Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
RWVBWL said:
Besides that hickey, there was not any type of bruises or cuts on Amanda Knox. What does that tell you?

What about Raffaele Sollecito?
Well he did not have any cuts nor bruises either.
What does that tell you?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The lack of defensive wounds on some (or all) of the accused in a group attack is hardly exculpatory.
 
LondonJohn said:
I seriously can't believe that you still cannot grasp the concept that the appeal trial is not limited to the areas in which Hellmann has allowed for new evidence and testimony.
Click to expand...

I seriously can't believe that you cannot grasp the concept that there is no way that in regard to a single criminal incident with a shared investigation, the court system will ever find that the murder was committed simultaneously by one/more-than-one attacker, and that entry was simultaneously forced/not-forced.
 
Onofarar said:
FYI - Charlie Wilkes chose not to return after the "Groundhog Day Massacre" where he and several others (including yours truly) were suspended for various periods and two posters were permanently banned. Charlie does post in the Public Discussion Forum at IIP. You might seek him out there and return with what you learn.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but no thanks. If Charlie wishes to communicate with me, he can certainly do so through Bruce, who obviously closely follows the discussion here.
 
Katody Matrass said:
Interestingly you dismissed much of the evidence prosecution held as most important. The knife, the clasp, the credibilissimo Toto, the DNA.
Click to expand...

Are you like LJ and only want to discuss the "safety of the convictions", or do you want to argue whether they are actually guilty?

I could do either, but I will not abide switching between the two for the sake of rhetorical convenience.
 
Fuji said:
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?
Click to expand...


Probably because the argument phase of the appeal trial hasn't started yet. It's just a wild guess, I know, but..........
 
Holy Carp, yawl have way moar posts that the DWFTTW thread!

Keep it up!

Bravo!!!!

(was she guilty?)
 
Dan O. said:
This meme keeps being repeated. Do all of the "Guilt Believers" really believe that Italian justice is so perverted that it would allow facts to be established against a defendant in a trial where that defendant cannot present a defense?
Click to expand...

Knox and Sollecito can certainly present any defense they like. However, given the findings of the Cassation Court in regard to Guede, they're not going to get any traction with arguments that depend upon Guede breaking in alone.
 
Naturally

Bilbo said:
Holy Carp, yawl have way moar posts that the DWFTTW thread!

Keep it up!

Bravo!!!!

(was she guilty?)
Click to expand...


Naturally - there is only 1 humber (with a couple of sidekicks) in the humberverse.

Cartwheel world, however, has several 'scientists' whose arguments are of the same calibre :)

(yes)
 
Last edited:
Fuji said:
Are you like LJ and only want to discuss the "safety of the convictions", or do you want to argue whether they are actually guilty?

I could do either, but I will not abide switching between the two for the sake of rhetorical convenience.
Click to expand...


If what you mean by "guilty" here is "truly involved in the murder", then you're correct in thinking that I don't want to get into a philosophical discussion on that front. Because in the absence of evidence that proves their involvement beyond a reasonable doubt, the only people alive who know this for sure are Knox and Sollecito themselves - and probably also Guede.

To be perfectly frank, I believe that if this the first trial were being judged by the civil standard (balance of probability) rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, Knox and Sollecito might have correctly been found guilty in the that trial. That's because the DNA evidence appeared to be fairly powerful evidence in that trial, and because the defence teams didn't manage to successfully refute the testimony of Curatolo, Capezzali and Quintavalle. Of course I believe they should never have been found guilty using the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the developments so far in the appeal trial would lead me to believe that Knox and Sollecito should not only be found not guilty by the criminal standard (the only one that matters in this trial), but that hypothetically speaking they should not even be found guilty on the balance of probability.

I'm glad and proud that I live in a society where people are only (in theory, at least) convicted of criminal acts if it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that they committed these acts. If Fuji wants to go and live in a society where people can be convicted and locked away for long periods of time because they "probably" did it, then he's very welcome to go to most failing states or police-state dictatorships - I'm sure he'd enjoy life there immensely, especially if he's ever accused of a crime.
 
Fuji said:
Knox and Sollecito can certainly present any defense they like. However, given the findings of the Cassation Court in regard to Guede, they're not going to get any traction with arguments that depend upon Guede breaking in alone.
Click to expand...
And you think this is fair? When neither Amanda nor Raffaele had any representation in rudy's trials.
 
Fuji said:
Knox and Sollecito can certainly present any defense they like. However, given the findings of the Cassation Court in regard to Guede, they're not going to get any traction with arguments that depend upon Guede breaking in alone.
Click to expand...


Totally incorrect. Ask a lawyer to help you.
 
Fuji said:
I seriously can't believe that you cannot grasp the concept that there is no way that in regard to a single criminal incident with a shared investigation, the court system will ever find that the murder was committed simultaneously by one/more-than-one attacker, and that entry was simultaneously forced/not-forced.
Click to expand...

But why not? They have already found that Meredith was killed at both 10 p.m. and 11:30 p.m.
 
Fuji said:
I seriously can't believe that you cannot grasp the concept that there is no way that in regard to a single criminal incident with a shared investigation, the court system will ever find that the murder was committed simultaneously by one/more-than-one attacker, and that entry was simultaneously forced/not-forced.
Click to expand...

You really don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the relationship between the rulings on Guede and the potential findings of fact in the Knox/Sollecito case.

And in any case, all that Hellmann's court has to find is whether it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Knox and Sollecito were involved in the murder. If there's reasonable doubt as to their participation, this does not even have to mean that Guede necessarily acted alone. Indeed, Hellmann's court could even reach the conclusion that Knox and Sollecito might have been involved, but that there's far too little evidence to find them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (although I personally don't think there's even enough evidence for such a "balance of probabilities" argument).

I repeat, the only job of Hellmann's court is to find whether there is sufficient evidence that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are guilty of participation in the murder of Meredith Kercher. The only evidence that the court will use is that which is presented to it in the trial. It will not use (or be allowed to use) the rulings from Guede's trial.
 
katy_did said:
But why not? They have already found that Meredith was killed at both 10 p.m. and 11:30 p.m.
Click to expand...


Don't worry. Fuji doesn't know what he's talking about in this regard.

And of course you're right that the two courts found for two different (and contradictory) times of death of the same victim. And that's perfectly proper and acceptable - only Fuji doesn't understand that (nor, it seems, does he want to understand...).
 
'Le jour de gloire est arrivé!'

platonov said:
Naturally - there is only 1 humber (with a couple of sidekicks) in the humberverse.

Cartwheel world, however, has several 'scientists' whose arguments are of the same calibre :)

(yes)
Click to expand...

Platonov, did you miss the post about the computer alibi? Raffaele's defense released this last November as I recall, and now the man himself confirms it with the technical details. Now that I actually understand for sure what's being claimed I can argue it.

It hasn't quite sunk in for you, has it? How will they find them guilty and explain the activity on Raffaele's computer? How will they prove premeditation this time when they couldn't last time with more 'evidence?'
 
Fuji said:
Are you like LJ and only want to discuss the "safety of the convictions", or do you want to argue whether they are actually guilty?

I could do either, but I will not abide switching between the two for the sake of rhetorical convenience.
Click to expand...

I'm not proficient in legal matters and courtroom politics. I was interested in the case from the rational, common sense, "what really happened" standpoint. I arrived at a conclusion that is quite well grounded, I think. That would qualify as the "are they actually guilty" part :).
 
LondonJohn said:
The only evidence that the court will use is that which is presented to it in the trial. It will not use (or be allowed to use) the rulings from Guede's trial.
Click to expand...

Did you ever figure out what Mignini and Maresca were blathering on about until the Motivations Report from Rudy's trial actually came out and they shut up about it? They couldn't have been just outright lying, could they? They must have had something they were basing that silliness on, I couldn't figure it out though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom