co-mingling of the five traces of Amanda because that'll just be another avenue that's massively covered to date.

Anyway before we go off to the races on anything else, as I say, I don't believe any jury thinks that bathmat print comes out of nowhere. You really can't argue that with any credibility. Because you are so passionate in denying absolutely everything in the jury's findings, you undermine yourself because you can't even face up to stuff like this which is unwinnable. Know when to concede and when to fight.

 

[SomeAlibi]

Oh dear, SomeAlibi
I see you'd like to score a point very much, but I'm afraid not just this time yet

You wrote:

The logic of your statement is quite funny. You realized you can't just wrote "it wasn't Comodi who introduced, because it was Edda who introduced". You had to wrote it was Edda who was the source. But it's not actually a secret that it was Edda's words that were taken out of context and twisted. And that way your statement is no longer logical. I thought a lawyer would be more precise

Still, the excerpt you provided is very useful:

Edda Mellas: But this was before anything happened except for the fact that the house was...​

Keeping that in mind let's now take a look at Comodi's imprecision:

Manuela Comodi: Even your mother was amazed that you called her at midday, which was three or four o'clock at night, to tell her that nothing had happened.​

Quite a creative twisting of words isn't it? And very effective.




BTW interesting omission in that cite. The house was... ? Was what? Full of dances and general rejoicing?
Or maybe broken into, bloodied and a friend was missing?


Thanks, and have a great Sunday you all

I'm sorry I don't understand what "You realized you can't just wrote "it wasn't Comodi who introduced, because it was Edda who introduced". You had to wrote it was Edda who was the source" actually means. Can you please explain.

There's no omission in my citation of Massei. If you read it, you will see I've quoted it verbatim as he does and on the proceeding page here I've also given Rose as much of the rest of the transcript as I can find. Since it's case evidence, I'm sure Charlie or someone similar can help us with the

The precision-as-a-lawyer point makes you look like you're smarting and being snidey. You really should abandon that - as they'd tell you in any advocacy class, it absolutely underlines the point every time you've taken a hit.