Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Alt+F4]

Your statement about Mignini is false. Mignini currently stands convicted of abuse of office.

I thought no one in Italy is considered convicted until their case has made it's way through the entire appeal process. Is this incorrect?

So, according to you AK and RS are convicted murderers, right?

 

[Chris C]

Well if all five are going to back that Geude stated that neither AK or RS were there and that they had nothing to do with it, then they have a possible reason to bring it in, as that can be confirmed by others Geude spoke to and told the same things to, though I'm still not sure how much weight it will carry without Geude being able to be questioned on it and cross-examined, though I won't mind seeing a decent lawyer getting to have a go at him on the stand.

I've said this before, but I'll state it again. By putting people on the stand from prison that say Guede told them that Knox and Sollecito had nothing to do with the murder does 3 things.

1st. It attacks the credibility of Guede's later claims where he said people that looked like and sounded like, Knox and Sollecito, killed Meredith. Though to the best of my knowledge he never came straight out and said it was them.

2nd. If Guede refuses to testify in the appeal to dispute those claims, then by refusing to dispute them he gives those statements credibility.

3rd. If Guede does decide to testify, he will be a prosecution witness not a defense witness. This will allow the defense to cross examine Guede as a convicted prosecution witness.

 

[Chris C]

FACT: Read it and weep

"In front of the judges one of the experts stressed that the "maximum cooperation" was provided by the scientific police who performed the technical tests in the course of the investigations.
Tgcom

http://www.tgcom.mediaset.it/cronac...dna-andra-depositata-entro-il-30-giugno.shtml

Indeed 'an interesting day in Court

PS:
1) Speaking of experiences, my readings of nearly all of Mr Knox's PR provided, polished, and/or approved past statements make him second only to Mr Mellas as indeed a *very* untrustworthy, but understandably similarly biased close family member

2) Spare me any non argument related, OT, 'communications engineering' stimulated criticisms of sentence structure, perfect punctuation etccccccccccccccccccccc

3) I yield with alacrity to your implied personal experiences with:"living in their own hermetically-sealed bubble of indoctrinated garbage......

What am I suppose to weep about?

 

[Alt+F4]

I've said this before, but I'll state it again. By putting people on the stand from prison that say Guede told them that Knox and Sollecito had nothing to do with the murder does 3 things.

1st. It attacks the credibility of Guede's later claims where he said people that looked like and sounded like, Knox and Sollecito, killed Meredith. Though to the best of my knowledge he never came straight out and said it was them.

Again, a monster who murdered a baby with a shovel for no reason, has no credibility.

2nd. If Guede refuses to testify in the appeal to dispute those claims, then by refusing to dispute them he gives those statements credibility.

So then when RS refused to testify at his trial that gave the statements that were made against him credibility. Got it.

3rd. If Guede does decide to testify, he will be a prosecution witness not a defense witness. This will allow the defense to cross examine Guede as a convicted prosecution witness.

He has the right to not make any incriminating statements against himself.

 

[Fine]

Didn't they do this already?
http://www.lanazione.it/umbria/cron...h_premiata_squadra_mobile_lavoro_svolto.shtml



At least we have the names of the award winners here.

___________________

Here's a better story, Rose, of the FEAST OF THE POLICE: Umbria 24/Googlized (Scroll down page.) With 24 photographs. Looks like an American Fourth of July celebration. I see no one being given a certificate or trophy. The award winners seem to have been only praised for their service.

///

 

[Chris C]

Indeed. How many murder trial have there been where the prison informant wasn't a lying rat?

Yet your willing to accept Guede's story of it might have been Knox and Sollecito.

 

[Chris C]

They get out of prison for at least one day. They get to wear non-prison issue for at least one day. They get to ride in a car and see a bit of the city for at least one day. They get paid attention to. They get their names mentioned in the media. They have something to tell their prison buddies when they go back into the black hole. And probably, in Alessi's sick mind, he get's to inflict more pain on the family of his victim.

As you mentioned, they are already convicted, they aren't going anywhere. They have everything to gain and nothing to lose by testifying.

What don't you understand about the fact that a "person" who beat a baby to death with a shovel has no credibility about anything, ever.

What are the other 3 in jail for? If they have no association with the Mafia or didn't murder anyone will you still give Curatolo more credibility? If 4 people say Guede admitted to killing Meredith and Knox/Sollecito had nothing to do with the murder, will you still deny their credibility if Guede refuses to testify to dispute that claim?

 

[Alt+F4]

Yet your willing to accept Guede's story of it might have been Knox and Sollecito.

Thank you. Yes, RG is a proven liar and now the defense is going with five convicts to try and prove he's telling the truth.

 

[Chris C]

Thank you. Yes, RG is a liar and now the defense is going with five convicts to try and prove he's telling the truth.

You do understand what happens if he refuses to go to court to refute what the prisoners said? Its not about giving credibility to criminals, its about showing that the prosecution failed to follow possible leads and/or give more credibility to a baby killer than Guede. It undermines what Guede said at his appeal. It opens him up for criminal defamation and if he goes to court the defense gets to cross-examine him. They get to ask him pretty much anything. If the Guede refuses to go to court and testify. Then the baby killers statement that Guede admitted that Knox/Sollecito were not present for the murder becomes by default guede's statement to the court, that Knox/Sollecito were not there. Since he will be effectively refusing to refute it.

 

[Alt+F4]

What are the other 3 in jail for? If they have no association with the Mafia or didn't murder anyone will you still give Curatolo more credibility? If 4 people say Guede admitted to killing Meredith and Knox/Sollecito had nothing to do with the murder, will you still deny their credibility if Guede refuses to testify to dispute that claim?

Again, remember that Raffaele Sollecito refused to testify at his trial.

 

[Alt+F4]

You do understand what happens if he refuses to go to court to refute what the prisoners said?

Nothing.

Its not about giving credibility to criminals, its about showing that the prosecution failed to follow possible leads and/or give more credibility to a baby killer than Guede.

Are you kidding me? The baby killers story was made after the first trial was concluded.

It undermines what Guede said at his appeal.

RG is a proven liar, nothing new here.

It opens him up for criminal defamation and if he goes to court the defense gets to cross-examine him. They get to ask him pretty much anything.

Why would he care about criminal defamation when doing a 16 year sentence for murder? As for "asking him pretty much anything", so what? He can just refuse to answer.

 

[Chris C]

Again, remember that Raffaele Sollecito refused to testify at his trial.

Since I believe Sollecito to be innocent. Him not testifying does not prove anything to me. What is he suppose to testify to? He has already told them his version. The police just can't find the transcripts/recordings of what he said. He cooperated with them for 5 days then ended up in jail. His family has been attacked by Mignini with lawsuits. The best thing he could have done is remain silent or face more criminal charges from the Monster of Perugia.

 

[Supernaut]

It has been rumored how the clasp was stored and that it was improper storage which led to its demise. Both claims have not been verified. Perhaps these details have been presented to the court today. I thought there was more DNA extracted from the clasp which could be tested but on that I may have misunderstood.

From the many media articles today it appears that the experts have received all documentation they have asked for and have stated that there was cooperation from the scientific police.

What evidence has Stefanoni destroyed?

You've always intrigued me, "christianahannah".

WTF is your game?

ETA >> not that I expect an honest answer.

 

[Alt+F4]

Since I believe Sollecito to be innocent. Him not testifying does not prove anything to me. What is he suppose to testify to? He has already told them his version. The police just can't find the transcripts/recordings of what he said. He cooperated with them for 5 days then ended up in jail. His family has been attacked by Mignini with lawsuits. The best thing he could have done is remain silent or face more criminal charges from the Monster of Perugia.

It doesn't matter who it is, a person's refusal to testify says nothing about their guilt or innocence. You seem to believe this is true for RS but not for RG. Why?

 

[Supernaut]

It doesn't matter who it is, a person's refusal to testify says nothing about their guilt or innocence. You seem to believe this is true in with RS but not with RG. Why?

Flubalub!

Hey georgeous (edit >> that is to say, 'gorgeous' - I've been drinking) - you gonna write to Rudy?

 

[Dan O.]

It doesn't matter who it is, a person's refusal to testify says nothing about their guilt or innocence. You seem to believe this is true for RS but not for RG. Why?

Apparently Alt+F4 doesn't know the difference between a defendant and a witness.

 

[PhantomWolf]

What don't you understand about the fact that a "person" who beat a baby to death with a shovel has no credibility about anything, ever.

This is called poisioning the well. Regardless of whether someone is a complusive liar, or has commited evil acts, what they say should be taken on its merits. That doesn't mean it should be automatically accepted, but neither should it be automatically rejected. Both are forms of fallacies, and as skeptics we should steer clear of falling victim to them.

Let's say, for example, our witness gets beaten up in prison. He claims that the guards did it. Should we automatically reject such a claim because the guy is an evil toe rag? No. But neither do we accept it. We need to compare it to other evidence. Did anyone else witness the incident? What do they say about? Was there an recorded evidence? Do the guards he claims attacked him have injures consitant with beating him, what do they say occured, is there any physical evidence on him or in the area where the beating occured.

If in the end the only evidence is his word against the accused guards' then you'd probably weight the guard's higher in credibility based on "innocent until proven guilty", but would also be silly not to keep an eye on things to see if more evidence comes to light.

The thing is, that regardless of who is claiming something, be it the Pope, or a child killer, automatically accepting what they say, or rejecting it, based purely on who they are and what they have done is a major fallacy, what they say should be believed or rejected based only on the merits of what they say, and what evidence is availible to back up what is said.

 

[Alt+F4]

Apparently Alt+F4 doesn't know the difference between a defendant and a witness.

Apparently Dan O doesn't understand that even in Italy everyone has the protection against self-incrimination, whether they are a defendant or a witness.

 

[Supernaut]

...... in Italy everyone has the protection against self-incrimination, whether they are a defendant or a witness.

Sounds like you're ***********. You gonna expand, genius?

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 10. Do not use profanity in your posts and do not attempt to evade the autocensor.

 

[Dan O.]

Apparently Dan O doesn't understand that even in Italy everyone has the protection against self-incrimination, whether they are a defendant or a witness.

Apparently Alt-F4 doesn't know what self-incrimination^WP is. (Hint: What charge or penalty can be brought against Rudy Guede if he testifies?)