Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Katody Matrass]

I just want to discuss the case without any games.

Addressing those posts in which your errors were pointed out would be a good start then.

katy_did pointed out one.

komponisto showed your another mistake.

So far you're pretending you missed those posts. We could take it as a your silent acknowledgement of your mistakes, but you just keep on misrepresenting those facts like nothing happened.

 

[treehorn]

Addressing those posts in which your errors were pointed out would be a good start then.

katy_did pointed out one.

komponisto showed your another mistake.

So far you're pretending you missed those posts. We could take it as a your silent acknowledgement of your mistakes, but you just keep on misrepresenting those facts like nothing happened.

I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the translation done by the volunteers at PMF.

On the other hand, I'm not fluent in Italian and cannot independently assess its accuracy or the accuracy of the version you are promoting.

Have the people at PMF been notified of this alleged error? (They expressly welcome any input that people may have to offer.)

 

[treehorn]

I think that to believe this, you have to believe (as Treehorn did before I explained the realities of how courts actually work to him) that the lawyer in question was idiotic enough not to realise that he hadn't actually asked whether or not Amanda smoked marijuana at that party.

"How courts actually work"...

Nice.

Alas, that's not what I said.

I said the cross was, from a common law perspective, very limited.

(I have no doubt that the lawyer knew what had, and what had not, been asked of the witness.)

Make no mistake: Knox would have been in for a much, much tougher time in a US court of law.

 

[Kaosium]

"How courts actually work"...

Nice.

Alas, that's not what I said.

I said the cross was, from a common law perspective, very limited.

(I have no doubt that the lawyer knew what had, and what had not, been asked of the witness.)

Make no mistake: Knox would have been in for a much, much tougher time in a US court of law.

That brings something frighteningly relevant to mind. Do you think they will pursue this angle harder in the appeal? I keep thinking, the appeal has already started, soon we might find out the DNA 'evidence' has been disallowed, perhaps Curatolo will be discredited.

What do you think will be the prosecution tack this time around? Will they try to nail her down better as to whose company she smoked spinellos? Will they even try to place her and Raffaele in the murder room, having lost all evidence of them being there? What kind of case do you think they will try to build this time?

 

[Supernaut]

They found a few (before the threat of defamation suits became SOP).

For example, Knox's Jewish co-worker.

“The threat of defamation suites”? "SOP"? (standard operating procedure?)

I think this might be yet another (uncited) revelation pulled out of Treehorn's derriere.

You didn’t perhaps get the idea from this post and take my suggestion as a threat? If so, I'm gratified!

To recap, there is no reason to believe that Amandas's anonymous/pseudonymous "jewish co-worker" is not;

- a fraud who hoodwinked a gormless, but willing, Charles Mudede (who had selected himself as an obvious candidate for propagating such a hoax - he's a Seattle local and he clearly has a 'racist' axe to grind)

or

-a gratuitous and malicious invention by the latter.

Either way, given the enormous harm his little tale has done, someone should call Mudede out on it.

 

[treehorn]

What do you think will be the prosecution tack this time around? Will they try to nail her down better as to whose company she smoked spinellos? Will they even try to place her and Raffaele in the murder room, having lost all evidence of them being there? What kind of case do you think they will try to build this time?

I'm not trained in the civil law tradition, so I'll be watching the appeal unfold with great interest.

The notion that it will be a trial de novo is hard for me to buy - that would be an affront to the doctrine of judicial economy.

I'll be stunned to the point of having to lie down if the appeal is not limited to a small subset of the 'questions of fact' raised during the course of the trial.

 

[Supernaut]

The cops never tried to conceal the fact that Meredith's throat had been cut. The cops revealed that information to the press the day Meredith's body was found.

A police source said: "This was a particularly nasty murder and the victim was found with a deep cut to her throat."

See Here

///

I assume that the idiocy of their behaviour has escaped you.

They went as far as handing out graphic crime-scene photographs to the press within days of the murder (this, according to your muse, Latza Nadeau).

In recent decades, law-enforcment agencies in more advanced countries have realised that, rather than trying to inflame or tittilate the public with such crass (if not sick) "press releases", it can be much more useful if they withhold such information and compare it with what they obtain from witnesses and, of course, suspects. Well, DUH!

For example, in the last few weeks, the UK cops have desisted from releasing information about whether Jo Yeates was sexually assaulted, or even the cause of death (all of which has undoubtedly long since ascertained by the coroner).

I hasten to add that the cops here also showed every sign that they were willing, as ever, to try and stitch someone up on the slightest pretext. Funnily enough, for no other reason than the “odd behaviour” of her landlord.

 

[treehorn]

Either way, given the enormous harm his little tale has done, someone should call Mudede out on it.

He'd have been sued for defamation LONG ago if the story weren't true.

'Ditto' for the Daily Mail if their article about Knox's rock throwing incident in Seattle weren't true.

As proof of Knox's capacity to engage in civil suits, you'll recall that Knox successfully sued an Italian media company for 'invasion of privacy' in respect of notebooks that weren't even part of the criminal case against her.

 

[Supernaut]

They found a few (before the threat of defamation suits became SOP).

For example, Knox's Jewish co-worker.

BTW, you said "they found a few" [people willing to speak ill of Amanda].

Apart from Mudede, who were the others. Show me.

 

[loverofzion]

I have always thought this would be an interesting topic to discuss. When people say Amanda was arrogant or disrespectful in court, I always think she had a right to show she was mad, especially at the architect of her suffering (even though all she did was ask Mignini if she could finish, during one of the myriad times he or another lawyer interrupted her).

On the other hand, someone else might say the courtroom is always sacred, regardless of how wrong the judge or the accusations may be.

The courtroom is not sacred and you are deliberately once again twisting the intent.
She may have had a "right to be mad"; this however does not give her license to be disrespectful, arrogant or theatrical in order to serve her purposes.
Which of course she was, and is.

 

[treehorn]

What do you think will be the prosecution tack this time around? Will they try to nail her down better as to whose company she smoked spinellos? Will they even try to place her and Raffaele in the murder room, having lost all evidence of them being there? What kind of case do you think they will try to build this time?

I'm not trained in the civil law tradition, so I'll be watching the appeal unfold with great interest.

The notion that it will be a trial de novo is hard for me to buy - that would be an affront to the doctrine of judicial economy.

I'll be stunned to the point of having to lie down if the appeal is not limited to a small subset of the 'questions of fact' raised during the course of the trial.

 

[loverofzion]

“The threat of defamation suites”? "SOP"? (standard operating procedure?)

I think this might be yet another (uncited) revelation pulled out of Treehorn's derriere.

You didn’t perhaps get the idea from this post and take my suggestion as a threat? If so, I'm gratified!

To recap, there is no reason to believe that Amandas's anonymous/pseudonymous "jewish co-worker" is not;

- a fraud who hoodwinked a gormless, but willing, Charles Mudede (who had selected himself as an obvious candidate for propagating such a hoax - he's a Seattle local and he clearly has a 'racist' axe to grind)

or

-a gratuitous and malicious invention by the latter.

Either way, given the enormous harm his little tale has done, someone should call Mudede out on it.

Showing your ignorance once again with unfounded lies.
Fraud? Gratuitious? A "racist axe to grind"?

Ms Knox said: "My people killed your people"; you cannot whitewash this particularly appealing part of her personality so easily.

 

[RoseMontague]

I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the translation done by the volunteers at PMF.

On the other hand, I'm not fluent in Italian and cannot independently assess its accuracy or the accuracy of the version you are promoting.

Have the people at PMF been notified of this alleged error? (They expressly welcome any input that people may have to offer.)

I see una reason to doubt this particular portion of the translation.

Whose input on the innocent side is expressly welcome at PMF?

 

[treehorn]

We'll see, won't we, sooner or later?

Check the statute of limitations on libel claims in the state of Washington.

Time has run out.

(Not that Knox had a case anyway, or, as I said, she'd have sued long ago. Truth, you see, is a 'complete defense' to a libel action.)

 

[treehorn]

I see una reason to doubt this particular portion of the translation.

Whose input on the innocent side is expressly welcome at PMF?

Yours, mine, anyone's.

Are you telling me that no one has approached PMF with the changes you are proposing?!

 

[loverofzion]

You are licensed to practice law in Italy?

PS: Going to law school doesn't make you a lawyer. Graduating from a law school doesn't make you a lawyer. Going to law school doesn't make you a good lawyer. I've seen plenty of young pup lawyers that passed the bar and didn't survive Pro Bono before deciding on a career change.

Well graduating from law school and then passing the bar exam qualifies one as a lawyer.
Whether or not he/she is a good lawyer is not under discussion.

Kevin was asked about his law background; you immediately become agressive and abusive.

Why.

 

[billyryan]

That brings something frighteningly relevant to mind. Do you think they will pursue this angle harder in the appeal? I keep thinking, the appeal has already started, soon we might find out the DNA 'evidence' has been disallowed, perhaps Curatolo will be discredited.

What do you think will be the prosecution tack this time around? Will they try to nail her down better as to whose company she smoked spinellos? Will they even try to place her and Raffaele in the murder room, having lost all evidence of them being there? What kind of case do you think they will try to build this time?

According to Curt Knox the analysis of the dna evidence will take forty to sixty days and the results should come in anytime from May to July,I find it hard to see how the appeal can go ahead until this issue is decided will the appeal be postponed on the 22ND of January until the independent analysis of the dna evidence is completed. I expect that Curatola will be discredited as soon as the disco owners and the bus drivers are heard,Curt Knox has also said this is his third time been a witness in a murder trial,lying for the prosecution,when he comes under pressure to tell who organises this and the press gets interested in how this guy is been used to get convictions,I really think there must be people in Perugia who must be in fear of what this man knows

 

[loverofzion]

Never forgive, never forget, eh LoZ?

Anyway, I'll say it again - this "quote" is entirely uncorroborated, and as actual dialogue sounds like something made up by a seventh-grader.

That is to say, it doesn't sound believable to me (at least, not in the context or tableaux alleged).

That you seem so desperate to think it MUST be true, this bit of hearsay (you understand the definition of 'hearsay' don't you?), well ......

Look it up if you want corroboration.
I already did.
Whatever what one ignorant 20 year old twit says "sounds believable" to you or not, the fact remains that it occurred.

I am not desperate to think anything be true about this case.
I simply checked the facts and draw my conclusions as to the woman in question's character.

You might try doing the same.

 

[treehorn]

The only person accusing AK of "rock throwing" is you - at least that's what your semi-coherent posts seem to be saying.
/QUOTE]

No. I'm not alone. The Daily Mail's story is still there. No retraction.

The limitation period has run (baring an extension on just and equitable grounds, there will be no suit).

As for semi-coherent, I cannot say - I'm fighting the flu and full of cough medicine, so it could be true.

 

[Supernaut]

Look it up if you want corroboration.
I already did.
Whatever what one ignorant 20 year old twit says "sounds believable" to you or not, the fact remains that it occurred.

I am not desperate to think anything be true about this case.
I simply checked the facts and draw my conclusions as to the woman in question's character.

You might try doing the same.

Apparently you don't know the definition of 'hearsay'.

As for having "checked the facts", I assume you mean you read Mudede's article. Did it take long?

I've actually read most of what I could find by him (and about him) on the web, and I noticed his militant anti-white politics, his victim/entitlement mentality quite early on. As many others have.