Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[colonelhall]

Chris C: "Apparently the new judge has serious concerns about the conviction of Sollecito and Knox."

Really? I didn't know that! Perhaps you could explain.

 

[snook1]

Chris C: "Apparently the new judge has serious concerns about the conviction of Sollecito and Knox."

Really? I didn't know that! Perhaps you could explain.

What part did you miss when it was stated that there is a need to re examine the DNA evidence to remove the reasonable doubt?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

What part did you miss when it was stated that there is a need to re examine the DNA evidence to remove the reasonable doubt?

I think Hellmann is just another functionary, a bureaucrat who is pretending to be neutral while keeping the interests of his colleagues and the reputation of the system foremost in mind.

These "independent" experts will reject the knife in order to look like they aren't lackeys of the system, but they are lackeys of the system or they wouldn't have gotten this job. I would expect a report with all kinds of hedging and verbal artistry that can serve as a smoke screen for confirming the guilty verdicts.

But, support is growing in strength and may well upset all this cynical maneuvering. I wonder what Perugia's fattest prosecutor thought when he woke up and found out George Clooney had been cast in the role of his nemesis.

 

[snook1]

I think Hellmann is just another functionary, a bureaucrat who is pretending to be neutral while keeping the interests of his colleagues and the reputation of the system foremost in mind.

These "independent" experts will reject the knife in order to look like they aren't lackeys of the system, but they are lackeys of the system or they wouldn't have gotten this job. I would expect a report with all kinds of hedging and verbal artistry that can serve as a smoke screen for confirming the guilty verdicts.

But, support is growing in strength and may well upset all this cynical maneuvering. I wonder what Perugia's fattest prosecutor thought when he woke up and found out George Clooney had been cast in the role of his nemesis.

So, are you saying that the independent review wont help them at all?

 

[Kaosium]

Oh a conspiracy then. Good to know.

'Never ascribe to conspiracy that which can be explained by sheer incompetence.'

No second knife, in fact the court forgot to introduce the concept of the actual murder weapon, they were so busy trying to pretend the one that never left Raffaele's drawer was there. That's actually part of the appeal!

No evidence of a faked break in either, no evidence of anyone besides Rudy. If there was actually evidence of these things, don't you suppose that's what the ones who believe in guilt would be talking about, as opposed to shared spinellos?

It's all theory, there's no evidence Amanda and Raffaele were involved in this murder.

 

[lionking]

I've seen plenty of commentary about a faked break in, and nothing that convincingly refutes it.

 

[Kaosium]

I've seen plenty of commentary about a faked break in, and nothing that convincingly refutes it.

Nothing convincingly proves it either. It's a theory and one that doesn't match the evidence very well.

 

[lionking]

Nothing convincingly proves it either. It's a theory and one that doesn't match the evidence very well.

In your opinion. Not in the court's.

Oops, sorry, I'm not supposed to talk about what was decided in the trial, sorry.

 

[Chris C]

I've seen plenty of commentary about a faked break in, and nothing that convincingly refutes it.

Yep plenty of commentary that doesn't prove the break in was staged. The prosecution's theory of the staged break in was, it was staged to look like it wasn't staged.

 

[Kaosium]

In your opinion. Not in the court's.

Oops, sorry, I'm not supposed to talk about what was decided in the trial, sorry.

Only if you think that's going to be decided again. Otherwise at this point it's meaningless. This court is not subject to the mistakes of the last.

So what makes you think they'll decide the break-in was faked this time around?

 

[Mary_H]

Hi Mary, I'm well informed on the case. For the past 2 years I've been gathering informations about the events that took place back in 2007 and also about the trial, but to date I have found no credible explanation on how did Raffaele's DNA got on the bra clasp of Meredith Kercher, apart from contamination, of course.

Yeah, there is no credible explanation for it, snook1. It's impossible, for the reasons you pointed out earlier. In addition to the possibility of contamination, there is also the possibility of faked paperwork, and the probability that the results have not been interpreted correctly, meaning it never was Raffaele's DNA on there at all.

 

[Mary_H]

..... I wonder what Perugia's fattest prosecutor thought when he woke up and found out George Clooney had been cast in the role of his nemesis.

LOL. This could change everything.

 

[nopoirot]

Has anyone come across any interviews with jurors? I've only found one, and it was just a snippet. The lady claimed that none of the jurors were able to sleep the night before the verdict. Anyway, it would be interesting to get some insight into their reasoning (or lack thereof.)

 

[Chris C]

LOL. This could change everything.

I wonder who they are going to get to play, Tons of BS, aka Mignini.

People that could possibly play ToBS,

Wayne Knight: Newman from Seinfield
Drew Carey
Kevin James: The King of Queens
John Goodman
Jack Black
George Wendt: Norm from Cheers
Rush Limbaugh
Fat Bastard, aka Mike Myers
Rosie O'Donnell
Peter from Family Guy
Jabba the Hut from Star Wars
Keiko the Killer Whale
Danny Devito
Tom Smykowski from the Movie Office Space: They can use his, "Jump to Conclusions" mat

 

[Supernaut]

You've forgotten another citation.

Tabloid trash

It's been over 3 years. Still no retraction.

No retraction by whom? The Daily Mail? Good luck with that. As for Amanda, it was addressed in court. As you can see, Massei has about as much patience with Mignini as we have with you for bringing up this ridiculous issue:


Quote:
GM: I have another question. You had a 250 dollar fine from the court in Seattle.
AK: What? Oh, yes, yes.
GM: Can you explain this event? What was the motive?
AK: In Seattle, I lived with four friends of mine in a house. When our lease ended, we wanted to have a party to celebrate the end of our time living together and also just the end of the year. So, we had a party. At the party there was a band, one of my friends played in it. So there was a band, and they made such a tremendous racket that the neighbors called the police to come and stop the noise. Since I was the person in the best state to talk to the police right then, I went out of the house and took responsibility for the noise. So I got the fine, and everybody helped me pay it.
GM: Do you know about the article that appeared on "Mail Online"
on Dec 3 2007, which refers to the event -- I ask for the acquisition of this article -- in which the episode is described with many details. There is also a translation into Italian. I would like to ask for the translation of this article. [Intervention: "This will be made available to all parties." A fairly long pause.]
GCM: Excuse me. Is there actually a question?
GM: It talks about incredibly loud music, drugs, alcohol and throwing rocks into the street.
GCM: Could you please ask actual questions?
GM: Yes. Do you remember this episode?
GCM: Excuse me. The pubblico ministero is asking-- you described this episode in the terms we just heard. But the pubblico ministero is asking whether there was use of alcohol and drugs on that occasion, or whether it was just a question of too much noise making a disturbance?"
AK: So in fact--
GM: And other things. In the article there's also--
GCM: The Court doesn't know anything about this. Excuse me, please. All right, let's say "And other things?"
GM: There is a report by police officer Bender.
GCM: Oh, all right. Okay, okay. Let's just make specific and precise questions. [Noise] Excuse me, excuse me. Please, please. You just briefly sketched the episode. The pubblico ministero is asking for details. For instance, about the use of drugs and the alcohol.
AK: So, there was alcohol at this party; we had beer. I didn't know anything about drugs because I was inside the house.
GM: So you don't know about drugs.
AK: Right. I don't know about drugs at the party, but there was beer for sure.
GCM: Anything else? Beer, and anything else?
AK: And noise.
GM: I can ask other questions on this point. It's been mentioned that there were naked people around. And rocks getting thrown at windows and into the street, so much that it was blocking the traffic--
CDV? Excuse me, excuse me! That was the article, but it could say things that aren't true.
GCM: Excuse me, excuse me, please! It has been requested that this document be produced and placed at the disposal of all parties. Then the Court will see. If there are other questions--
GM: Is it true what this article says?
AK: [Laughing] No. No.
GCM: But do you have specific questions?
GM: What is the significance of this sum of 269 dollars?
GCM: She said it, it's a ticket. A fine. Payment of a sum.
GM: But penal?
AK: It's like when you park your car in a forbidden place and you have to pay a fine. It's the same thing.
GCM: All right, all right. She represented the facts and she represented their consequences. We don't have to give the administrative or penal analysis now.

Thanks for that Mary,

Even after all this time, I learn things about the Italian courts, and Mignini in particular that leave me open-mouthed (although as you say, even Massei thought that Mignini was pushing his luck).

I didn't realise that Mignini actually had tried to grill AK in open court about events in Seattle using a British tabloid as his “documentation”.

I try to imagine a barrister or prosecutor in a UK courtroom brandishing a copy of a low-brow newspaper from another country, the contents of which purport to give details about an event in a third country, and 'questioning' a defendent about it.

It would appear that Treehorn’s defence for his position on this is simply that it is endorsed by ”authority" - Mignini’s, and that this authority overrules Massei’s.

It’s ironic, to say the least, to see this evinced on a forum like JREF. My own definition of ‘scepticism’ (beyond the one Kevin Lowe gave, of “proportioning one’s beliefs to the evidence”) is a disinclination to accept assertions or beliefs on nothing but the basis of their authority or popularity.

 

[Justinian2]

And sexually assaults her. And kills her with two knives. And has a crap without flushing. And fakes a break in. And causes multiple bruises and cuts. And......And.....

Sorry, the lone wolf killer doesn't cut it.

And sexually assaults her. [How does this not fit the lone wolf senario?]
And kills her with two knives. [How is this not Mignini's imagination?]
And has a crap without flushing. [How does this not fit the lone wolf senario?]
And fakes a break in. [How is this not Mignini's imagination?]
And causes multiple bruises and cuts. [How does this not fit the lone wolf senario?]
And......And.....[How is this not Mignini's imagination?]

The man whose bloody palm print was in the murder room climbed through the second floor window (something too difficult for Mignini to ever do), got interrupted taking a crap, killed Meredith with one knife, deposited his semen in the murder room and fled the country. It doesn't take a knowledge of rocket science to understand all of Guede's activities.

Guede's motives were sex and money. Amanda had no motive - her sex drive was completely fufilled by a new relationship with a 20 year old man (something else Mignini can't understand).

If you want to think like Magnini, go for it.

 

[Mary_H]

Thanks for that Mary,

Even after all this time, I learn things about the Italian courts, and Mignini in particular that leave me open-mouthed (although as you say, even Massei thought that Mignini was pushing his luck).

I didn't realise that Mignini actually had tried to grill AK in open court about events in Seattle using a British tabloid as his “documentation”.

I try to imagine a barrister or prosecutor in a UK courtroom brandishing a copy of a low-brow newspaper from another country, the contents of which purport to give details about an event in a third country, and 'questioning' a defendent about it.

It would appear that Treehorn’s defence for his position on this is simply that it is endorsed by ”authority" - Mignini’s, and that this authority overrules Massei’s.

It’s ironic, to say the least, to see this evinced on a forum like JREF. My own definition of ‘scepticism’ (beyond the one Kevin Lowe gave, of “proportioning one’s beliefs to the evidence”) is a disinclination to accept assertions or beliefs on nothing but the basis of their authority or popularity.

I was thinking exactly the same thing about the newspapers, Supernaut. Can you imagine an American prosecutor asking to enter an article from The National Enquirer into the record?

 

[Supernaut]

I was thinking exactly the same thing about the newspapers, Supernaut. Can you imagine an American prosecutor asking to enter an article from The National Enquirer into the record?

I was actually going to say "in the UK or US", but of course the latter is a pretty broad definition, as you have State and Federal laws and courts there.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

So, are you saying that the independent review wont help them at all?

That is my expectation. I think the whole thing is a farce. But maybe I'm wrong. We'll see.

 

[Justinian2]

There are many more. I have not included the samples taken from Meredith's body in the summary. Nor have I included many of the samples from Raffaele's apt., samples from Raffaele's car, samples from Guede's apt., samples from the downstairs apt., samples from the kitchen of the cottage, and a few others. These results were not relevant to the prosecution's case or to the defense rebuttals.

Earlier in this discussion, however, I noted that a number of samples revealed unidentified DNA. The police should have gotten reference DNA samples from everyone who lived at or frequented the cottage, just as they did collect reference fingerprints, so they could be sure the unidentified DNA belonged to those people and not another suspect. This basic oversight shows they were only interested in evidence that would support their claims with regard to Amanda and Raffaele. The unidentified donors are as follows:

Male #1, rep. 11, (non-blood) tissue paper found in front of lower apartment entrance

Female #1, rep. 17, (blood) tissue paper found on path from street to cottage

Male #3, rep. 18, (blood) tissue paper found on street

Female #2, rep. 19, (blood) tissue paper found on street; rep. 20, (blood) tissue paper found on street

Male #4, rep. 32, (non-blood) boxer shorts from Sollecito's apt.

Male #5, rep. 47, (non-blood) stained white rag from Sollecito's apt.

Male #6, rep. 101, (non-blood), stain revealed with luminol on kitchen mat from Sollecito's apt.

Male #7, rep. 142, saliva, cigarette butt from kitchen ashtray at cottage; rep. 143, saliva, cigarette butt from kitchen ashtray at cottage; rep. 144, saliva, cigarette butt from kitchen ashtray at cottage

Male #8, rep. 227, (non-blood) tee shirt taken from Sollecito

Notice there is no Male #2. I don't know if they accidentally skipped a number, or if there were other tests besides the ones for which I have the results. In general, the numbering of samples and organizing of results is erratic and inconsistent, and it spans a number of documents that came to me as e-fax TIF files, very poor quality.

It's interesting that all of those DNA samples came from fabric or fibrous materials. Yet, the only DNA on the bra was from the metal clasp? Is there a source on that? That seems highly contrived.

A source from a Nigerian tabloid is OK. (just kidding - other Mignini sources are OK too)