Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[platonov]

The defense is "reduced" only to addressing the prosecution's case, which, I agree, is pretty puny and silly. It really must be kind of embarrassing for the defense to have to keep going into court and pretending this is a genuine trial being conducted by mature adults.

"The DNA of RS was found on the clasp?" That is your point? Well, okay, I guess we can all just close up shop and go on home.

No my point (which you missed) is continued in the rest of post and made in previous posts - and relates to how the defence can deal with this.

That latter option is certainly available to us all - whether we avail of it is a personal matter.

.

 

[LondonJohn]

As regards the quoted posts & other arguments on this issue.

The DNA of RS was found on the clasp - 'this' stuff wont fly in court as it doesn't here.
They are obliged and well paid to give their client the best possible defence - that they are reduced to 'this' says something you probably don't want to hear or are unable to accept.

Contamination or whatever - perhaps ?

.

Let me try a slightly simplified analogy to illustrate the point the defence are trying to make:

Suppose a man is found dead in the middle of a snow-covered field. The dead man left a trail of his own shoe prints leading to the spot of his death, which are still highly visible to police. There are no other tracks or shoe prints in the area surrounding the body. But the police say that they have found one shoe prints from the dead man's brother right next to the man's body, and charge the brother with murder. The brother's defence team argues that a single shoe print next to the body is not valid evidence, since if the brother had committed the murder his shoe prints would also have had to have been found leading in and out of the field.

In other words, Sollecito's defence are arguing that it's highly unlikely (perhaps to the point of impossibility) that Sollecito's skin cell DNA would be found on the tiny metal hook, yet none of his DNA was on any of the rougher cloth material surrounding the metal parts (which would have to have been handled in order to even reach the metal parts).

 

[Mary_H]

Why doesn't the article mention the interjection of a "professional defence attorney" from the UK? After all, following the "revelation" of Moore's "mistakes" in his commentary on Amanda Knox, his employment law suit will surely be dead in the water....

LOL -- yes, I'm sure the guilters' efforts to trash him will directly enter into the lawsuit.

Moore's lawyers: "Uh, we're sorry, Mr. Moore, but we've received several letters from people who insist you might have made some errors in your public interviews. This changes everything."

 

[platonov]

Let me try a slightly simplified analogy to illustrate the point the defence are trying to make:

Suppose a man is found dead in the middle of a snow-covered field. The dead man left a trail of his own shoe prints leading to the spot of his death, which are still highly visible to police. There are no other tracks or shoe prints in the area surrounding the body. But the police say that they have found one shoe prints from the dead man's brother right next to the man's body, and charge the brother with murder. The brother's defence team argues that a single shoe print next to the body is not valid evidence, since if the brother had committed the murder his shoe prints would also have had to have been found leading in and out of the field.

In other words, Sollecito's defence are arguing that it's highly unlikely (perhaps to the point of impossibility) that Sollecito's skin cell DNA would be found on the tiny metal hook, yet none of his DNA was on any of the rougher cloth material surrounding the metal parts (which would have to have been handled in order to even reach the metal parts).

The point the defence is trying to make is quite clear - your analogies aren't necessary in my case.

I have already referred to the paucity of the defence argument in the post you quoted

............Contamination or whatever - perhaps ?

Perhaps I place too much emphasis on brevity.

.

 

[platonov]

This would all be remarkably irrelevant if it wasn't so perfectly demonstrative of the very point I was making.
The whooshing sound you probably heard would have been that point flying right over your head.

I may have to C & P this for further use as it seems applicable on every other page in this thread.

However If I were to use it in all these cases I would probably fall foul of Rule X*

* whichever rule deals with repetition/spamming.

.

 

[Amazer]

Finding things to express uninformed incredulity about is still not an argument.

Okay... I shall remind myself not to offer alternate explanations in the future. I would hate to further upset your sensibilities.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Okay... I shall remind myself not to offer alternate explanations in the future. I would hate to further upset your sensibilities.

Actually I owe you an apology, that was meant to be a reply to JREF2010's original question, not your response to it. My fault.

 

[platonov]

the perplexity over alibis

There does seem to have been a strange recent shift in attitude by some towards the time of death issue. It appears to be OK to believe that the prosecution and the court may have made a sizeable mistake in the ToD (by perhaps over two hours), yet believe that this has little (or no) impact on Knox's/Sollecito's culpability. Coupled with that is a seeming belief that the ToD is of relatively low importance in the bigger picture.

In fact, the ToD is far more important. If Meredith was dead by 9.30pm (as I believe the evidence indicates that she was), then the testimony of pretty much all the prosecution's eye/ear witnesses is contradicted and will be discarded. And, much more importantly, there is evidence of human presence at Sollecito's apartment up until at least 9.10pm - and probably also 9.26pm. So at least one out of Knox and Sollecito was in Sollecito's apartment at those times. This would throw the entire prosecution argument out of the window. The only thing they could now claim would be, for example, that Knox left Sollecito's apartment alone, and met up with Guede to kill Meredith, and that Sollecito subsequently became involved in the clean-up and cover-up. But this is a very different set of circumstances to the ones that had Knox and Sollecito convicted of murder in the first trial.

This touches on the perplexity (points of confusion) over alibis that you guys have.

Leaving aside for the moment the amateur sleuthing /gastric analysis which conveniently always points to a ToD before 21.30.

The evidence of Curatolo breaks the (initial*) alibis of both AK & RS.
Theorizing over how (your understanding) of the details of his testimony doesn't fit with (your understanding) of what the prosecution claimed or the court accepted OR your own ToD is pointless unless you accept this point.

If his testimony is accepted and it was - their alibis are gone.

London John tries to have it both ways later in the post but it wont do - that is not the defence put forward for either AK or RS. As I pointed out before , You can do it over on a forum all you like but in the real world that gets you convicted.

* without getting into whether RS stands by the initial alibi.

 

[Chris C]

This touches on the perplexity (points of confusion) over alibis that you guys have.

Leaving aside for the moment the amateur sleuthing /gastric analysis which conveniently always points to a ToD before 21.30.

The evidence of Curatolo breaks the (initial*) alibis of both AK & RS.
Theorizing over how (your understanding) of the details of his testimony doesn't fit with (your understanding) of what the prosecution claimed or the court accepted OR your own ToD is pointless unless you accept this point.

If his testimony is accepted and it was - their alibis are gone.

London John tries to have it both ways later in the post but it wont do.

* without getting into whether RS stands by the initial alibi.

If his testimony is excepted then RS and AK couldn't have killed Meredith. Its in direct conflict with the Prosecutions ToD. The problem with his testimony is its cherry picked. The witness they used to verify his testimony was a scream that couldn't be heard and a man that was assaulted by olives. People that are in direct conflict with prosecution witnesses. Broken down car and mechanic that saw a car that couldn't have been RS's in the driveway. Not counting Guede who identifies the correct broken window, the time of Meredith's arrival and verifies the coroners ToD. Two of the things the broken window and the coroners report about the stomach contents where not known to the public when Guede gave statements that verified them.

 

[platonov]

If his testimony is excepted then RS and AK couldn't have killed Meredith. Its in direct conflict with the Prosecutions ToD. The problem with his testimony is its cherry picked. The witness they used to verify his testimony was a scream that couldn't be heard and a man that was assaulted by olives. People that are in direct conflict with prosecution witnesses. Broken down car and mechanic that saw a car that couldn't have been RS's in the driveway. Not counting Guede who identifies the correct broken window, the time of Meredith's arrival and verifies the coroners ToD. Two of the things the broken window and the coroners report about the stomach contents where not known to the public when Guede gave statements that verified them.

quadraginta's reply would be applicable here.

Theorizing over how (your understanding) of the details of his testimony doesn't fit with (your understanding) of what the prosecution claimed or the court accepted OR your own ToD is pointless unless you accept this point.

The latter part of your post is irrelevant to this issue - and pretty confused at that.

ETA ..and the olive mans testimony wasn't accepted by the court.

.

 

[Chris C]

quadraginta's reply would be applicable here.

The latter part of your post is irrelevant to this issue - and pretty confused at that.

ETA ..and the olive mans testimony wasn't accepted by the court.

.

Yeah but mignini tried to use him to give weight to his homeless witness. I find it amazing that Mignini would even put a witness on the stand that couldn't Identify Knox. Its not like he was getting hit in the back of the head by olives. Yet even knowing that he would put a person on the stand that couldn't identify her, you still accept the other part of the other witnesses testimony that identifies knox and sollecito, but at a time in which they couldn't have committed the murder. Hmmmm. Plus to top it off, guilters are more than willing to accept part of Knox's statment that patrick killed Meredith but are unwilling to even listen to anything Guede has to say unless its to point the finger at Knox/Sollecito.

 

[platonov]

Yeah but mignini tried to use him to give weight to his homeless witness. I find it amazing that Mignini would even put a witness on the stand that couldn't Identify Knox. Its not like he was getting hit in the back of the head by olives. Yet even knowing that he would put a person on the stand that couldn't identify her, you still accept the other part of the other witnesses testimony that identifies knox and sollecito, but at a time in which they couldn't have committed the murder. Hmmmm. Plus to top it off, guilters are more than willing to accept part of Knox's statment that patrick killed Meredith but are unwilling to even listen to anything Guede has to say unless its to point the finger at Knox/Sollecito.

No but ...

.... (your understanding) of the details of his testimony doesn't fit with (your understanding) of what the prosecution claimed or the court accepted
ETA Can you see whats wrong with this ??

.

 

[Chris C]

No but ...

.... (your understanding) of the details of his testimony doesn't fit with (your understanding) of what the prosecution claimed or the court accepted
.

I understand the testimony real well. There is a whole part dedicated in the appeals dealing with Antonio Curatolo's testimony in which the man made it clear he saw them the WHOLE time from 9:30pm till just before midnight. Thats what he testified too.

 

[platonov]

I understand the testimony real well. There is a whole part dedicated in the appeals dealing with Antonio Curatolo's testimony in which the man made it clear he saw them the WHOLE time from 9:30pm till just before midnight. Thats what he testified too.

Really, you have confused Curatolo with 'olive man' in the space of 2 posts - and you brought him up.

.

 

[Amazer]

Actually I owe you an apology, that was meant to be a reply to JREF2010's original question, not your response to it. My fault.

Ok, apology accepted.

 

[Antony]

The evidence of Curatolo breaks the (initial*) alibis of both AK & RS.
Theorizing over how (your understanding) of the details of his testimony doesn't fit with (your understanding) of what the prosecution claimed or the court accepted OR your own ToD is pointless unless you accept this point.

If his testimony is accepted and it was - their alibis are gone.

Let me check that I've got your argument right:

Amanda and Raffaele's alibi is that they were at his flat all night. But Curatolo testified that he saw them in the square outside the cottage during the period from 9pm up to some time before midnight (in fact my understanding is that the prosecution had to change the ToD in their narrative to at least 11.30pm in order to accommodate Curatolo's testimony).

Your point is that Curatolo proves that Amanda and Raffaele were lying about where they were during the evening of Nov 1, and therefore makes them guilty of the murder even if the ToD is shown to be earlier than 10pm, which is a time when Curatolo testifies they were not at the murder scene? Have I understood you correctly?

Forgive me for not taking you seriously. Whether you believe Curatolo or not (and personally I don't), his testimony cannot be used to support the prosecution case unless the ToD is moved back to around 11.30pm.

 

[Justinian2]

No but ...

.... (your understanding) of the details of his testimony doesn't fit with (your understanding) of what the prosecution claimed or the court accepted ETA Can you see whats wrong with this ??

.

I can't understand most of the guilter posts.

To understand a post such as the above, I need to be given:

1) A quote of 'his' testimony.
2) A quote of 'your' understanding.
3) A quote of what the prosecution claimed or the court accepted
4) An explaination of the differences.
5) A conclusion and the reason for the conclusion.

These threads are in long chains that started eons ago. That makes following the threads confusing anyway. Assumptions of knowledge make the threads even more confusing.

Yes, the discussions with guilters are going 'whoosh' right over my head. I want to spend my time understanding the case, not what the guilters are trying to say.

 

[Chris C]

Really, you have confused Curatolo with 'olive man' in the space of 2 posts - and you brought him up.

.

I haven't confused Curatolo with the olive man. The prosecution tried to use olive mans testimony to verify Curatolo's testimony. The same with Nara, I just can't remember olive mans name.

Yeah but mignini tried to use him to give weight to his homeless witness. I find it amazing that Mignini would even put a witness on the stand that couldn't Identify Knox. Its not like he was getting hit in the back of the head by olives. Yet even knowing that he would put a person on the stand that couldn't identify her, you still accept the other part of the other witnesses testimony that identifies knox and sollecito, but at a time in which they couldn't have committed the murder. Hmmmm. Plus to top it off, guilters are more than willing to accept part of Knox's statment that patrick killed Meredith but are unwilling to even listen to anything Guede has to say unless its to point the finger at Knox/Sollecito.

I understand the testimony real well. There is a whole part dedicated in the appeals dealing with Antonio Curatolo's testimony in which the man made it clear he saw them the WHOLE time from 9:30pm till just before midnight. Thats what he testified too.

Its clear I made a difference between the 2 in the statements. Even without using their names. Why would you call me confused when I use one of their names? Its clear I'm talking about 2 different people here, maybe you couldn't follow it. My punctuation isn't the greatest. I dont see where i confused Curatolo with the olive man.

 

[platonov]

Let me check that I've got your argument right:

Amanda and Raffaele's alibi is that they were at his flat all night. But Curatolo testified that he saw them in the square outside the cottage during the period from 9pm up to some time before midnight (in fact my understanding is that the prosecution had to change the ToD in their narrative to at least 11.30pm in order to accommodate Curatolo's testimony).

Your point is that Curatolo proves that Amanda and Raffaele were lying about where they were during the evening of Nov 1, and therefore makes them guilty of the murder even if the ToD is shown to be earlier than 10pm, which is a time when Curatolo testifies they were not at the murder scene? Have I understood you correctly?

Forgive me for not taking you seriously. Whether you believe Curatolo or not (and personally I don't), his testimony cannot be used to support the prosecution case unless the ToD is moved back to around 11.30pm.

No you have missed the point completely.

Read the post again - pay attention to the bolded & the highlighted sections.

.

 

[platonov]

I can't understand most of the guilter posts.

To understand a post such as the above, I need to be given:

1) A quote of 'his' testimony.
2) A quote of 'your' understanding.
3) A quote of what the prosecution claimed or the court accepted
4) An explaination of the differences.
5) A conclusion and the reason for the conclusion.

These threads are in long chains that started eons ago. That makes following the threads confusing anyway. Assumptions of knowledge make the threads even more confusing.
Yes, the discussions with guilters are going 'whoosh' right over my head. I want to spend my time understanding the case, not what the guilters are trying to say.

I'm not making that assumption - I'm trying to dispell it.

.