Yes, yet another Knox-supporter has decided to protest use of the word, "conviction" in respect of Knox's CONVICTION under the Seattle Municipal Code.
Last edited:
Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case
- Thread starter Kevin_Lowe
- Start date
- Status
Yes, yet another Knox-supporter has decided to protest use of the word, "conviction" in respect of Knox's CONVICTION under the Seattle Municipal Code.
RoseMontague
Published Author
I have a conviction that she got a ticket. Does that count?
RoseMontague
Published Author
Actually, I am trying to find a cite for the claim SA has made (and Mignini in his closing fantasy) that Raffaele previously used LSD. The cite SA provided is not a good one for the reasons I outlined above and Mignini's closing is so full of speculation that I do not consider it a good source either.
Mignini, a civil servant, argued in an OPEN court of competent jurisdiction in a democratic G8 nation and it's not a "good source"?!
Do you prefer hearsay on the courthouse steps to structured legal argument in the courtroom?!
RoseMontague
Published Author
No,
He is allowed to speculate in his closing arguments. It is not evidence. Have you read the examples I posted as well as other poster's quotes of this speculation? Surely you can see a distinction here.
And what, in your mind, is a police-issued "ticket"?
What is it issued for, if not an "offense" or "infraction" of a "provision" under a duly enacted "statute"?
Last edited:
I take it you have never seen a closing argument before.
Last edited:
RoseMontague
Published Author
Many times. I have had the honor of serving on 3 juries. This particular closing argument was made in the Italian courts, however. Do you think it might be different there? Even in the article you quoted the defense lawyer calls it speculation.
Last edited:
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
Even better is this one. These are the kinda guys you fear and pity. Especially Van Owen.
Yeah, I knew that, he was caught with a bag of weed when he was a teenager. What's the penalty for that in Italy? How much was he penalized? Does that amount to a 'conviction' in Italy? Or is it like Amanda's party tax ticket, pretty much meaningless?
Where's the history of violence? Who feared Raffaele Sollecito? Or was he just a guy from the backwoods of Italy who liked to carry knives to offset his Harry Potter looks and a true affinity for computers? His dirty little secret is he smoked pot and had a nasty file on his computer probably for laughs, it probably embarrassed the hell out of him to get caught with it. His dad's concern is a positive, not a negative, he got himself slapped with a lawsuit trying to help him, his sister lost her job with an elite police organization and got a suit filed on her too for trying to help him.
What evidence does Mignini have that Raffaele did anything more than that? The same that caused him to put words in Amanda's mouth saying 'You're always being a little saint, now we will make you have sex!' The one who called Amanda a sociopath in court and entered a highly inventive tabloid trash article from the bloody Daily Mail into an actual legal proceeding as 'proof?' Well, with the same reverence for evidence he displayed I'd like to offer the following contention: 'Giuliano Mignini blows goats!'
FBI legend John Douglas, the man who wrote the book on sociopaths for the bureau is headed to Italy to assist the defense, as he knows they're innocent. They make movies about this guy, how does getting busted for pot as a teenager outweigh that kind of intellectual and professional firepower? Credentials were important to you once, were they not? Do you doubt his?
Last edited:
RoseMontague
Published Author
My guess would be that it is a police-issued ticket.
Many times? 3 times. You've seen 3 closing arguments. In a common law jurisdiction, correct?
I'm trained in the common law and, as a result, haven't a clue as to the particulars of the Italian civil law tradition in this regard - that's one of the reasons I'm following the case.
In general, I find that the relevant similarities appear to far outweigh the relevant differences, and where differences exist, I'm often inclined to believe that the Italian approach may be the superior one.
Last edited:
Okay. You failed the "what" question. Let's try the "why" question:
WHY do the police issue "tickets"?
I was not aware of this.
If true, he's a massive improvement over Ciolino & Moore.
Of course, there is no assailing the man's past work, however, he is now acting as a 'gun-for-hire', so...
I just hope he doesn't ruin his credibility in the process - for his sake and the sake of the Bureau.
I'd hate to see another spectacle along the lines of the Moore flame-out.
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
As you note, he's putting his credibility on the line, he must be pretty damn sure...
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
So......... it seems that some of those-who-believe-that -Knox-and-Sollecito-were correctly-and-safely-convicted buy into the theory that the cottage was cleaned up after the murder, but not with bleach (or, presumably, with any other chemical agent which would denature DNA and blood proteins).
Now, if this were the case, then presumably these same people believe that the clean-up consisted either of mops/rags and water, or an even simpler wipe-up of the floor with no added liquid of any sort.
But if either of these two methods has been used in the "clean-up", then the Luminol testing would categorically have revealed long wiping/smearing marks on the floor, and probably also an intense Luminol reaction in the recessed grout areas between the floor tiles (unless the "clean-up crew" had been fastidious enough to get into all the recessed areas with their fingertips or a toothbrush....).
Funnily enough, the Luminol testing revealed no such thing (and no, the faint luminescence along the grout lines doesn't count - it's barely brighter than the background luminescence spots, and was most likely deposited over a very long period of time when the floor was mopped and small amounts of biological residue deposited into the recessed grouting). And, what's more, the Luminol testing - where it reveals the very faint footprints - reveals that these prints are easily recognisable in shape: no attempt has been made to wipe or mop away these prints.
The floor in the cottage was not mopped or wiped in any way. There's no evidence whatsoever that a clean-up happened, and indeed the presence of weak but recognisable footprints under Luminol testing is good positive evidence that no clean-up was attempted.
Now, if this were the case, then presumably these same people believe that the clean-up consisted either of mops/rags and water, or an even simpler wipe-up of the floor with no added liquid of any sort.
But if either of these two methods has been used in the "clean-up", then the Luminol testing would categorically have revealed long wiping/smearing marks on the floor, and probably also an intense Luminol reaction in the recessed grout areas between the floor tiles (unless the "clean-up crew" had been fastidious enough to get into all the recessed areas with their fingertips or a toothbrush....).
Funnily enough, the Luminol testing revealed no such thing (and no, the faint luminescence along the grout lines doesn't count - it's barely brighter than the background luminescence spots, and was most likely deposited over a very long period of time when the floor was mopped and small amounts of biological residue deposited into the recessed grouting). And, what's more, the Luminol testing - where it reveals the very faint footprints - reveals that these prints are easily recognisable in shape: no attempt has been made to wipe or mop away these prints.
The floor in the cottage was not mopped or wiped in any way. There's no evidence whatsoever that a clean-up happened, and indeed the presence of weak but recognisable footprints under Luminol testing is good positive evidence that no clean-up was attempted.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
Personally, I think that the whole area of psychological criminal profiling is verging on pseudo-science. But Douglas' FBI experience goes well above and beyond his criminal profiling work, and he has a massive amount of experience of real-life serious crime, including probably hundreds of murders. Of course it's possible that his motivation for adding his opinion isn't entirely altruistic - but I'm more than prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt currently, and believe that he's studied the case carefully and reached a measured conclusion that Knox and Sollecito were unjustly convicted.
I'm not sure he'll be entirely prepared for the barrage of unpleasant emails that will undoubtedly be heading his way from the usual suspects, though........
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,566
Tice's volunteer work
treehorn,
I have never seen Derek Tice described as extremely introverted. He did do some volunteer work in the emergency medical treatment area, IIRC.
treehorn,
I have never seen Derek Tice described as extremely introverted. He did do some volunteer work in the emergency medical treatment area, IIRC.
For one, there is no evidence linking Manson himself with the crimes.
Other than his accomplices saying he stabbed so and so?
Justinian2
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,804
For one, there is no evidence linking Manson himself with the crimes.
Heck, he can't be guilty, he wasn't even there!
Oh, and he liked the Beatles.
Sound familiar?
Charles Manson was the master brainwasher - just like Magnini.
Didn't the Massei report say that Amanda was NOT the mastermind?
Last edited:
- Status