Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

Now, if Amanda and Rafaele are 'innocent' until the final appeal fails, the some is true of Rudy, no?

In fact, while there is evidence of his presence AFTER the murder, is there any evidence to show he actually did it?

None that I see.

So I guess he, too, is innocent!

Does it work that way with the 'fast track' trials? I thought the idea was they limited their options in hopes of a quicker reduction?

 

[RoseMontague]

Strangely, that's not what it says here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure

The defendant is rewarded with a reduction on the sentence. The law states that this reduction is one third. If the crime was punishable by life imprisonment, the defendant will be sentenced to thirty years.

Both the defendant and the prosecutor can appeal the judgement before the Court of Appeals.

Does this information need to be re-edited? Or are you incorrect? What's your source for the assertion that the prosecutor can't appeal in a fast-track trial?

There was no need for the prosecutor to appeal the sentence as Rudy got the maximum (30 years) in the first trial. Rudy did appeal that and got awarded the mitigation reduction at the appeal level. The process at the supreme court level may be different. Rudy has already appealed and will be heard shortly. I am interested in knowing if the prosecution can appeal at the supreme court level. That is the pertinent question at hand.

 

[LondonJohn]

I never quite got what was the deal here either. She said at one point, on the stand I think, they told her it would go worse for her if she insisted on one. I ran across a 'heads-up' travel guide for Canadians, I believe, that noted that due to Italy's very formal laws on legal representation the police will say that they tried to call one but they hadn't answered or that they'd be better off without one. I guess that figures, if the police want to get to do any real questioning outside the basics they're not going to get much with a lawyer there.

I've posted these links before, but this is the opinion of the European Criminal Bar Association on how police in Italy tend to deal with a) access to legal representation, and b) crossing the divide between witness and suspect status:

http://www.ecba-eaw.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=982&Itemid=31

A lawyer can be present during police interrogations. In practice, however, the police try to prevent the lawyer from being present. For instance, they do not allow the suspect to call his lawyer, or they say they have called a duty solicitor but he has not answered the call, or they suggest that it would be better if the suspect did not contact his lawyer because this would be very expensive. Of course, if the suspect is very determined, he can have legal assistance.

In theory, the lawyer plays an active role if he is present, but it may be that he is prevented from so doing by the police.

http://www.ecba-eaw.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=981&Itemid=31

The suspect has a right to immediate legal assistance. If the police, however, do not want the suspect to be assisted, they simply do not allow him to call his lawyer or they question him as a witness, since witnesses do not have the right to have legal assistance during questioning.

 

[katy_did]

If the point is that you, Mary H & RM are convinced (or have convinced each other) & have scored a stunning victory over first Fulcanelli & now I - OK, I get that

If the point is that it was never actually asserted or carried
in court [who have jurisdiction on this matter] - I get that also

.

No. You're again missing the P.

 

[LondonJohn]

A propos of nothing: Antonio Curatolo changed his version of "the truth" many times in various interviews with the police. He apparently started by confusing the murder night with Halloween (the previous night to the murder), and mentioned masks and costumes. Once he'd been *ahem* "corrected" on dates, he apparently gave several different versions of timing - only one of which the prosecution (and the court) chose to use. Strangely, it's the only one of his various versions which in any way enhances the prosecution's case in the first trial....

 

[TomCH]

There was no need for the prosecutor to appeal the sentence as Rudy got the maximum (30 years) in the first trial. Rudy did appeal that and got awarded the mitigation reduction at the appeal level. The process at the supreme court level may be different. Rudy has already appealed and will be heard shortly. I am interested in knowing if the prosecution can appeal at the supreme court level. That is the pertinent question at hand.

Yes, I agree with you completely on this.

We will soon see, as Rudy's is a week from today.

 

[Matthew Best]

Don't ask questions you don't know the answer to.....

Did you really mean to say this?

Why?

What on earth is the point of a discussion in which people aren't permitted to ask questions they don't the answers to?

 

[Fine]

I agree that Massei states she pulled the outer shutters tight (to the wood rub). That was the point I was making. The appeal refers to testimony (that I do not have) that states she left one of them open, and Micheli refers to testimony that she was not sure if she pulled them closed or left them open. It seems certain that we are talking exterior shutters with all three quotes.

The point is (again), Massei ignores the two other versions, without even mentioning them, to go with the version that fits the theory of a staged break in the best.

______________________

Okay, fine, Massei is cherry picking. I wonder why the defense APPEAL doesn't address an apparent blunder in the Massei Report:


"He would then have to have returned underneath Romanelli's window for the second climb, and through the broken glass, open the window (balanced on his knees or feet on the outside part of the windowsill) otherwise he would not have been able to pass his arm through the hole in the glass made by the stone) and reach up to the latch that fastened the window casements, necessarily latched since otherwise, if the casements had not been latched, it would not have been necessary to throw a rock at all, but just to open the shutters and climb inside." (PMF > Massei > page 49)


If Katody's measurements are correct (and they seem to be), Massei has made a blunder. In not noticing this, have the defense attorneys blundered, too?

///

 

[pilot padron]

Did you really mean to say this?

Why?

What on earth is the point of a discussion in which people aren't permitted to ask questions they don't the answers to?

Far be it for me to speak for Cape.
She seems to be doing an exemplary job for herself here today.

However, I interpreted that as a simple reminder for anyone who is debating and is in any way even superficially familiar with trial protocol and legal training.

The caveat Cape cites is also pretty widely known from any even secondary level law courses or debate training.
It is intended to prevent a Counsellor , when examining a witness in front of a Jury, from embarrassing himself by possibly giving his opposition a free 'killer point' by providing a witness the opportunity to bring up something the attorney would just as soon not have the Jury hear.

Skilled debaters also utilize this same caveat as a 'point on their earth'.

In reference to your Why....Surely you understand that this Forum is more akin to a debate than a neighborly coffee klatch or barroom bull session type of free wheeling 'discussion'

 

[Chris_Halkides]

inaccuracy

Seems each time an inaccuracy is pointed out, such as the availability of Appeal under Italian fast track, the slippery replies never address the inaccuracy or attempt correction, but always conclude with yet again this same type challenge to the poster who did little more than attempt to insure that the tenets of evidence based scientific skepticism are adhered to

Quite so.

 

[platonov]

Originally Posted by platonov

Even more interesting than the fact they never challenged it in court while AK was on the stand

There is such a thing as being too subtle - And the appeal is leaving it a bit late, unless your client really likes prison - No ?

Can someone reiterate the original claim for me? Weren't you arguing a different point from Mignini being dragged out of bed, platonov?

Meanwhile, here are some objections that Amanda's lawyer made to the use of her 1:45 and 5:45 statements:

<snip>

Mary H

If you don't know what is under discussion on what basis are you formulating you arguments - apart from 'platonov is wrong'

It wasn't the actual admissibility of the 5.45 'spontaneous declarations' - a more august body then JREF delivered a judgment on that issue.

.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Found this!

thought you guys would like it.

Makes her look very guilty to me. But it isn't biased.


http://www.newsweek.com/2009/10/06/the-italian-job.html#

Barbie Nadeau authored a book "Angel Face", which was not particularly impartial. She's known for taking liberties with facts, it shows in the article, too:

She even described Kercher's screams. She, Sollecito, and Lumumba were arrested. The next day, Knox wrote a five-page memorandum reiterating everything she said the night before.

Here's what Amanda really wrote:

In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.
​

Here's what she wrote about police methods:

The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder.​

Of course they lied.

Knox maintains that she spent the night of Nov. 1, 2007, at Sollecito's house. Sollecito did not take the stand during this trial, and his lawyer told NEWSWEEK that it was, at least in part, because he could not corroborate Knox's alibi.

In fact, Raffaele confirmed Amanda's version in front of the judge, that they spent the night together at his place.

The knife

Stefanoni from the forensic polce tested the kitchen knife by repeatedly cranking up the machine's sensitivity, beyond recommended levels. It multiple times returned a TOO LOW result. This info was kept secret for most of the trial. No other piece of evidence was tested in such a way. The knife was collected "by intuition" from kitchen drawer in Sollecito's (another) apartment, well after the arrests, while the police was desperately in need of some evidence to keep the defendants jailed. It's very likely some contamination (or worse) took place.

The only forensic evidence against Knox is the presence in her house of five spots where the blood and DNA of the roommates had commingled.

The only place where victims blood mixed with Knox's DNA was the bathroom. Knox's bathroom, full of her DNA. The "mingling" was most likely due to gratuitous swiping technique of the forensic police (recorded on video).

A bloody footprint from a smaller shoe was found on the pillow beneath Kercher's head but it could not be positively identified as a match to any of the suspects.

It was a partial Guede's shoeprint and was identified as such.

Phone records show that Knox and Sollecito both turned off their cell phones at the same time the night of the murder and turned them back on again within a few minutes very early the next morning

Actually phone records don't show any turning off of the phones, just inactivity. There was no simultaneous turning on: RS phone received a text message early in the morning, while AK's connected much later, after noon.

 

[Matthew Best]

The caveat Cape cites is also pretty widely known from any even secondary level law courses or debate training.
It is intended to prevent a Counsellor , when examining a witness in front of a Jury, from embarrassing himself by possibly giving his opposition a free 'killer point' by providing a witness the opportunity to bring up something the attorney would just as soon not have the Jury hear.

I don't know if you've noticed but this isn't a courtroom.

If I have a question (that I don't know the answer to) why wouldn't I ask it here?

Anyone here who thinks they have the answers to all the questions there may be is probably fooling themselves.

 

[Mary_H]

Mary H

If you don't know what is under discussion on what basis are you formulating you arguments - apart from 'platonov is wrong'

But that is usually such a safe point from which to start.

I'm not sure I was formulating any arguments with you. I provided something to Katy that was relevant to her post, and then I got the impression she thought it was relevant to a post of yours, and Rose and shuttlt were involved with the same general subject matter, and I tried to figure out what you guys had been talking about, but then I got lost. I just posted Carlo Dalla Vedova's comments from the trial; they seemed kind of relevant and may be useful or not to somebody.

If you would like me to form an argument against what your original claim was, I need some edification.

 

[platonov]

But that is usually such a safe point from which to start.

I'm not sure I was formulating any arguments with you. I provided something to Katy that was relevant to her post, and then I got the impression she thought it was relevant to a post of yours, and Rose and shuttlt were involved with the same general subject matter, and I tried to figure out what you guys had been talking about, but then I got lost. I just posted Carlo Dalla Vedova's comments from the trial; they seemed kind of relevant and may be useful or not to somebody.

If you would like me to form an argument against what your original claim was, I need some edification.

It wasn't my claim - It was katy did's -- here

We are still waiting for the evidence to back it up - having [as you found before ] a passing familiarity with the AK testimony, I'm not holding my breath.

.

 

[Justinian2]

Special pleading.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#special

Not really.

Say a person has five partial fingerprints in the crime room. The probability of the fingerprints belonging to the suspect would be additive, in some way. I mean each fingerprint would increase the probability that the suspect was in the room. Guede left multiple DNA samples in the murder room. The probability that he was in the room increases with every DNA sample found.

Suppose a person left a trail of evidence to the murder scene. Suppose that there was a knife found in the home of the suspect. To prove it was used in the crime would require a comparison of the knife size to the size of the wounds. Expert testimony would be required. DNA samples on the knife would be part of the proof. It would have to be proved the knife was at the murder scene. See, all the evidence in a trail of evidence would be in series and would be not additive, but multiplied. Each probability less than one decreases the likelyhood that the suspected murder weapon is the actual murder weapon.

Guede's evidence is VERY solid.
Amanda's evidence is VERY slight.

It's math, not special pleading.

 

[Mary_H]

It wasn't my claim - It was katy did's -- here

We are still waiting for the evidence to back it up - having [as you found before ] a passing familiarity with the AK testimony, I'm not holding my breath.

.

Ah, I see. Okay, thank you very much. I agree with katy.

 

[pilot padron]

I don't know if you've noticed but this isn't a courtroom.

If I have a question (that I don't know the answer to) why wouldn't I ask it here?

Anyone here who thinks they have the answers to all the questions there may be is probably fooling themselves.

Did you miss my multiple references to debate??
Is this a debate or just a convenient platform to throw out non sequitur one liners?

I do not have all the answers; I just made a sincere effort to answer yours.
Any expressions of gratitude from you are not necessary nor expected.

Please do not allow my helpful explanation and answer to your question inhibit you from asking more, as you ask why above.

Yes, I agree that there is indeed an element present that seems to fit your concluding descriptive 'declaration'.

 

[platonov]

Soon, Randi is going to stop accepting applications from me

Ah, I see. Okay, thank you very much. I agree with katy.

See post - Do I win a prize ?

ETA I hope so - I recently just missed out on 16 bob.

 

[Matthew Best]

Is this a debate or just a convenient platform to throw out non sequitur one liners?

Judging by your posts and those of your fellow English-challenged poster platonov, the latter.

.