Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

He already did write a letter stating that what the baby-killer said was a lie. Does the defense really want Rudy to testify and for the first time in public say that RS and AK are the killers? Why take that risk when the baby-killer's story is total crap?

I agree with you on this one. These two jail-house witnesses are a ridiculous distraction and in my opinion add nothing to the defense. Not a good strategy.

 

[christianahannah]

Actually, how will Rudy go about denying the allegation from a prisoner? Will he have to show up in court and testify or will a hand written letter suffice?

That is an interesting question. If Rudy were to testify against the allegation does he then give up all rights to silence (that is can the defense or prosecution question him about matters other than Alessi)?

Rudy's Supreme Court date is December 16. If the Supreme Court should uphold his conviction can the defense later call him as a witness and he would have to testify (unlike when he is a defendant - he can invoke his right to silence)?

 

[Kaosium]

All this power, all these people cowering in fear of him, yet he still got convicted! How'd that happen, if he runs everything?

He doesn't--in Florence.
Also keep in mind this is probably more along the lines of 'keeping out of his way' rather than cowering in fear. It's his job to run the investigation and prosecution, the debacle in Florence happened because he went after the ones who thought his theories were nutty. Even if exonerated it wasn't pleasant for the ones who got in his way last time. Who'd want to chance it again? He's still at it too, look at what happened to those who did this time.

It is pretty amazing isn't it? How does he control the postal police, the scientific police and the prosecutor's office all at the same time? How does he get all those people to lie and risk their jobs?

He's in charge of the investigation and gets wide powers, and I'd imagine it would be risking your job to cross him.

Don't paint this too darkly though. He came up with a theory and tried to prove it, the others are supposed to work with him in order to do that--that's his job and theirs. The amazing thing here is that he got people to believe it despite offering no real evidence and ludicrous reasoning. If it had failed as utterly as it should have, no one would care.

 

[RoseMontague]

That is an interesting question. If Rudy were to testify against the allegation does he then give up all rights to silence (that is can the defense or prosecution question him about matters other than Alessi)?

Rudy's Supreme Court date is December 16. If the Supreme Court should uphold his conviction can the defense later call him as a witness and he would have to testify (unlike when he is a defendant - he can invoke his right to silence)?

I wonder if Rudy can request a delay as well?

 

[Chris C]

That is an interesting question. If Rudy were to testify against the allegation does he then give up all rights to silence (that is can the defense or prosecution question him about matters other than Alessi)?

Rudy's Supreme Court date is December 16. If the Supreme Court should uphold his conviction can the defense later call him as a witness and he would have to testify (unlike when he is a defendant - he can invoke his right to silence)?

It very well could be an attempt to force Rudy to deny the allegations in person. IMO in a few of my last posts I showed how rudy was lying to the appeals court. If he is forced to take the stand at the Knox/Sollecito appeals he will have to stick by that story and let the defense chew on his testimony like a school of piranha.

 

[christianahannah]

Does anyone know if Mignini or Comodi were present during today's hearing? I have read a few articles but have not read whether they were in court or not.

 

[Chris C]

Does anyone know if Mignini or Comodi were present during today's hearing? I have read a few articles but have not read whether they were in court or not.

Someone mentioned Mignini wasn't present.

 

[RoseMontague]

Does anyone know if Mignini or Comodi were present during today's hearing? I have read a few articles but have not read whether they were in court or not.

Mignini did not show up.

 

[Malkmus]

How did Mignini get them to lie? He seems to be the mastermind of everything in a Darth Vader sort of way.

Personally, I don't believe Mignini is responsible for getting these witnesses to tell their version of what they saw. This case saw many witnesses get rejected... what's of interest with these three witnesses is that they were, in the end, allowed to testify at all. It seems that most of these people came forward with their stories simply out of want of attention. It was a high profile case that drew all sorts of characters out of the woodwork. What other way to describe such "rejects" as Hekuran Kokomani or Momi Barrow? Kokomani was caught in multiple lies and Barrow was busted getting paid by the press to testify. So what does that tell you about these three other witnesses who did pass through? Or the integrity of witnesses in this case in general? Curatolo, Quintavelle, and Nara all have stories that are conflicting or questionable to some degree - enough to make you wonder if their true motive for coming forward wasn't the same as Kokoman or Barrow.

No, I don't believe Mignini had to do anything to get these three to come forward with their odd stories. They came all on their own. He was just lucky that they weren't caught getting paid by the press or outright lying.

 

[christianahannah]

Mignini did not show up.

I am not sure the meaning of this (if any). I would say new judge, jury comprised of five women and one man, Mignini to the back, is a positive for Amanda and Raffaele.

I would not be surprised to see the judge grant many of the appeal requests in order to be as fair as possible to the defendants.

 

[Chris C]

No, I don't believe Mignini had to do anything to get these three to come forward with their odd stories. They came all on their own. He was just lucky that they weren't caught getting paid by the press or outright lying.

Yet atleast two are outright lying. Even if you can't prove they intentionally lied. You can prove their statements are false. Which means Mignini had to have known they where giving false testimony. So then if mignini knew the testimony was false then he admited into court, lies.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You're suggesting collusion between everyone involved in the prosecutor's office, the postal police, and the scientific police. All these people are willing to risk their carreers just because a cop made an incorrect statement. This makes no sense.

I've yet to hear a coherent argument as to why AK and RS were convicted when we are constantly being told there was no evidence.

It's cute that you're trying to appropriate the "please present a coherent scenario in which AK and RS are guilty" argument, but this is not a very clever way of trying to do so.

We don't need to argue for the fact that AK and RS were convicted, because they were convicted. We don't need to argue that the evidence against them was sufficiently questionable that it did not rise to the level of proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that the Massei theory of the crime is drivel, because we've already shown that.

Running around crying "But how can both these things be true? How can they have been convicted (which is true) on the basis of crappy evidence (which is true)? I demand an explanation!" is just being silly. We've established that it happened. We don't owe you some kind of step-by-step explanation of how it happened, even if we did have the mind-reading powers to offer you anything beyond a link to the Massei report.

That's the best answer you're going to get to this question: Read the Massei report. That piece of shoddy thinking is how they got convicted on the basis of bad evidence, or as close to the actual process as we'll ever get to see.

Now are we going to get a coherent prosecution narrative out of one of you at some point?

Surely you see that there is a deep contradiction in believing that AK and RS are guilty, and simultaneously having not even the foggiest notion about how they could possibly have done it in any way that makes sense?

 

[RoseMontague]

I am not sure the meaning of this (if any). I would say new judge, jury comprised of five women and one man, Mignini to the back, is a positive for Amanda and Raffaele.

I would not be surprised to see the judge grant many of the appeal requests in order to be as fair as possible to the defendants.

I am not decided on this. Some have argued that having Mignini there is helpful to the defense, asserting he is the weak link that the first trial rests upon. Machiavelli insists his professional reputation is still untarnished. I do agree that some of the appeal requests like the additional testing on the computers almost have to be allowed to show any sense of fairness at all. How far this goes on the DNA evidence is probably the key.

 

[TomCH]

I dont know, I was responding to someone that was saying she was pregnant and thats the reason for the postponement. Even I used the statement, "if the pregnancy is the reason for the delay"

Well, I can understand that since you do not speak Italian, you did not read the story I linked to, so I will translate for you the important parts:

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/10_...lo_86053f00-f7bb-11df-9137-00144f02aabc.shtml

"La Bongiorno è incinta, Rinviato il processo di Perugia"

(Title) Bongiorno is pregnant, the process of Perugia is postponed

"Uno dei legali ha infatti prodotto un certificato medico relativo alla gravidanza dell'avvocato Giulia Bongiorno, che documenta un suo «temporaneo impedimento»"

One of the lawyers presented a doctor's certificate concerning Bongiorno's pregnancy, documenting her "temporary impairment".

"«Invito comunque l'avvocato Bongiorno a essere presente - ha aggiunto - perché proseguiremo anche se lei sarà impedita»"

Hellmann further said (concerning the 11 December date): "I nonetheless invite avv. Bongiorno to attend (he added) because things will proceed even if she is unable to attend"

 

[Chris C]

I am not decided on this. Some have argued that having Mignini there is helpful to the defense, asserting he is the weak link that the first trial rests upon. Machiavelli insists his professional reputation is still untarnished. I do agree that some of the appeal requests like the additional testing on the computers almost have to be allowed to show any sense of fairness at all. How far this goes on the DNA evidence is probably the key.

Though others have different opinions. I think the ToD is the key. If the defense can get the court to revisit the bogus ToD of 2330 hrs, then a new trial should be granted at the very least. Though the more I think about it, the more I believe they might take the new trial route. I believe the judges in Italy can force a retrial. If the ToD is screwed up, then a retrial would have to be granted to sort through all the bad witnesses and evidence.

 

[Kaosium]

No, I don't believe Mignini had to do anything to get these three to come forward with their odd stories. They came all on their own. He was just lucky that they weren't caught getting paid by the press or outright lying.

I think Quintavalle coming forward with his 'testimony' about a year later about Amanda lurking about the bleach is telling. That goes back to broadcasting about the non-existent 'bleach receipt' before they realized there could be no clean-up. It takes Quintavalle about a year to come forward, but by that time the bleach theory is history due to forensics, yet they have him testify anyway to 'discredit' Amanda's alibi.

So we're supposed to believe that Amanda was lurking around Quintavalle's bleach even though they didn't need bleach and never used any?

 

[Chris C]

Well, I can understand that since you do not speak Italian, you did not read the story I linked to, so I will translate for you the important parts:

"Uno dei legali ha infatti prodotto un certificato medico relativo alla gravidanza dell'avvocato Giulia Bongiorno, che documenta un suo «temporaneo impedimento»"

One of the lawyers presented a doctor's certificate concerning Bongiorno's pregnancy, documenting her "temporary impairment".

"«Invito comunque l'avvocato Bongiorno a essere presente - ha aggiunto - perché proseguiremo anche se lei sarà impedita»"

Hellmann further said (concerning the 11 December date): "I nonetheless invite avv. Bongiorno to attend (he added) because things will proceed even if she is unable to attend"

I wasn't doubting you read it, the IF was for the news article. We all have gotten beaten over the head for believing or quoting something that later turned out to be false.
Or better yet. The IF isn't directed towards you but towards the information you have given us.

 

[Justinian2]

You're suggesting collusion between everyone involved in the prosecutor's office, the postal police, and the scientific police. All these people are willing to risk their carreers just because a cop made an incorrect statement. This makes no sense.
I've yet to hear a coherent argument as to why AK and RS were convicted when we are constantly being told there was no evidence. The leading contenders are:
1. planted evidence
2. corrupt cops
3. corrupt prosecutors
4. corrupt jury
5. incompetent jury
6. anti-Americanism
7. post-fascist brainwashing
8. poor investigative techniques

You said: "All these people are willing to risk their carreers just because a cop made an incorrect statement. This makes no sense." That is true for the reason you gave. Indeed, it makes no sense for people to risk their careers for the reason that a cop made an incorrect statement.

Perhaps this statement is better: "Many of these people are plausibly doing things to please their bosses or peers. This happens frequently."

Peer pressure and boss pressure will make other members of the group comply with the group. Happens all the time. A group can make individuals do anything - even sign a false confession because they need to go to the bathroom or get some sleep. [There is evidence to prove this in Wikipedia.]

In groups with heirarchical structures, the whole group may follow the leader even if he is wrong.

 

[Alt+F4]

I think Quintavalle coming forward with his 'testimony' about a year later about Amanda lurking about the bleach is telling. That goes back to broadcasting about the non-existent 'bleach receipt' before they realized there could be no clean-up. It takes Quintavalle about a year to come forward, but by that time the bleach theory is history due to forensics, yet they have him testify anyway to 'discredit' Amanda's alibi.

So we're supposed to believe that Amanda was lurking around Quintavalle's bleach even though they didn't need bleach and never used any?

If Quintavalle testimony was supposed to be used to discredit Amanda's alibi then why was Raffaele's cleaning lady allowed to testify that there was already bleach in his apartment?

 

[Kaosium]

If Quintavalle testimony was supposed to be used to discredit Amanda's alibi then why was Raffaele's cleaning lady allowed to testify that there was already bleach in his apartment?

Alt, this isn't North Korea. This is a prosecutor abusing his powers to get a conviction with a shaky case. Defame the defendant, spread suspicion, troll for 'witnesses,' bully to get as much as he can, but he's not the master of puppets.