Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Katody Matrass]

To preclude repetitions of the erroneous 'swift retreat' charge , while continuing to respect the Membership Agreement, please take note that a polite PM was sent in reply to the above... 'argument'.

You're hurting me. I offer you a sincere advice and praise your watchfulness only to be rejected in such a cold way. Your finding that Dr. Hampikian so blatantly overstepped the geographical limits of his organization, criminally misusing the taxpayers money is one of the most important recent developments. I honestly think the best action you all can take is an epistolary one, by mobilizing either of the cute bunnies forums. It wouldn't be hard knowing their great attention to Dr. Hampikian's exploits.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The times they are a changin'

1) Surely your knowledge of the case precludes you insinuating some significance in this argument to Knox's residence of record

2) Surely your research abilities documented by post graduate degrees would preclude you from not noticing *in the text and URL* that the criteria for IIP is where the *conviction* took place.
There is indeed no mention of residence in the clearly stated here (twice) IIP criteria.

3) Therefore the catchy title and implied significance of the distance from Birmingham or Boise to Seattle leaves me underwhelmed, unimpressed, and in fact somewhat lowers my esteem for the research/reading skills of the person who proffered it.

4) I am equally skeptical that as closely as you follow this case you imply you have not seen widely circulated pictures of a clowning Mellas enjoying what looks like lunch with a smiling Dr Hampikian in what has been stated to be Perugia.
Therefore, your denial of 'association' (without parsing please) is also incorrect and enforces my above lowered esteem

pilot,

The lowering of esteem is mutual, I am afraid. I have myself used the very same photograph to demonstrate (indirectly) that Dr. Hampkian did have a role in this case. That used to be a point of contention (my how times have changed) However, the existence of this photograph does not in any way, shape, or form, indicate that Mr. Mellas and Dr. Hampikian knew each other prior to the murder. In my view you are still invoking retrocausality. Please bear in mind that the IIP has worked on this case for some time, and during a portion of that time they revised their website, and the Knox case was temporarily not listed.

Your argument above is a distortion of my position, which is that the Knox/Sollecito case was in danger of falling through the cracks, without the involvment of the IIP. If you really feel as strongly about this issue, I suggest that you write a letter to the Idaho Innocence Project stating your views, along with your suggestion of which innocence project should be taking up this case. May I also suggest donations to the Oregon Innocence Project, which might be undergoing financial difficulties at the moment and is not accepting new cases.

Perhaps a better question is the distance from Boise to Milwaukee, inasmuch as the IIP has recently cleared Robert Lee Stinson: "Hampikian estimates he's received about 200 letters in last three or four years requesting his help. Right now he and his team are working on 12 cases in Idaho and another two dozen from across the country. For more information on this volunteer organization and the people they've set free, visit this link: http://www.idahoinnocenceproject.org/"

 

[HumanityBlues]

1) Surely your knowledge of the case precludes you insinuating some significance in this argument to Knox's residence of record

2) Surely your research abilities documented by post graduate degrees would preclude you from not noticing *in the text and URL* that the criteria for IIP is where the *conviction* took place.
There is indeed no mention of residence in the clearly stated here (twice) IIP criteria.

3) Therefore the catchy title and implied significance of the distance from Birmingham or Boise to Seattle leaves me underwhelmed, unimpressed, and in fact somewhat lowers my esteem for the research/reading skills of the person who proffered it.

4) I am equally skeptical that as closely as you follow this case you imply you have not seen widely circulated pictures of a clowning Mellas enjoying what looks like lunch with a smiling Dr Hampikian in what has been stated to be Perugia.
Therefore, your denial of 'association' (without parsing please) is also incorrect and enforces my above lowered esteem

OMG Pilot, you've really shown the Innocence Project what's what! Hampikian is working on the case, but OH WAIT, the Idaho Innocence Project's policy is to take cases near Idaho. Dun dun DUN! This is a scandal of the HIGHEST order.

Eating lunch with Amanda's stepfather! SCANDAL! They are in pictures together! Don't you see?!?! They are probably plotting the next new world order!

 

[babycondor]

Just an opinion, humbly proffered.

...
2) Secondly, I personally strongly feel that Dr Hampikian has allowed either his associations with Mellas or other considerations to distort his value judgements.
As Director, he has taken the Idaho Innocence Project (IIP)* veering into the Knox/Sollecito conviction.
This is an area the IIP was specifically never intended to go, and which its contributors, both voluntary and taxpayer and its volunteers apparently had little if any published consent.

This because Amanda Knox's/Raffaele Sollecito's conviction was about 5,000 miles from Idaho.
And even a PhD would have problems parsing that as being 'near' Idaho

From IIP website Idaho Innocence Project

Idaho Innocence Project
Submitting a Case
Our Criteria
Your conviction occurred in or near Idaho.
http://innocenceproject.boisestate.edu/instructions/

....

However, Dr Hampikian's apparently allowing little other than personal friendship to directly contradict the clearly stated criteria of a charitably and taxpayer supported organization is indeed unique.
Furthermore, this misapplication in my opinion is personally distasteful and certainly not worthy of praise about his 'standing'.

This questionably motivated and obviously less than admirable decision by Dr Hampikian may also justifiably affect how history views Dr Hampikian's 'standing in the case'.
It certainly unfavorably affected mine.

...

From the Idaho Innocence Project home page:

"Part of our unique mission is assisting other projects across the United States and abroad on DNA issues."

As the director of the organization, Dr. Hampikian's decisions regarding the direction taken by the organization are entirely appropriate. How do you know that he allowed "little other than personal friendship" to influence his decision to assist the Knox/Sollecito defense? (Can you read minds?) How do you know that his decision wasn't approved by the officers of his organization? (Did you attend the board meetings? Read the minutes?)

Although as initially envisioned, the scope of their work may have been confined to Idaho cases, and their criteria for submitting a case still indicate that the conviction should have occurred in Idaho, I see no logical or humanitarian reason why they should not expand their work to include helping other innocence projects. If volunteers and/or contributors have a problem with that, they are free to withdraw their support.

 

[Alt+F4]

Your argument above is a distortion of my position, which is that the Knox/Sollecito case was in danger of falling through the cracks, without the involvment of the IIP.

Might I ask, what exactly is the IIP and Dr. Hampikian doing for the defense? Are they consulting with the defense's Italian DNA experts? Does the defense want Dr. Hampikian to testify?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA experts

Might I ask, what exactly is the IIP and Dr. Hampikian doing for the defense? Are they consulting with the defense's Italian DNA experts? Does the defense want Dr. Hampikian to testify?

Alt+F4,

From memory, the defense asked the appeals court to allow certain DNA experts to testify, but the court instead asked the two independent experts from Rome to look over the DNA profiling. I am not aware that the names of the defense's experts were made public. It would be natural to assume that Dr. Hampikian was one of them, given his association with the open letter of 19 November 2009 and subsequent activities. However, that is speculation only. What I would like to know is whether or not the two Roman DNA experts are allowed to share the raw data with the defense's experts.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Neither can I but do you know who can? The defense. Their super witnesses, the five inmates, are going to swear that all sorts of criminals committed the murder. These must be magical drug dealers and mafiosos types because the managed to commit the murder and leave no detectable traces of themselves.

Neither can you.
AFAIK all of them apart from Aviello are going to relate what Guede said to them. I think the important part is that he claimed AK and RS were not there.

I wonder why the defense didn’t get Nara Capazelli as one of their summer witnesses? According to Candace Dempsey she’s deaf, crazy and hasn’t left her house in a decade.
Shut-ins generally don’t have scheduling conflicts. Five minutes on the stand and the ear witness would be discredited. Just ask her about her hearing and mental health history. Hmmm, makes me think the spin we’ve heard that has been trying to discredit the prosecution witnesses might not be true.

Maybe, maybe not. IIRC it was what her family said about her. Surely Frank don't agree with it, but he thinks what she did testify has little value for the prosecution. I agree.

 

[Antony]

The original evidence is everything presented at the first trial except for the DNA evidence, Curatolo's testimony, and those of the disco/disco bus people.

Sorry, can you be specific? My question was: what is the evidence that in your judgement will lead to the appeal being refused? I'm asking you to list the items of evidence, and why in combination they prove guilt. "Everything presented at the trial, except ..." doesn't answer the question.

I'm sure many people here will be able to say how the defense can argue against the original evidence. The problem now for those who believe in innocence is that it seems that the defense isn't going to argue against any of this original evidence with new evidence and/or witnesses.

Actually, even without new evidence, the defence will win the appeal if the hearings are conducted fairly. The prosecution never proved its case in the first trial; the verdict was unsupportable. Most of the original "evidence", weak and flawed as it was, has already been dismantled in any case.

 

[lane99]

If you listen to machavelli there are tapes but...

There probably are no tapes...not anymore anyway.

If I recall correctly, and that is the same poster who would still insist Knox is guilty even if the crime was caught on tape and she was nowhere to be seen on it, then, in short, and with regard to whether or not I'd listen to him on the subject of tapes: I wouldn't.

At any rate, you could be right that there aren't any. And, if not, I'd guess the cops are not at all displeased by that.

 

[Alt+F4]

Alt+F4,

From memory, the defense asked the appeals court to allow certain DNA experts to testify, but the court instead asked the two independent experts from Rome to look over the DNA profiling. I am not aware that the names of the defense's experts were made public. It would be natural to assume that Dr. Hampikian was one of them, given his association with the open letter of 19 November 2009 and subsequent activities. However, that is speculation only. What I would like to know is whether or not the two Roman DNA experts are allowed to share the raw data with the defense's experts.

Ah, ok, thanks. The two Roman experts you are referring to are Conti and Vecchiotti, yes?

 

[Alt+F4]

Most of the original "evidence", weak and flawed as it was, has already been dismantled in any case.

Who dismantled it? People on the Internet? The appeals court has only addressed three pieces of evidence presented in the first trial: DNA on the knife, DNA on the bra clasp and Curatolo's testimony. Yes, Hellmann may choose to revisit other evidence after the DNA report is given but as a few posters mentioned, this would (depending on how much he allows) push the verdict back until late autumn. One person even suggested the appeal to drag into 2012.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

afffirmative

Ah, ok, thanks. The two Roman experts you are referring to are Conti and Vecchiotti, yes?

Yes, that is correct.

 

[Antony]

Who dismantled it? People on the Internet? The appeals court has only addressed three pieces of evidence presented in the first trial: DNA on the knife, DNA on the bra clasp and Curatolo's testimony.

Err ... that was most of the prosecution "evidence". What's left?

You're just avoiding my question, and it's obvious to anyone reading this. If all you can say is "the evidence of the original trial", without ever stating what that "evidence" is, then it will be seen that your confidence of a second "guilty" verdict is an article of faith, rather than rationality.

 

[Mary_H]

i was 2 years younger than knox when the police did the same to me. Maybe i have superhuman powers of recollection or interrogation resistance? It's possible my own experience makes me biased against AK & RS.

They may be innocent but in my view they're partly responsible for the situation they're in so I don't have much sympathy.

There is no doubt thousands of people have been interrogated by police and not confessed to being involved in crimes. There are all kinds of people and all kinds of situations. In the end, none of us knows what actually happened, so judging Amanda and Raffaele for capitulating is kind of like judging the victims of the tornado in Joplin. Why didn't they survive, when the majority of residents did?

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>However, Dr Hampikian's apparently allowing little other than personal friendship to directly contradict the clearly stated criteria of a charitably and taxpayer supported organization is indeed unique.
Furthermore, this misapplication in my opinion is personally distasteful and certainly not worthy of praise about his 'standing'.

This questionably motivated and obviously less than admirable decision by Dr Hampikian may also justifiably affect how history views Dr Hampikian's 'standing in the case'.
It certainly unfavorably affected mine.<snip>

Is it safe to say that those who promote a verdict of guilt have unfavorable views of anyone who promotes a case for innocence?

How history will view this case and all of those involved in it is a very interesting topic, pilot. If Amanda and Raffaele are acquitted, how do you think history will view those on each side? How do you think the guilters will feel, and what do you think they will do?

 

[Kaosium]

Forgive me from going several pages back but somebody asked about the prosecution's appeal (asking for a longer sentence). Catnip's summary remains the only detailed examination on this that I have seen.

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org./viewtopic.php?p=55733&sid=c8b49845b4d4f1d75d46aa3b62769af2#p55733

Thank you Rose!

I knew I'd seen it somewhere, but nothing came to mind as to where I might find it again. I see it was a 'cold tone' as opposed to a 'dirty look' or whatever I said. Apologies, Pilot.

 

[Fuji]

The police failed to take documenting photos.

Again, the same unfounded - and frankly preposterous - claim.

They would have been given to Ron Hendry to use in his breakin analysis if they existed.

Why?

 

[Fuji]

Such a stance is not a prerequisite to reaching the top of the lower window when one can traverse laterally from the porch to the top bar of the lower window grate. This had been posted previously.

I remember this claim. Ridiculous then, ridiculous now.

"not a prerequisite" != "not likely"

 

[Fuji]

Massei is making a lot of claims here that the defense has no real chance to defend against because the police failed to properly document the very things they are claiming.

Then why is the defense not arguing this in front of Hellmann, specifically in regard to the condition of the ground underneath Filomena's window?

 

[Fuji]

Show me where Massei says at any point that indeed what Gioia Brocci testified to is clear to be seen in the photos entered in the evidence file. How is Chris suppose to prove something doesn't exist. It would be easier for you to prove these outside photos do exist. Surely they are mentioned in the Massei and Micheli report as they would be important backup evidence of a staged breakin. Perhaps you could supply Chris with the page numbers to satisfy him that he was mistaken?

Show me the provenance of any photograph of Filomena's shutters other than the one explicitly cited in Massei pp. 48-50.