Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[snook1]

Do You ??

For the past week we have endlessly been hearing here about the *great* favorable impact for Amanda Knox that 'what some convicts *heard* another one say' will have in the Appeals ??

*Heard another convict say*......Hmmmmm

One of the upcoming Jailbirds is almost as honorable as McVeigh was recently described here, because one this star witness who *has something so significant for the Appeal* only beat a single child to death with a shovel before being *fully* convicted and incarcerated.

Is that what you 'meant to say'?

Hello Stint7, you really seems to be lost lately. Not only the hate towards Amanda Knox completely took you over, but also your ability to look at some issues in a non guilter way is seriously limited.

Imagine a scenario where Guede is in hospital and he tells his story to the nurse and a doctor. Who would have been called on the stand? The nurse and the doctor. Are you following? I know it's hard, after all, we're not young and oh-so-bright anymore, are we? Let's move on. Guede told his story while being in prison, it's a no brainer the inmates were called to the stand. They were there with him, you know, in jail.

Earthling asked why only the inmates heard the story and the guards, doctors etc didn't.Well, it's a no brainer either, they didn't beacuse Guede told this story to the inmates and not to the prison authorities. Simple as that.

 

[LondonJohn]

Was Mignini around at this point in order to notice the mark?

Yes, he was around from the afternoon of the 2nd onwards. He spent plenty of time at the cottage, including lots of time on the 2nd and 3rd when Knox was there with her neck clearly on display.

 

[LondonJohn]

1) Another example of your self acclaimed supernatural ability to read other human's minds is given appropriate zero amount of reverence.

2,3) Are we now asked to repeat the previously acknowledged by all greater than double digit IQ holders the existence of Appearance Counsellors to Defense teams ?
Is your difficulty determining 'how to start' a recurring personal problem for which you now solicit my help ?

5) I am saying what I said.
Defense Attorneys definitely have interest in obtaining testimony favorable to defendants. (mind reading not required nor appreciated)

* A cursory review of even a miniscule sample of the entire 50,000+ posts here would invalidate any possible personal significance of that completely off the wall irrelevant closing observation

1) No comment required

2,3) So you think that the prison authorities would allow a prisoner in their custody to be set down in front of a defence image consultant for a nice makeover before testifying? You're in utter dreamland. These witnesses will be taken from prison in a prison van straight to the holding cells in the court, and from there straight into the courtroom (probably in handcuffs) to testify. after their testimony and cross-examination, they will be placed straight back into the holding cells, and thence transported straight back to the prison.

5) I'm enlightened to see that you are saying what you are saying. We've cleared that one up then

 

[Alt+F4]

Once again, you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of the law.

If the "man who bashed a baby to death with a shovel" is lying when he said that Guede told him Knox and Sollecito weren't there (and if the other three inmates are also lying), then Guede should have no problem in standing before a court and saying one sentence: "I did not say this". Courts don't really tend to look fondly upon witnesses who deign not to "lower themselves" to respond to someone - particularly if that reason is solely to do with past crimes.....

What don't you understand about the fact that the failure of someone to respond to accusations against them says NOTHING about their guilt or innocence?

 

[LondonJohn]

What don't you understand about the fact that the failure of someone to respond to accusations against them says NOTHING about their guilt or innocence?

What don't you understand about the fact that the failure to respond to accusations says nothing about a defendant in his/her own criminal trial, but it says something about a witness in someone else's criminal trial? You should try doing some reading - it's fun!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness

http://warisacrime.org/node/19172

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_will_the_district_attorney_subpoena_an_unwilling_witness

 

[shuttlt]

Yes, he was around from the afternoon of the 2nd onwards. He spent plenty of time at the cottage, including lots of time on the 2nd and 3rd when Knox was there with her neck clearly on display.

Thanks

 

[Alt+F4]

What don't you understand about the fact that the failure to respond to accusations says nothing about a defendant in his/her own criminal trial, but it says something about a witness in someone else's criminal trial? You should try doing some reading - it's fun!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness

http://warisacrime.org/node/19172

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_will_the_district_attorney_subpoena_an_unwilling_witness

Wow, just wow. You have no idea what the difference is between refusal to testify and being declared a hostile witness (especially in a judicial system such as Italy's - combination of adversarial and inquisitorial methods). If you want a primer, just read the questions Amanda was asked when she took the stand in the originial trial.

 

[christianahannah]

Yes, he was around from the afternoon of the 2nd onwards. He spent plenty of time at the cottage, including lots of time on the 2nd and 3rd when Knox was there with her neck clearly on display.

I am not certain how long Mignini and Amanda would have been together on November 2 or 3. According to Amanda's appeal she was at the Questura on November 2 from 15:30 till 3:00 the next morning (add more time to arrive there, not sure how far it is from the cottage to the station). The next day she was back at the Questera at 14:45 for additional questioning until approximately 22:00.

I am not sure if she was or was not at the cottage on the 3rd and if so from what time and I do not know the time Mignini was there.

 

[Antony]

Well tell that to Amanda Knox's family. They are hoping for closing arguments in late July. They have made no mention of any other witnesses or evidence being heard beyond the DNA and the five convicts. I find it quite hard to believe that you think you know more about what's going on in this appeal than they do.

Are you going to answer my question as to what evidence will lead to the confirmed guilty verdicts, of which you have expressed such confidence?

 

[LondonJohn]

Wow, just wow. You have no idea what the difference is between refusal to testify and being declared a hostile witness (especially in a judicial system such as Italy's - combination of adversarial and inquisitorial methods). If you want a primer, just read the questions Amanda was asked when she took the stand in the originial trial.

Oh I have a very clear idea of the difference. And I am very familiar with the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure as well. I am fully cognisant of the fact that Guede can be compelled to appear, and can refuse to testify, and that if he does so, his refusal can be given weight by the court. And once again, you're failing to differentiate between a defendant (Knox) and a potential witness (Guede) - there's not much more I can do to help you, I'm afraid...

 

[LondonJohn]

I am not certain how long Mignini and Amanda would have been together on November 2 or 3. According to Amanda's appeal she was at the Questura on November 2 from 15:30 till 3:00 the next morning (add more time to arrive there, not sure how far it is from the cottage to the station). The next day she was back at the Questera at 14:45 for additional questioning until approximately 22:00.

I am not sure if she was or was not at the cottage on the 3rd and if so from what time and I do not know the time Mignini was there.

I believe that the photos of Knox in the powder blue sweater surrounded by police officers were taken on the 3rd. I would find it hard to believe that Knox and Mignini didn't encounter each other numerous times over those two days, since both spent time at the police HQ and at/outside the cottage.

 

[Alt+F4]

Are you going to answer my question as to what evidence will lead to the confirmed guilty verdicts, of which you have expressed such confidence?

It's the evidence from the first trial that won't be rebutted/re-examined in the appeal: time of death, the bathmat, Capezzali, Quintavalle, RS's computer, and the break in (or the faking of it). We've been told for months that these (along with the DNA) are the key pieces of evidence that will exonerate the pair.

Hellmann has determined that in June and July there is time to hear from five witnesses. Instead of any of the above mentioned who does the defense end up with? Inmates. It's my suspicion that due to scheduling conflicts the inmates are all they can get over the summer. Statements from Knox's family indicate they expect closing arguments after the DNA evidence is presented. Nothing from them indicates that further witnessess or evidence will be presented. Before the 40 day DNA delay Amanda expected to be released by the begining of this summer.

Another poster seems to think that the defense will give a very long closing argument in which they will explain away all the remaining evidence that was not re-examined in the appeal. Since nothing new was introduced into the appeal except for the DNA and Curatolo's testimony/bus people the defense has nothing new to say about anything else, as nothing else new was presented.

 

[shuttlt]

I believe that the photos of Knox in the powder blue sweater surrounded by police officers were taken on the 3rd. I would find it hard to believe that Knox and Mignini didn't encounter each other numerous times over those two days, since both spent time at the police HQ and at/outside the cottage.

This is one of the chief problems with unpicking the case on the Internet rather than in court. If we were the defence lawyers and we were somehow convinced that this was a crucial issue, we could put Mignini on the stand and ask him"do you think the mark is suspicious?" and "how come you didn't see the mark at the time?" Instead all we have is his unfollowed up responses from this crap CNN interview.

 

[shuttlt]

Another poster seems to think that the defense will give a very long closing argument in which they will explain away all the remaining evidence that was not re-examined in the appeal. Since nothing new was introduced into except for the DNA and Curatolo's testimony/bus people the defense has nothing new to say about anything else, as nothing else new was presented.

It could be that the defence have realized they were incompitent at the first trial and lost despite the evidence being in their favour. This is periodically claimed isn't it? If so, maybe they don't need new evidence, they just need to argue about it more effectively.

 

[Antony]

If there ARE tapes, they will essentially confirm Knox's account, and put the lie to the police's, I'd be willing to bet.

... which is why we will never see them.

 

[Alt+F4]

It could be that the defence have realized they were incompitent at the first trial and lost despite the evidence being in their favour. This is periodically claimed isn't it? If so, maybe they don't need new evidence, they just need to argue about it more effectively.

I'm certainly no legal expert, but if I were AK (and her parents) I would have asked my lawyers to handle certain aspects of the trial differently. Does this mean her defense was incompetent? I don't know.

Since I don't think anymore evidence or witnessess will be presented after the DNA evidence is I think you might be right, the defense has nothing more than try to argue against the original evidence more effectively. How are they going to do this though?

 

[Antony]

It's the evidence from the first trial that won't be rebutted/re-examined in the appeal: time of death, the bathmat, Capezzali, Quintavalle, RS's computer, and the break in (or the faking of it). We've been told for months that these (along with the DNA) are the key pieces of evidence that will exonerate the pair.

Hellmann has determined that in June and July there is time to hear from five witnesses. Instead of any of the above mentioned who does the defense end up with? Inmates. It's my suspicion that due to scheduling conflicts the inmates are all they can get over the summer. Statements from Knox's family indicate they expect closing arguments after the DNA evidence is presented. Nothing from them indicates that further witnessess or evidence will be presented. Before the 40 day DNA delay Amanda expected to be released by the begining of this summer.

Another poster seems to think that the defense will give a very long closing argument in which they will explain away all the remaining evidence that was not re-examined in the appeal. Since nothing new was introduced into the appeal except for the DNA and Curatolo's testimony/bus people the defense has nothing new to say about anything else, as nothing else new was presented.

OK - that sort of makes sense, in terms of why you believe that nothing significant has changed (without necessarily agreeing with the points you make). However, it appears to me that a big change is that the appeal judge is not showing the grotesque lack of impartiality exhibited by Massei in the first trial (and the motivations report). And others have pointed out that the Hellmann court will arrive at its verdict independently of the first trial.

So, not following the same approach and logic as Massei, how will the appeal court arrive at a guilty verdict with the certainty you express, and on the feeble evidence that remains?

 

[shuttlt]

I'm certainly no legal expert, but if I were AK (and her parents) I would have asked my lawyers to handle certain aspects of the trial differently. Does this mean her defense was incompetent? I don't know.

Since I don't think anymore evidence or witnessess will be presented after the DNA evidence is I think you might be right, the defense has nothing more than try to argue against the original evidence more effectively. How are they going to do this though?

An alternative is that they thought that quite a bit of the testimony at the original trial went OK, or at least could have gone worse. Why do it again and risk somebody saying something stupid where they didn't last time?

 

[RandyN]

Originally Posted by RandyN
[/b]



I have to agree with Fuji on this point.

Its exactly because there is zero evidence of AK or RS in the murder room that one can absolutely state that they were absent or never there. The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

LJ says...

"i would disagree with you on both point, FWIW. I don't think that zero evidence of Knox in the murder room (don't forget, there's currently the DNA on the bra clasp allegedly tying Sollecito to the room) is evidence that she wasn't there at the time of the murder. But that's actually of lesser importance in this criminal case. The important point is that the defence doesn't have to prove that Knox (or Sollecito) wasn't in the room at the time of the murder: it's entirely incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that she (and he) was there. So the absence of evidence in this area is damaging to the prosecution's burden of proof, but not fatal.

And in general terms, both you and Fuji are correct to say that the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" maxim is not always correct. But the circumstances when absence of evidence can be taken as evidence of absence are few and particular. I had actually alluded to such an example in an earlier post: if a concrete floor is poured at 10am, and it is examined at 10pm and found to have a pristine smooth surface, this is evidence that no human walked across that flooring between about 2pm (when the concrete would have started to set up) and 10pm. The maxim holds true in all but a small number of specific instances. The ground below Filomena's window is not one such instance.

In the case of the ground below Filomena's window, the prosecution has to show why the alleged (no photos apparently exist) "pristine" condition of the ground is somehow proof that nobody stood on that ground some 18 hours earlier. And it's worth noting that not only is this inference highly debatable, but also that the "crack" police don't even apparently have anything more than verbal testimony as to the condition of the ground on the afternoon of November 2nd in any case! In short, in the case of the ground underneath Filomena's window, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."


Well I have to agree 100% with LJ on this.

The ground under Filomena's window could absolutely be pristine and yet RG could have still easily broken out the window with the large rock. I can even "picture" it in my mind...well I guess I have to but anyway.

By the way...the father of the staged break-in is Marco Chiacchiera. He is the recently highly awarded officer who came to the wrong conclusion about the staged break-in instantly because the shutters were only open a gap of aprox 8 inches...I know I’m giving away my nationality...ok lets say X centimeters...and therefore it would be impossible to aim a rock of aprox 9 lbs or Y kilograms. thru said X because we all know that shutters never blow in the wind...well in really scary movies they do ...and burglars never partially close shutters to hide their activity....so therefore it must be staged... pissssttt lets not even mention that once the rock was launched and its mission completed it was not really necessary for anyone to use that wall as an entry...I know this always gets em goin...but maybe Meredith arrived shortly after the rock went thru but b4 the wall climb and so RG simply approached and expressed an immediate need to use a water closet...(now I got em guessin.)

Well, never mind that is preposterous...it actually sounds like something Mignini might dream up.

It does leave a pristine under story though

 

[Antony]

I'm certainly no legal expert, but if I were AK (and her parents) I would have asked my lawyers to handle certain aspects of the trial differently. Does this mean her defense was incompetent? I don't know.

Since I don't think anymore evidence or witnessess will be presented after the DNA evidence is I think you might be right, the defense has nothing more than try to argue against the original evidence more effectively. How are they going to do this though?

Tell us what you think the "original evidence" is, and I think many people here will be able to say how the defence can argue against it.