Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

an appeal

Interesting. It seems then that RG knows how to play the system more than RS and AK. As for helping the courts in exchange for an earlier parole, that's the specific reason why inmate testimony shouldn't be trusted.

Do you think that consideration applies to the appeal witnesses?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

no grist for the CT mill (alt title: If the back door could talk)

Oh, you mean the murder case where the entire trial transcript is available online.

Alt+F4,

My point is not to argue Mr. Willingham's guilt or innocence in this forum. My point is that one can believe him to be innocent, yet not believe that there was a massive conspiracy out to get him. I think most of the actions of the Texas criminal justice system in this case can be explained as CYA (I wonder if the autocensor will catch this). It isn't pretty, but it isn't surprising, either.

 

[yeti101]

A friend of mine who has heard me discuss the case, prepared this representation of the evidence. For visual learners, this may be just what is needed.

the diagram doesn't include the defendants own idiotic responses to police questions. Or that knox was stupid enough to write down an untrue version of events

 

[LondonJohn]

Do you think that consideration applies to the appeal witnesses?

I strongly suspect that Alt+F4 hasn't given that point her *ahem* full consideration

But I look forward to her telling us all why these five inmates might think that testifying against the prosecution is going to help them get out of prison early....

 

[Alt+F4]

Do you think that consideration applies to the appeal witnesses?

What consideration? It was Kaosium who suggested, in post 9551:

Perhaps helping the courts with the case against Raffaele and Amanda would look good at these 'parole' hearings?

 

[LondonJohn]

Ok, good, you're finally starting to understand. Capezzali and Quintavalle aren't going to be recalled. There aren't going to be any new experts testifying regarding the time of death, the computer, the bathmat or the glass.

Why do you make definitive statements that are both wrong and unsupportable? Hellmann has specifically said he continues to reserve judgement on calling for additional new witness testimony or evidence, pending the delivery of the DNA report. So yes, Quintavalle, Capezzali, ToD, computer, bathmat and glass breakage witnesses could all be called up by Hellmann after June 30th. You don't know whether or not they will be called up, and neither do I. But it's factually incorrect to say that they won't be.

Since so little new information came out in the appeal, it will be based mostly on what came out in the first trial....and we all know how that ended.

You still don't understand this properly, I reckon. Firstly, the arguments are based on the evidence and testimony. Even if much of that evidence and testimony are the same as in the first trial, the arguments have the capability of being far stronger on the defence side. And I think they will be. And secondly, it's totally fallacious to suggest that "so little new information came out in the appeal". Already one of the prosecution's main witnesses has been effectively discredited due to his catastrophic testimony before Hellmann's court, and the DNA report (if leaks are to be believed) is not going to make pretty reading for the prosecution. I realise that you may have convinced yourself that nothing has changed so far in the appeal - but you are not convincing anyone else I'm afraid.

Again, you seem to think you know more about this case than Amanda herself (she's disappointed that this didn't end before summer started) and her family, who don't think it's impossible for the appeal to be determined before August 1.

I don't think it's impossible for the appeal to conclude before the start of August either (I posted earlier about that). However, I think it might be wishful thinking on behalf of Knox's team. As I pointed out already, the argument phase of the first trial took around three weeks, so if the argument phase of the appeal trial takes a similar length, it would have to start around ten days into July. Since the DNA report is only going to be delivered to the court on around June 30th - and since Hellmann may rule on additional witness testimony or evidence following the receipt of the report, I would imagine that it's unlikely that opening arguments will be able to start as soon as July 10th. And if opening arguments only start in mid-to-late July, then the court will almost certainly take an August recess, and reconvene in mid-September.

 

[Alt+F4]

But I look forward to her telling us all why these five inmates might think that testifying against the prosecution is going to help them get out of prison early....

I never said that, Kaosium suggested that might be the case. What do you think is motivating them? Altruism maybe?

 

[pilot padron]

'Per chance' a cite or two is in order

Guede received a mitigation for remorse due to his saying he was sorry he didn't save her, without admitting any wrongdoing. That wasn't appealed by the prosecution, which did appeal Raffaele and Amanda's sentence because of a dirty look, a noise ticket and a pot charge.

Although again, since you are on the 'Home Team', there is the notable absence of the usual knee jerk deafening crescendo of catcalls for documentation and/or unsolicited grammar epistles that usually results when the other team says anything in any way controversial like: "The sun is shining somewhere"

So with that obviously biased based deficiency understod, would you mind either:

a) documenting your 'statement' that: "a dirty look, noise ticket, and pot charge were the reason that the Prosecution appealed Amanda and Raffie's sentences"
2) or correcting
3) or making your intended and suspected sarcasm a bit clearer for 'men of the earth' unaccustomed to discussion techniques to include incredibly unbelievable superhuman mind reading skills self claimed by others who prolifically argue here

BTW
If I had even hinted at 'pot charge' ,can you imagine the immediate melee of moaning and groaning that would ensue here?
For general interest of the other team, however, please do document the origins of that one. It may come in handy when rebutting 'meant to say' based arguments.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

unreal

the diagram doesn't include the defendants own idiotic responses to police questions. Or that knox was stupid enough to write down an untrue version of events

Everyone's an art critic. Ms. Knox was smart enough to convey that what she saw was more of a vision and to note her confusion about what was and was not real. This should have been enough to suggest its unreliability.

 

[LondonJohn]

Incidentally, here is a very short primer on how a criminal trial actually works (since Alt+F4 doesn't seem to know, and maybe others don't either):

A criminal trial is essentially split into five main constituent parts, which take place in the following chronological sequence:

1) Opening statements: the prosecution and the defence both address the court, and outline the case that each side proposes to present.

2) Evidence presentation and witness testimony: The prosecution enters items into evidence, and calls its witnesses to the stand. The defence has the right to cross-examine witnesses, and in Italian criminal trials the juddicial panel has the right to cross-examine witnesses directly as well. When the prosecution has called all its witnesses, the defence enters its own evidence and calls its own witnesses, again with the prosecution and court able to cross-examine. Neither party is allowed to argue the case during this phase.

3) Opening/closing arguments: The prosecution presents its arguments for the guilt of the defendants, based upon the evidence and testimony from the previous phase of the trial. The defence presents a rebuttal argument - usually arguing for at least reasonable doubt - again based on the evidence and testimony previously introduced. The prosecution then has a final argument in which it can rebut the defence's points.

4) Jury deliberation and verdict: The jury (judicial panel in Italy) retires to consider the arguments of both sides, and - in Italy - to construct its own arguments based on the evidence and testimony as well. It then returns and delivers a verdict.

5) Sentencing: The lead judge will pronounce the sentence, based upon the verdict and upon other mitigating factors such as prior offences, remorse, or special circumstances related to the crime.


Hope that helps!

 

[LondonJohn]

I never said that, Kaosium suggested that might be the case. What do you think is motivating them? Altruism maybe?

And that's the point. What is motivating them? If you're suggesting (as I think you have done in the past) that their primary motivation is to get a nice trip in a prison van, to see the inside of another holding cell and courtroom, and to be reported in the newspapers, then I suggest that you might be wrong.

Personally, the main reason that I can see as to why Alessi and the three corroborators might want to testify is that Guede did indeed say these things to Alessi, in the presence of the other three prisoners. Aviello's reasoning is a little harder to figure out. Either he's telling the truth, or he has a grudge against his brother, or he wants to feel powerful again. I'm sure we'll soon find out whether the first of these is correct.

As I've said before, one potential motivation for all the inmates to testify against the prosecution is that they want to take the opportunity to "get their own back" on the authorities that put them into prison. That's a possible and feasible reason. But I would say that the presence of the three alleged corroborators in the case of Alessi, in particular, would tend to minimise the possibility of this being the reason.

 

[yeti101]

Everyone's an art critic. Ms. Knox was smart enough to convey that what she saw was more of a vision and to note her confusion about what was and was not real. This should have been enough to suggest its unreliability.

"visions" i thought it was implanted memories or something? this is the problem not being able to give a clear & coherent account puts you in trouble.

Its like an extension of the Darwin awards. If someone is stupid enough during a murder investigation to do that they almost deserve to be in prison. Same with raph and the speed of his capitulation & excuses when told about dna on the knife. If they are innocent they're 2 of the most stupid people on earth. Will we really miss them?

 

[Kaosium]

RoseMontague,

Thanks for bringing a bunch of Mignini's comments together. It has quite a cumulative effect.

It's just a target-rich environment, isn't it? I'm sure I ought to make allowances for the fact he's probably never faced an adversarial interview on TV in his life, but geez...

I especially like the one about the 'wound.' He has a misremembering by Laura on tape somewhere, thus he seems to think he can get away with completely ignoring the pictures and the fact she was examined thoroughly in prison, thus 'proving' there was a wound. What do you suppose we will see from the likes of some on this issue? I betcha it's powerpoint presentations showing the hickey, now having become a festering open wound to some symbolically marking her guilt like the cold sore was during her trial, can't be seen from the angle of the trophy pic! There will be angles drawn on the picture proving it, and tables eliminating the possibility anyone ever saw it! She just kept her head down the whole time and during her interrogation, just like Quintavalle said--corroboration even! Absolute proof she actually had a wound on her.

What do you want to bet there's no record of her examination in the prison? They don't keep them that long due to budgetary reasons!

 

[LondonJohn]

"visions" i thought it was implanted memories or something? this is the problem not being able to give a clear & coherent account puts you in trouble.

Its like an extension of the Darwin awards. If someone is stupid enough during a murder investigation to do that they almost deserve to be in prison. Same with raph and the speed of his capitulation- if they are innocent theyre 2 of the most stupid people on earth. Will we really miss them?

Do you have the impression that Knox and Sollecito were both sitting around twiddling their thumbs when they decided to introduce these garbled "confessions/accusations"?

Do you not believe that they had given an unchanged account of their whereabouts on the evening/night of the 1st/2nd (that they were both at Sollecito's apartment from around 6.30pm until around 10am the following morning) during their multiple hours of questioning by the police between November 2nd and 5th?

Do you not believe that the police might have told Sollecito that they now had solid evidence implicating Knox in the murder, and that he might have believed them? Do you not think that this is what might have made him agree with the police that Knox might have been able to leave his apartment without his knowledge while he was sleeping?

Do you not believe that Knox might then have been confronted by the police with the news that Sollecito had stopped supporting her alibi (only very partially and semantically true, but Knox wasn't to know that), and that the police had firm evidence of her presence at the murder scene? Do you not believe that the police might have told Knox that they "knew" she had met up with Lumumba that evening (viz the misinterpreted text message), and that they'd gone together to the cottage? Do you not believe that the police might have managed to convince Knox that she was experiencing a memory block about the events of that night, owing to the traumatic and horrific nature of the crime? Do you not believe that the police might have convinced Knox to "remember" that Lumumba had committed the murder, while she played no active role in it? Do you not believe that the police might not have suggested (either overtly or subliminally) to Knox that if she "remembered" this version of events, she'd be essentially off the hook - since she was implicating Lumumba in the murder but not herself? Do you not believe that the police might have suggested to Knox that a "rememberance" would enable the police to protect her against Lumumba, whom the police had convinced her was a dangerous sexual murderer?


And you believe that none of the above could EVER happen to you, especially if you were young and naive, in a foreign country, with no family and no proper friends around?

 

[yeti101]

Do you have the impression that Knox and Sollecito were both sitting around twiddling their thumbs when they decided to introduce these garbled "confessions/accusations"?

Do you not believe that they had given an unchanged account of their whereabouts on the evening/night of the 1st/2nd (that they were both at Sollecito's apartment from around 6.30pm until around 10am the following morning) during their multiple hours of questioning by the police between November 2nd and 5th?

Do you not believe that the police might have told Sollecito that they now had solid evidence implicating Knox in the murder, and that he might have believed them? Do you not think that this is what might have made him agree with the police that Knox might have been able to leave his apartment without his knowledge while he was sleeping?

Do you not believe that Knox might then have been confronted by the police with the news that Sollecito had stopped supporting her alibi (only very partially and semantically true, but Knox wasn't to know that), and that the police had firm evidence of her presence at the murder scene? Do you not believe that the police might have told Knox that they "knew" she had met up with Lumumba that evening (viz the misinterpreted text message), and that they'd gone together to the cottage? Do you not believe that the police might have managed to convince Knox that she was experiencing a memory block about the events of that night, owing to the traumatic and horrific nature of the crime? Do you not believe that the police might have convinced Knox to "remember" that Lumumba had committed the murder, while she played no active role in it? Do you not believe that the police might not have suggested (either overtly or subliminally) to Knox that if she "remembered" this version of events, she'd be essentially off the hook - since she was implicating Lumumba in the murder but not herself? Do you not believe that the police might have suggested to Knox that a "rememberance" would enable the police to protect her against Lumumba, whom the police had convinced her was a dangerous sexual murderer?


And you believe that none of the above could EVER happen to you, especially if you were young and naive, in a foreign country, with no family and no proper friends around?

i believe when your innocent its easy to give an account & stick to because its the truth. Lamumba didn't have any problems- no false memories or "visions" I imagine the pressure he was under was far greater.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

These Dreams

"visions" i thought it was implanted memories or something? this is the problem not being able to give a clear & coherent account puts you in trouble.

Its like an extension of the Darwin awards. If someone is stupid enough during a murder investigation to do that they almost deserve to be in prison. Same with raph and the speed of his capitulation & excuses when told about dna on the knife. If they are innocent they're 2 of the most stupid people on earth. Will we really miss them?

Ms. Knox was reasonable clear both before and after the interrogations of 5-6 November. Your unwillingness to consider the possibility that Ms. Knox made a coerced false statement is noted. The choice of the word "visions" is my own, and it was based upon some of the passages I highlighted below, which come from Ms. Knox's statement of 6 November.

"However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked."

 

[Kaosium]

A friend of mine who has heard me discuss the case, prepared this representation of the evidence. For visual learners, this may be just what is needed.

LOL! The nexus of where the corrupt meets the incompetent!

What subtlety in the title too, not unlike others...

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Norfolk Four and false statements

i believe when your innocent its easy to give an account & stick to because its the truth. Lamumba didn't have any problems- no false memories or "visions" I imagine the pressure he was under was far greater.

And you explanation for the Norfolk Four is what? Your explanation for Karl Fontenot is what?

 

[Kaosium]

What consideration? It was Kaosium who suggested, in post 9551:

It was just me practicing a 'nasty suspicious mind.' I'm looking for guilt now, it should come in handy. I want to make some bacon bits!

 

[LondonJohn]

Ms. Knox was reasonable clear both before and after the interrogations of 5-6 November. Your unwillingness to consider the possibility that Ms. Knox made a coerced false statement is noted. The choice of the word "visions" is my own, and it was based upon some of the passages I highlighted below, which come from Ms. Knox's statement of 6 November.

"However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked."

And it's worth remembering that only this statement - Knox's written statement from the late morning of the 6th November (the so-called "gift") - was admissible as evidence against her in the criminal trial. The other statements (verbal and written) made on November 5th/6th were given without access to legal counsel, and were correctly deemed inadmissible by the Supreme Court*.

The only statement that the first judicial panel should have considered, and the only one that the appeal trial will consider, is this "gift" one. And, as you say, Knox is already writing in this statement that she now doesn't believe the dreamlike scenario that the police are telling her took place, and that she now believes - as before - that she was in fact at Sollecito's apartment all night. She writes that she still finds it hard to reconcile her firm assertion that she was at Sollecito's place with the police telling her that they have solid evidence she was at the murder scene (she clearly hasn't suspected that the police are lying to her in this matter). All-in-all, the "gift" statement is, at worst, only very marginally self-implicating, and it's arguably actually supportive of her innocence.

* However, as we've discussed many times before, the judicial panel in the first criminal trial still got to hear these statements, owing to the inexplicable and potentially unlawful decision to hear the Lumumba civil case (in which the earlier statements were admissible) in the midst of the criminal trial.