Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[zeb]

There is nothing

At this moment The prosecution has nothing.
No witnesses.
No DNA on the knife.
No bra clip.
And that's before we get to the computers? And whats on them.
then next on the list are the 5 prisoners, who are going to say that rudy was at the house by himself, the night of the murder.
I think the prisoners have a code, you can blame someone for stealing, you can blame someone for drugs, and so on, but you can not blame some one for murder and let them do your time, which in a nasty way, Rudy is doing.
I have just finnish reading the D Mail page on the trial, the comments bit, AK ,RS are guilty, is down to a cartwheel and a lie.
O well at lest we are, out of the stage brake in.
The media has done a lot of damage to these two young People.

 

[shuttlt]

Someone might have more, the quick look I just did only said she was with her boyfriend all night

I can't find the source, but if you look back on the thread she and her boyfriend apparantly attended a birthday party that night.

Yes, a dumb move, but it wasn't the murder weapon either.

Agreed.

So damned either way?

Not at all, it's just that the defendent saying "I didn't do it" or "I wasn't there" doesn't count for a whole lot either way. It's neither proof of guilt or innocence.

The first court believed Antonio Curatolo's testimony which put them near the scene of the crime at the time. It is yet to be seen in Hellmann's will, though reports of his testimony don't look good on that account.

It's not as if Curatolo was the only thing the prosecution claimed put them near the crime scene. The knife, the bra clasp, the footprints, the mixed blood... I know that many people feel that these have been discredited and I have no intention of defending them, but it's not as if the prosecution actually need somebody to have seen them outside the appartment when they say they were inside. If they can't prove they were inside, and one takes the position that the forensics show that they were there during the murder, then they clearly left the appartment.

True, but then you could say that for virtually any alibi.

Certainly, the question is whether it is believable that the people providing the alibi were all involved in the murder as well. If the police decided to claim that everyone at the party Filomena attended were at the crime scene together committing the murder, then Filomina saying "no they weren't we were all somewhere else at a party" and all the other people from the party saying "yes, yes it's true" doesn't get you very far.

As long as part of the case you put together is to show the person was at the scene, they could claim to have been at dinner with the President of the US and it wouldn't matter.

Necessarily they must be proved to have been at the scene, whether directly or indirectly. If they claim to have been at dinner with the President and he confirms it, then the proof that they were in fact at the crime scene had better be pretty compelling.

 

[platonov]

Calling all Lone Wolves - come in, your time is up.

New witnesses.

Well, well, well - what a to do.

After a goodly portion of ~ 50,000 posts were taken up with the nonsensical Lone Wolf = RG theory it appears [due to the supreme Court ruling or something ?] that the defence teams at any rate have given up on this idea - not that they ever appeared to put much stock in it.

Can we presume, or is that too much, that those who were posting this nonsense will now cease & desist ala Frank S but without the need for a court order.

I see the fatuous, even by the standards of cartland, argument that RS didn't say on Nov 5th that AK was out between 9 and 1 on the night of the murder but instead blah blah blah has made a recent comeback.

A further ~ X,000 repetitions of this should fill the 'Lone Wolf' gap if the cartwheel slows between now and the next court date.
Failing that the broken record of the 'DNA data not handed over' could be given another few spins.

Indeed, to borrow a recently used phrase, it now appears that MK might have been murdered by 'half of Italy' who somehow managed to leave no forensic traces ! [ So much for the TV line 'cant place her in the murder room' ]
As defence strategies go - I'm not so sure ?

Perhaps the defence are as incompetent (or in on the conspiracy) as the google experts argue.

Or perhaps, just perhaps, the weight of evidence, that some claim doesn't exist - preferring to fixate on 5th November mantras / CT's, is such that desperate measures are called for.

 

[Matthew Best]

The knife, the bra clasp, the footprints, the mixed blood...

There wasn't any.

 

[Chris C]

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?

Its not about his refusal to per say to testify. It would be his refusal to testify to deny what the inmates testify to. By default if he refuses to come to court and deny what the inmates say, then the court would most likely give more weight to their testimony than Guedes. This is not his murder trial. There are people saying(apparently more than 1, though I'll only believe that when its confirmed) he said Knox/Sollecito had nothing to do with the murder. If he doesn't come back to court to deny that he didn't say that or explain why he said it, then the court gets to accept that as his version of the events.

 

[shuttlt]

There wasn't any.

The knife, the bra clasp, the footprints, the mixed blood... I know that many people feel that these have been discredited and I have no intention of defending them.

 

[Matthew Best]

What is platonov on about now?

It would really help if he would write in English, instead of the mid-European waffle he currently utilises.

 

[Matthew Best]

The knife, the bra clasp, the footprints, the mixed blood... I know that many people feel that these have been discredited and I have no intention of defending them.

The difference is that the knife, the bra clasp and the footprints all actually existed, whereas the mixed blood didn't.

 

[shuttlt]

The difference is that the knife, the bra clasp and the footprints all actually existed, whereas the mixed blood didn't.

Is that the view taken by the prosecution? It's really not important.

 

[Chris C]

Because for AK and RS to be framed, which is what you guys are effectively claiming, would require a conspiracy of widespread proportions. It must just be me, but I find CTs hard to accept.

What part do supporters of Knox/Sollecito claim is a conspiracy? When you answer that question ask yourself is their evidence that the particular event/events happened.

For Example:

Did the Prosecutor use the media to bash Knox/Sollecito image? This is something that wasn't done on accident. This did happen and the prosecutor and his office actively used the media to help produce a favorable result in court. You can and deny this particular thing happened, but deep down you know it did happen. Since your defense against the argument that a conspiracy of widespread proportions didn't happen because you find it hard to believe doesn't really cut it. Maybe you could explain why it doesn't cut it.

 

[Matthew Best]

Is that the view taken by the prosecution? It's really not important.

I'll take that as a concession.

 

[shuttlt]

I'll take that as a concession.

You can, but that would be you imposing a reading on my words beyond what they actually contain.

 

[Matthew Best]

You can,

Thanks, I already did!

 

[Chris C]

You're kidding, aren't you? How many posts have there been in this thread claiming police and prosecution coercion, tampering with evidence, destroying evidence etc, etc. ? The conspiracy must include all police involved in the investigation and all involved in the prosecution, as well as forensic investigators, over a period of several years with not a single whistleblower. Given the often slanderous comments about the Italian police and legal system, this would require an amazing, iron-like discipline which these fools and dupes surely lack.

Police and Prosecution coercion: 12 interrogators, non official interpreter, no apparent taping of the interrogation due to budget reasons(yet they can pay 12 interrogators to drive from [Rome?] and pay them overtime), police saying they heard Knox screaming during the interrogation, denial of lawyer after request, knox claiming she was struck during interrogation, interrogators asking knox to imagine a scenario, the use of sleep depravation, some police saying knox came in on her own free will and another saying she was ordered to be brought in, multiple days of interrogation, threatening the suspect with jail time(yet claiming she isn't a suspect even though she is being threatened with 30 years in jail),

Sounds like coercion to me.


Tampering with evidence. How about surfing the internet on someones computer while he is being interrogated. Losing bra clasp. Allowing Filomena's computer to be removed from the room. I'm sure others can add to this list.


Destroying evidence. How many computers did the tech genius "accidently" screw up? Metal bra clasp stored in water?

Incompetence resulted in some of this. However, when the prosecutor/judge refuses to acknowledge that the investigators screwed up and give them medals. Then hold a party in their honor during the appeals. All that goes into conspiracy. Since they KNOWING allowed this to happen and used it against them anyway.

 

[Chris C]

And yet not one broke ranks? Imagine what the UK tabloids would pay?

Sorry, like most CTs, it's just wishful thinking.

Imagine what would happen to every one of them if one of them did break ranks? If one of them steps forward all of them could and probably would face jail time. Wasn't there a case in Italy were a suspect accidentially fell down the stairs and then hung his own dead body?

 

[Matthew Best]

Imagine what would happen to every one of them if one of them did break ranks?

Probably nothing. Did you see the link I posted earlier?

 

[shuttlt]

non official interpreter

This is new on me. There used to be complaints that she was a police interpreter - almost too official. Is there some claim that something underhanded was done in the choice of interpreter?

 

[Katody Matrass]

Presumably you in fact mean that the evidence now in the public domain is so compelling that you are able to make a judgement even without access to the case file?

Exactly!

More than that we can be pretty sure that none of the important elements of evidence are hidden from the public.
Recently the prosecutor Mignini himself had the opportunity to defend his case in an interview with CNN. In the unabridged version then is available he gave a fairly good compilation of the body of evidence for guilt. Interestingly I found that I'm familiar with basically every piece of that, to the extent that I can arrive at a rational opinion.

 

[Justinian2]

You might believe that, but it's not true, these things have been granted to you by society.

You would have these rights if you were the only man on earth. Society doesn't grant you rights, it only removes them. Maybe I should qualify that. Some socialistic societies grant you money and operations that would keep you alive when you should be dead of starvation or sickness. However, I would argue against even that by saying that those 'granted rights' aren't natural.

Natural rights are those things that would happen without society. Amanda has the natural right to be out of jail.

Cop roaches aren't natural either.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Its not about his refusal to per say to testify. It would be his refusal to testify to deny what the inmates testify to. By default if he refuses to come to court and deny what the inmates say, then the court would most likely give more weight to their testimony than Guedes. This is not his murder trial. There are people saying(apparently more than 1, though I'll only believe that when its confirmed) he said Knox/Sollecito had nothing to do with the murder. If he doesn't come back to court to deny that he didn't say that or explain why he said it, then the court gets to accept that as his version of the events.

It really does all depend on whether Alessi’s testimony is credible and what the others testify to, also let’s not forget the prosecutions questioning of the witnesses. In addition, whether Aviello testimony complements or contradicts Alessi and others, for varying reasons Guede, Alessi and Aviello all in my opinion have credibility issues.