Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
So could someone give a timeline/summary of Sollecito's statements about where he and AK were the night of the murder?
 
HumanityBlues said:
EDIT: I also suggest for anyone with a good sense of humor to read the section trying to justify Curatolo's testimony. Boiled down I think Mignini basically says "he's under oath, so we have to believe him".

Here's a snippet: "Because if he says that he saw something, he exposes himself, he’s under oath so he exposes himself to an accusation of perjury if he’s not telling the truth, so we have to believe him. Otherwise justice, without witnesses…it’s not as though we had a film of the crime, if only that could be the case."?????????

It almost seems like a joke.
Click to expand...

It would be funny if it weren't so tragic. Two innocents robbed of their youth, the paths of their lives irrevocably altered by time spent in prison...what an outrage.

BTW, pilot padron claimed that testimony in Italian courts was not given under oath, and was expected to be untrue. Where did THAT idea come from?? If we can believe Mignini here (a questionable undertaking, to be sure), then Italian court testimony does indeed occur under oath. Whether it is "routinely expected to be anything but truthful" is another matter, and goes to the credibility of the Italian justice system in general.
 
not sure what it means

Rhea said:
I remember reading once that a defense expert told Amanda's family the DNA on the blade of the knife could belong to half of the population of Italy …

Since I'm no expert I don't know if that is possibly true …
Click to expand...

I don't know what to make of the half-of-Italy statement. The peaks are so small that if you applied a strict minimum threshold of 150 RFU, you would have to say that there are no peaks present at all. If you apply a threshold of 100 RFU then a small number peaks (those that are larger) would be allowed, and the half-of-Italy statement might apply.
 
Fuji said:
PDiGirolamo said:
2) Had there been any evidence at this "particular area" it quickly became trampled upon, crushed into the ground, mixed with ashes and cigarette butts, and possibly transferred to other "particular areas."
Click to expand...

How do you know this?
Click to expand...


Because we have the video of it happening...

thum_151444c5509a2d3029.jpg
 
just the defendant

babycondor said:
It would be funny if it weren't so tragic. Two innocents robbed of their youth, the paths of their lives irrevocably altered by time spent in prison...what an outrage.

BTW, pilot padron claimed that testimony in Italian courts was not given under oath, and was expected to be untrue. Where did THAT idea come from?? If we can believe Mignini here (a questionable undertaking, to be sure), then Italian court testimony does indeed occur under oath. Whether it is "routinely expected to be anything but truthful" is another matter, and goes to the credibility of the Italian justice system in general.
Click to expand...

I think not being under oath just refers to a defendant's testimony. I think that not putting the defendant under oath is might be a weakness in the Italian system, if it means that the jury simply disregards it for that reason.
 
babycondor said:
It would be funny if it weren't so tragic. Two innocents robbed of their youth, the paths of their lives irrevocably altered by time spent in prison...what an outrage.

BTW, pilot padron claimed that testimony in Italian courts was not given under oath, and was expected to be untrue. Where did THAT idea come from?? If we can believe Mignini here (a questionable undertaking, to be sure), then Italian court testimony does indeed occur under oath. Whether it is "routinely expected to be anything but truthful" is another matter, and goes to the credibility of the Italian justice system in general.
Click to expand...

This is not a new claim and it was advanced by Machiavelli, and was never disputed, and frankly it makes sense to me under their system. I got the impression what it amounted to was they allow the defendant to speak without fear of perjury, they can tell their story and the jury determines whether it is believable with no threat of sanction. Actually I think it a decent idea, being as if they're not believed odds are extreme they'll be in jail anyway.
 
babycondor said:
It would be funny if it weren't so tragic. Two innocents robbed of their youth, the paths of their lives irrevocably altered by time spent in prison...what an outrage.

BTW, pilot padron claimed that testimony in Italian courts was not given under oath, and was expected to be untrue. Where did THAT idea come from?? If we can believe Mignini here (a questionable undertaking, to be sure), then Italian court testimony does indeed occur under oath. Whether it is "routinely expected to be anything but truthful" is another matter, and goes to the credibility of the Italian justice system in general.
Click to expand...

WRONG (again)

Did you even read the very link that you provided to Pilot's post about testimony?
Pilot very specifically said that *defendant's* testimony is not under oath.
Got it ?
BIG difference
 
Last edited:
pilot padron said:
What is sad is not that you fail to read correctly and then criticize; but that all of the players here 'on your team' that labor so microscopically over each and are so quick to parse and refute every word the opposition posts, sadly and shamefully fails to step up to the plate and correct blatant errors like yours, just because those that commit them happen to 'play for the same team'
Click to expand...

That would be a good point if it weren't for the fact that someone had already "stepped up to the plate" just two posts before yours! If I were mean I would say something about "what is sad is not that you fail to read correctly...."

But I'm not. :D
 
halides1 said:
I think not being under oath just refers to a defendant's testimony. I think that not putting the defendant under oath is might be a weakness in the Italian system, if it means that the jury simply disregards it for that reason.
Click to expand...

Which I suppose is the way it probably works out, doesn't it? That would be suggested by their conviction rates which are on the order of 90% I believe I read somewhere. *sigh*

The Italian system is replete with ideas I'd thought at one time might be improvements to our own, but the 'law of unintended consequences' never fails...

What do you think of the recent proposal to allow acquitted defendants to sue judges? (which might mean prosecutors too, I'm not sure) That one screams 'unintended consequences' to me, and I'm reminded of the adage that the difference between bad and worse is so much greater than that between bad and better...
 
pilot padron said:
WRONG (again)

Did you even read the very link that you provided to Pilot's post about testimony?
Pilot very specifically said that *defendants* testimony is not under oath. Got it ? BIG difference

What is sad is not that you fail to read correctly and then criticize; but that all of the players here 'on your team' that labor so microscopically over each and are so quick to parse and refute every word the opposition posts, sadly and shamefully fails to step up to the plate and correct blatant errors like yours, just because those that commit them happen to 'play for the same team'
Click to expand...

Yet in a bit of Irony, the reason for the law in Italy that makes it wear defendants dont swear under oath is so they are protected from civil action. Also why are you referring to a post made by you as if someone else other than you posted it and you are defending it for them?
 
Last edited:
spartacus said:
I think the significant part of that post was (using his words) it would be "practically impossible" for that knife to be used for murder since there was no blood and the tmb test was negative showing that no bleach had been used on it. There fore it was not cleaned and if not cleaned there would have had to be blood on it. Also that no statistical significance was given for the LCN DNA.
Click to expand...

I had a whole litany of reasons that I developed why that knife never left the drawer that night, I will be so glad when it's finally rusting safely at the bottom of the Tiber, I was tired of typing them all out and I feel cheap and dirty when I just copy and paste old posts. It was boring too, except the part where I said if they'd found Meredith's DNA in a goldfish bowl I'd be more inclined to think the fish was involved than that knife in the murder. :p
 
Anyone else notice Mignini didn't even know if more knives had been examined from Raffaele's apartment?
 
unintended consequences

Kaosium said:
Which I suppose is the way it probably works out, doesn't it? That would be suggested by their conviction rates which are on the order of 90% I believe I read somewhere. *sigh*

The Italian system is replete with ideas I'd thought at one time might be improvements to our own, but the 'law of unintended consequences' never fails...

What do you think of the recent proposal to allow acquitted defendants to sue judges? (which might mean prosecutors too, I'm not sure) That one screams 'unintended consequences' to me, and I'm reminded of the adage that the difference between bad and worse is so much greater than that between bad and better...
Click to expand...
Kaosium,

I commented on this problem the IIP thread on wrongful convictions. I would much rather build positive incentives rather than negative ones into the system, to address the problem with wrongful convictions. A negative incentive (such as giving the wrongfully convicted person a large monetary settlement) just gives prosecutors one more reason to ask for destruction of DNA evidence (for example) at the end of a trial, or to otherwise impede any reinvestigation.
 
pilot padron said:
WRONG (again)

Did you even read the very link that you provided to Pilot's post about testimony?
Pilot very specifically said that *defendant's* testimony is not under oath.
Got it ?
BIG difference
Click to expand...

Bruce Fisher wonders why Pilot is speaking in the third person. Bruce Fisher wonders if one of Pilot's other personalities accidentally took over.
 
HumanityBlues said:
Anyone else notice Mignini didn't even know if more knives had been examined from Raffaele's apartment?
Click to expand...

Fantastic isn't it? One of the most discussed aspects of this case and Mignini acts completely clueless. Maybe Mignini missed the knife seminar put on by SomeAlibi about big knives and little knives. It was an eye opener for sure. I had no idea they came in so many sizes!

I would think the guy responsible for putting two people behind bars for a quarter century would have a better grasp on the evidence used to put them there. Mignini is an embarrassment to Italy and they should stop embracing him immediately and clean up the mess he created.
 
always a pleasure to talk to you

pilot padron said:
PS:
In the interest of Mary's gracious spirit of 'compromise', please note that in light of the above 'where I will not go', you may again decide to use the borderline insulting sobriquet: 'swift retreat'.
My spirit of compromise permission granted if you regrettably need it to salvage any fraction of fractured satisfaction in so doing
Click to expand...
pilot padron,

Actually, the phrase "evasive maneuvers" is more apt. They will come in handy should you choose to discuss the many pants-on-fire* actions of ILE.
*my lawyer advised me not to criticize ILE in more direct language.
 
facts in my mind

Bruce Fisher said:
Bruce Fisher wonders why Pilot is speaking in the third person. Bruce Fisher wonders if one of Pilot's other personalities accidentally took over.
Click to expand...

I go with what you say, it seems these people will not look at the real facts, but only facts that are in their minds.
they must watch a lot of doctor who.:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom