Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Katody Matrass]

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.

I don't think they argue anything like this, but given that Supreme Court decisions are not so highly regarded, as we've seen in the first trial, I don't think the court or the defence are bound by that ruling. Especially that it decided strictly procedural, not factual matters.

 

[Katody Matrass]

But why not? They have already found that Meredith was killed at both 10 p.m. and 11:30 p.m.

Good catch

 

[platonov]

"My new hobby is scanning defence docs"

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?'

It sunk in for me within minutes of it being posted - see Link

It appears the appeal court share my opinion [not as hastily arrived at one hopes] as otherwise it would be first up in the appeal as it would provide a possible alibi for at least 1 of the convicted killers.

If you wish to argue the point further you can find and respond to my [& other posts] starting from that link.

Be warned - much of the Foaker argument on this issue seems IIRC to be fixated on the sex lives of 2 people convicted of a sexually aggravated murder.

ps Don't mention the last post of mine to humber - we are all members of JREF in good standing and no insult was intended but he may take the comparison amiss

 

[Chris C]

It sunk in for me within minutes of it being posted - see Link

It appears the appeal court share my opinion [not as hastily arrived at one hopes] as otherwise it would be first up in the appeal as it would provide a possible alibi for at least 1 of the convicted killers.

If you wish to argue the point further you can find and respond to my [& other posts] starting from that link.

Be warned - much of the Foaker argument on this issue seems IIRC to be fixated on the sex lives of 2 people convicted of a sexually aggravated murder.

ps Don't mention the last post of mine to humber - we are all members of JREF in good standing and no insult was intended but he may take the comparison amiss

You mean guilter correct. I dont understand why guilters keep claiming its Pro Knox/Sollecito people that are fixated on Knox's sex life. The biggest guilter of them all (mignini) has tossed every possible way Knox could have been involved in the sexual assault. Including his latest where he claims she stood outside the room and never entered. Yet somehow left bloody footprints in the hallway. Its the people that think she is guilty that think she was involved in sexual assault. The people that think she is innocent believe she was at her boyfriends. And if all that is not enough, now that Mignini claims Knox stood in the hallway and watched, that means Mignini has given up on the knife being the murder weapon.

 

[Katody Matrass]

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

Actually it's well founded in the fact that Massei fails to refer to any photos here while he is eager to do so whenever any such exist.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Were these photographs ever submitted as evidence?

IIRC Massei recalls photos of the front wall including the nail in his motivation.

 

[Kaosium]

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 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.

halides1, please do add the above to your collection of nickels scoring those who are less enamoured with Dr Hampikian's endeavors and 'standing' in this regard than you and his Boise students apparently are.

I just personally feel his 'standing' is not as significant as you allude, and his decision to take the IIP here was flawed and in fact lowers his standing.

I too find it absolutely shameless the way Dr. Hampikian and the Idaho Innocence Project used this case to raise their stature to international proportions! I didn't even know there was an Idaho Innocence Project before my interest in this case; there's no doubt kids in Texas that don't even know there's an Idaho!

I'm deeply suspicious, I agree there must be an ulterior motive, the old adage 'follow the money' comes to mind. Think of how exposure in such a high-profile case might cause people to donate to them, how many times has Dr. Hampikian been on national television lately hawking their wares without embarrassment?

I can do little more than cringe at the cynical way they did it too, it's like they looked out there at the landscape and found the single most obvious case for a DNA expert to exploit for their mercenary gains! Take a look at page 16 where it shows what havoc a 28 cycle Identifiler kit (as per Massei) can wreak on a 10 pg sample! With all those 'peaks' below 50 RFUs you could be dealing with little more than static! No wonder those scientists all freaked and sent that letter, but it was the IIP that got its name associated with such a cherry-picked gimme like this one.

I'm sure they salve their conscience with the idea that the additional notoriety will attract more donors and perhaps even expertise to help out any innocent potato spuds headed down the garbage disposal unjustly, but I cannot help but wail in anguish that it wasn't the Wisconsin Innocence Project that took advantage of this sure thing.

 

[Katody Matrass]

It sunk in for me within minutes of it being posted - see Link

It appears the appeal court share my opinion [not as hastily arrived at one hopes] as otherwise it would be first up in the appeal as it would provide a possible alibi for at least 1 of the convicted killers.

If you wish to argue the point further you can find and respond to my [& other posts] starting from that link.

Be warned - much of the Foaker argument on this issue seems IIRC to be fixated on the sex lives of 2 people convicted of a sexually aggravated murder.

ps Don't mention the last post of mine to humber - we are all members of JREF in good standing and no insult was intended but he may take the comparison amiss

There seems to be activity recorded on Raffaele's computer whenever there was no video playback. Looks like the court would have to argue premeditation this time, like they started a film and went out for a murder. That makes no sense at all and we're facing acquittal sooner or later I'm afraid.

 

[platonov]

Going over old ground

There seems to be activity recorded on Raffaele's computer whenever there was no video playback. Looks like the court would have to argue premeditation this time, like they started a film and went out for a murder. That makes no sense at all and we're facing acquittal sooner or later I'm afraid.

Tell it to the Judge - Bongiorno & co tried and failed it seems (so far) and you are having as much success with your argument here as I predicted they would have there. (don't worry - the million is still safe)

I agree.

BTW Courts don't argue (propose), defence and prosecution do - they decide (dispose).

ps If you want to know the reasons why - follow the link I posted to Kaosium, its relatively simple.

 

[Kaosium]

It sunk in for me within minutes of it being posted - see Link

It appears the appeal court share my opinion [not as hastily arrived at one hopes] as otherwise it would be first up in the appeal as it would provide a possible alibi for at least 1 of the convicted killers.

Do you realize that assumes the Italian Court System considers timeliness of trials and judicial economy to be more important than its arcane logic and byzantine rules of procedure?

Would you care to provide evidence to back up that assumption, or should I be considered a sadist for even asking?

If you wish to argue the point further you can find and respond to my [& other posts] starting from that link.

Be warned - much of the Foaker argument on this issue seems IIRC to be fixated on the sex lives of 2 people convicted of a sexually aggravated murder.

Do you realize this means they must prove premeditation now? They couldn't for the last trial when just about everything went their way, how do you suppose they will manage it for this one?

 

[platonov]

Do you realize that assumes the Italian Court System considers timeliness of trials and judicial economy to be more important than its arcane logic and byzantine rules of procedure?

Would you care to provide evidence to back up that assumption, or should I be considered a sadist for even asking?



Do you realize this means they must prove premeditation now? They couldn't for the last trial when just about everything went their way, how do you suppose they will manage it for this one?

See above.

<snip>

If you wish to argue the point further you can find and respond to my [& other posts] starting from that link.

<snip>

Knock yourself out.

Glad to see you snipped the humber ref - mums the word ( did I get that one right ?)

 

[LondonJohn]

Tell it to the Judge - Bongiorno & co tried and failed it seems (so far) and you are having as much success with your argument here as I predicted they would have there. (don't worry - the million is still safe)

I agree.

BTW Courts don't argue (propose), defence and prosecution do - they decide (dispose).

ps If you want to know the reasons why - follow the link I posted to Kaosium, its relatively simple.

In the first trial, "Bongiorno & co" didn't have the level of detail available about the screensaver log that they appear to have now. I am one who has argued that the defence were remiss in not getting this information in time for the first trial, but it ought to be material evidence in the first appeal. I will be astonished if Hellmann doesn't allow the introduction of the alleged new computer evidence, together with new testimony from expert witnesses for both prosecution and defence - if the trial gets that far, that is....

And BTW: In Italy, courts are allowed to question witnesses directly, and also to make their own arguments separate from the prosecution and defence arguments. Indeed, in the first trial, Massei's court made a number of arguments about evidence/testimony that differed significantly from the prosecution's case. Perhaps you didn't know this though.

 

[Dan O.]

I remember this claim. Ridiculous then, ridiculous now.

"not a prerequisite" != "not likely"

Fuji, you are the one being ridiculous. I did the work to construct a scale model of that wall and window to find the distance one would need to step in order to make that traverse. I marked out the distance and then stepped it myself to verify that it could be done. The step is reachable from the porch and even easier from the rock outcropping part way down the slope.

Of course, to a lard bucket like Mignini it will look impossible.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Tell it to the Judge - Bongiorno & co tried and failed it seems (so far) and you are having as much success with your argument here as I predicted they would have there. (don't worry - the million is still safe)

I agree.

BTW Courts don't argue (propose), defence and prosecution do - they decide (dispose).

Yeah, unless they are Massei court, then they're hard to distinguish from the prosecution.

And it looks like Bongiorno will have it her way this time.

 

[LondonJohn]

Do you realize that assumes the Italian Court System considers timeliness of trials and judicial economy to be more important than its arcane logic and byzantine rules of procedure?

It takes a "special" type of logic to propose that if this computer evidence wasn't the first item addressed by Hellmann, it therefore stands to reason that he considers it to be unworthy of consideration.

As you've alluded to above, Hellmann knew that his first priority was to set in motion the independent review of the DNA evidence, since he knew this would take quite some time. And that's also one reason why he explicitly reserved the right to allow new evidence and witness testimony on an ongoing basis (viz Curatolo and the five inmates), adding that certain additional evidence and testimony would be ruled on by him after the DNA report had been submitted and digested by the court. And since the report will not be submitted until June 30th - and won't be supplemented by witness testimony until the end of July - it will be a good 9/10 weeks from now until anyone knows definitively what additional testimony/evidence Hellmann will allow.

 

[platonov]

confusion and more confusion

In the first trial, "Bongiorno & co" didn't have the level of detail available about the screensaver log that they appear to have now. I am one who has argued that the defence were remiss in not getting this information in time for the first trial, but it ought to be material evidence in the first appeal. I will be astonished if Hellmann doesn't allow the introduction of the alleged new computer evidence, together with new testimony from expert witnesses for both prosecution and defence - if the trial gets that far, that is....

And BTW: In Italy, courts are allowed to question witnesses directly, and also to make their own arguments separate from the prosecution and defence arguments. Indeed, in the first trial, Massei's court made a number of arguments about evidence/testimony that differed significantly from the prosecution's case. Perhaps you didn't know this though.

LJ - this argument appears very confused

Obviously by definition the (new) appeal claims appear after the first trial.

They appear to have been disposed of in this [computer alibis never previously claimed] instance (so far) as predicted

BTW I supposed that there might be confusion over the difference between judicially required 'reasons' for a decision and the power/competence to make that decision - glad I wasn't let down.

 

[Kaosium]

See above.




Knock yourself out.

I went back and didn't find much from you, and I don't think what I recall you posting actually addresses Raffaele's analysis. They need to prove premeditation, which he alludes to in his letter to Prof Krom. Being as we've been told many times that Raffaele has the best lawyers in all of Italy, I would suppose he has access to better information on this than just about anyone.

Glad to see you snipped the humber ref - mums the word ( did I get that one right ?)

The phrase is correctly applied, and I didn't quote it as I assumed you were referring to a CT poster from another thread I know nothing about. I thought it possible you might regret it and want to go back and edit it; thus I didn't quote it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

domestic violence

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.

Fuji,

The prosecution provided a scenario in which Meredith was restrained for many minutes. The prosecution's animation even has the Amanda avatar strangling Meredith. I have previously discussed the use of DNA in domestic violence cases, sometimes involving strangulation. The lack of Raffaele's or Amanda's DNA on Meredith's body fails to support this scenario. The lack of defensive wounds can be accommodated by other theories, IMO.

 

[platonov]

I don't think so.

It takes a "special" type of logic to propose that if this computer evidence wasn't the first item addressed by Hellmann, it therefore stands to reason that he considers it to be unworthy of consideration.

As you've alluded to above, Hellmann knew that his first priority was to set in motion the independent review of the DNA evidence, since he knew this would take quite some time. And that's also one reason why he explicitly reserved the right to allow new evidence and witness testimony on an ongoing basis (viz Curatolo and the five inmates), adding that certain additional evidence and testimony would be ruled on by him after the DNA report had been submitted and digested by the court. And since the report will not be submitted until June 30th - and won't be supplemented by witness testimony until the end of July - it will be a good 9/10 weeks from now until anyone knows definitively what additional testimony/evidence Hellmann will allow.

So.

The appeal started last Dec ? and the new computer alibi evidence (screensaver stuff etc) wasn't initially referred to 3rd party experts of the courts choosing because in Italy, like on this thread, its the same guys doing the analysis and they are busy (spank... swooning over pictures of Manders no doubt).


I don't think so.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a logical inconsistency exposed

But why not? They have already found that Meredith was killed at both 10 p.m. and 11:30 p.m.

+1