Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

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.

That 'logic' seems to me predicated on the assumption many of us are 'Anglos' (in the general sense) making fun of a poor little country's wretched justice system and police--which means by definition we're wrong and they're right.

At least we know who gets the last laugh. Do you know what I said in one of my first posts to him? (I think) Something along the lines of 'Haven't you noticed we're talking about whether it's still possible Amanda and Raffaele committed this crime?'

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.

Wouldn't it have been easier for everyone the past months if they'd just believed you about the process of the appeal, or looked into it and corroborated the info so you wouldn't have had to explain what a trial de novo actually consists of all these times?

Incidentally, what do you think the odds are there will be spankings resulting from all the incompetence and/or corruption evident in this case?

 

[platonov]

Groundhog day - all over again (and again)

+1

Like so much else (almost everything) on this thread, its not new.

In any case, we have already been informed there is no connection between the two trials

 

[theRealBob]

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?

A hanging judge who's mates with the prsoecutor is out. A guy that bears a resemblance to a real judge is in.Things aren't going to go all their way this time.

Premeditation is as crazy an idea as the female student lead sex-attack theory.

 

[theRealBob]

Incidentally, what do you think the odds are there will be spankings resulting from all the incompetence and/or corruption evident in this case?

Mignini, Commodi et al deserve a spanking from a dinosaur.

 

[Justinian2]

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.[/QUOTE]

Your assumption is that the court is logical and bases their decisions on fact. We've seen too much already to think that the court MUST be logical.

So far the preponderance of evidence shows that the Hellmann court will be logical and factual. However, I think that Amanda and Raffaele would have been let go by now if this court was 100%. Perhaps, just perhaps, that when Amanda and Raffaele finally are acquitted the whole world will know, beyond the doubt of any idiot, that they are TOTALLY innocent.

 

[Chris C]

Like so much else (almost everything) on this thread, its not new.

In any case, we have already been informed there is no connection between the two trials

But apparently, rumor has it there is a connection between the 2 murders.

 

[Justinian2]

But apparently, rumor has it there is a connection between the 2 murders.

Are we talking about the two times Meredith was murdered?

If Rafaelle is innocent and TOTALLY TOTALLY TOTALLY without evidence otherwise, doesn't that make him Amanda's alibi and make Amanda also TOTALLY TOTALLY TOTALLY innocent?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

convincing

So far the preponderance of evidence shows that the Hellmann court will be logical and factual. However, I think that Amanda and Raffaele would have been let go by now if this court was 100%. Perhaps, just perhaps, that when Amanda and Raffaele finally are acquitted the whole world will know, beyond the doubt of any idiot, that they are TOTALLY innocent.

Justinian2,

My hope is that the appeal will examine all of the evidence, so that we can reach the point where an open-minded man or woman would be thoroughly convinced of innocence.

 

[Justinian2]

I will never forgive the people that are persecuting Amanda. None of them!

But they are Soooo forgettable! I will forget them all - except perhaps Mignini - one millisecond after Amanda and Raffaele are released.

 

[lionking]

I will never forgive the people that are persecuting Amanda. None of them!.

I'm sure people are having trouble sleeping knowing they will not be forgiven by an anonymous member of an internet forum.

 

[platonov]

How did that work out ?

Originally Posted by Justinian2

So far the preponderance of evidence shows that the Hellmann court will be logical and factual. However, I think that Amanda and Raffaele would have been let go by now if this court was 100%. Perhaps, just perhaps, that when Amanda and Raffaele finally are acquitted the whole world will know, beyond the doubt of any idiot, that they are TOTALLY innocent.

Justinian2,

My hope is that the appeal will examine all of the evidence, so that we can reach the point where an open-minded man or woman would be thoroughly convinced of innocence.

halides1

Its good to see you and Justinian are on the same page - I thought some of the earlier comments were unfair (and unjustifiable). [The same applies to the comments directed at Justinian ]

TBH I cant see much difference between the many (all) of the Foaker arguments.

However; as to your hopes for the convincing the (open-minded man or woman) court/'jury' - unless 'touchless coercion' is applied, can't see it happening.

ps Months ago you claimed Hampikian would testify & I wondered if that was true [see 3rd link here] & whether he would be doing a book review or dealing with the evidence ?

How did that work out ?

 

[Justinian2]

I'm sure people are having trouble sleeping knowing they will not be forgiven by an anonymous member of an internet forum.

What am I supposed to do, have fireballs from me eyes and lightning bolts from my arse?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcoVxbutl8g&feature=player_embedded

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Been there, said that

halides1

Its good to see you and Justinian are on the same page - I thought some of the earlier comments were unfair (and unjustifiable). [The same applies to the comments directed at Justinian ]

TBH I cant see much difference between the many (all) of the Foaker arguments.

However; as to your hopes for the convincing the (open-minded man or woman) court/'jury' - unless 'touchless coercion' is applied, can't see it happening.

ps Months ago you claimed Hampikian would testify & I wondered if that was true [see 3rd link here] & whether he would be doing a book review or dealing with the evidence ?

How did that work out ?

platonov,

I made no such claim with respect to Hampikian's testifying. However, he an Dr. Johnson did students of this case a great favor by writing the open letter. It is a shame that it was not read in open court in November of 2009; it might have been sufficient to provoke reasonable doubt. As for your final question it has already been asked and answered today. BTW, I am still going over my old comments, but I have yet to find any pertaining to the mixed DNA in which my views then differed significantly from my views now. Thank you for giving me a reason to reread that section of the Massei report. It is laugh-out-loud wrong.

You seem to be recycling old arguments today.

 

[platonov]

Ok that is funny

platonov,

I made no such claim with respect to Hampikian's testifying. However, he an Dr. Johnson did students of this case a great favor by writing the open letter. 1 It is a shame that it was not read in open court in November of 2009; it might have been sufficient to provoke reasonable doubt. As for your final question it has already been asked and answered today. BTW, I am still going over my old comments, 2 but I have yet to find any pertaining to the mixed DNA in which my views then differed significantly from my views now. Thank you for giving me a reason to reread that section of the Massei report. It is laugh-out-loud wrong.

3 You seem to be recycling old arguments today.

1 It is a shame that it was not read in open court in November of 2009

Sarah Palin might agree - I, or the Italians, (or the defendants lawyers) wouldn't.
Those damn foreigners just aren't as impressed with an american voice/accent as they should be


2 but I have yet to find any pertaining to the mixed DNA in which my views then differed significantly from my views now.

3 You seem to be recycling old arguments today - Ok that is funny !

 

[Mary_H]

platonov,
<snip>
You seem to be recycling old arguments today.

Not only is he recycling old arguments, he also seems to be wanting to establish that he told us so, back when. Is this what you meant by retro-causality, platonov? That you argue for guilt in ways that are impossible to understand, then months later claim you were arguing for innocence? I would not be surprised.

 

[Mary_H]

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.

Does this mean that the presence of defensive wounds is hardly inculpatory?

 

[platonov]

Welcome back

Not only is he recycling old arguments, he also seems to be wanting to establish that he told us so, back when. Is this what you meant by retro-causality, platonov? That you argue for guilt in ways that are impossible to understand, then months later claim you were arguing for innocence? I would not be surprised.

Mary_H

Welcome back - I thought you had been raptured.

If thats not your crowd - apologies, like the Foaker arguments all that nonsense is also indistinguishable to an outsider.

Re my argument/retrocausality - its not postdiction unlike 'the temple/pumpkin being destroyed' in the 'Jesus/Santa' ? story if you make the prediction beforehand

ps I did

 

[Kaosium]

halides1

Its good to see you and Justinian are on the same page - I thought some of the earlier comments were unfair (and unjustifiable). [The same applies to the comments directed at Justinian ]

TBH I cant see much difference between the many (all) of the Foaker arguments.

However; as to your hopes for the convincing the (open-minded man or woman) court/'jury' - unless 'touchless coercion' is applied, can't see it happening.

ps Months ago you claimed Hampikian would testify & I wondered if that was true [see 3rd link here] & whether he would be doing a book review or dealing with the evidence ?

How did that work out ?

Platonov, if the DNA 'evidence' is thrown in the Tiber to rust in its muck, will that cause you to reconsider anything?

 

[RWVBWL]

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?

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.

Hi Fuji,
I recall reading on page 157 of Angel Face,
-(authored by Barbie Nadeau, who was in court as Mignini brought forth his closing arguments),
mention of a video dramatization of the brutal murder we discuss. In it, Amanda Knox is the one who stabs Meredith Kercher to her death. Heck, isn't that what the huuuge kitchen she knife she brought over is supposed to prove?

Rereading more about this prosecution video is interesting, for it proved effective in convicting Amanda and Raffaele. It might also shed light on that mark on Amanda's neck.

Rather than listen to defense expert hypothesize with mannequins and diagrams, jurors saw an exact enactment of what the prosecution thought had happened. It was compelling.
<snip>

Raffaele makes the last keystroke on his computer at 9:10pm. At 9:45, the video shows, Amanda and Raffaele leave his apartment and heads towards the basketball courts on Piazza Grimana to reach via della Pergola. At Amanda's house, they meet Rudy to work out a prearranged drug deal. At 11:20, Amanda opens the door on via della Pergola, and the 3 enter the apartment.
Meredith is in her room. Rudy goes into the bathroom while Amanda and Raffaele confront Meredith, teasing and taunting her. Suddenly, Amanda turns aggressive. A physical fight breaks out between the girls and the video shows Amanda 1st grabbing Meredith's throat and then shoving the palm of her hand against Meredith's chin to push her head against the wall, knocking her unconcious - and here the video superimposes actual shots of Meredith's bruises to show how they match the size and shape of Amanda's animated hand. Rudy enters the room just before Meredith falls to the floor. Amanda, Raf, and Rudy undress her, 1st pulling down her blue jeans and underwear and then pushing her t-shirt above her breasts. Then Meredith comes to. Raf pulls his switchblade out of his pocket, and a few minutes later, Amanda runs to the kitchen to get another knife. Meredith uses her right hand to fight back, which cause the tiny knife wounds on the palms of her hands. Raf tries to unhook Meredith's bra but fails to work the clasp; he slices it off her later, after she's been stabbed. Meredith falls to her knees. Amanda then directs Rudy and Raffaele to hold Meredith's arms back. Rudy reaches down to touch Meredith's vagina. Amanda holds the larger knife to Meredith's neck, leaving fine cuts. Raffaele holds his knife against the other side of her neck from behind. Amanda then plunges the knife into Meredith's neck and she utters the scream heard by elderly neighbor Nara Capezzali. Blood sprays on the wardrobe, and Meredith falls to the ground. Then the 3 assailants pull Meredith to the side of her bed, and again, the avatar's movement is superimposed over crime scene photo's of the bllod smear left by her hair across the floor. Rudy ministers to Meredith, who is coughing and spitting blood. Amanda and Raf grab Meredith's phones and run from the apartment, leaving Rudy and the dying Meredith.

Re-reading this, I can see why some pro-guilt members believe that the mark on Amanda's neck might be a wound that Meredith inflicted as she fought for her life.

Is that a hickey on Amanda' neck or not. I believe it simply is so.
But if that mark on Amanda's neck is from Meredith fighting back, I would think that there should be some of Amanda's DNA found on Meredith's hand or fingernails. Was there? Why wasn't there any of Amanda's DNA, fingerprints, or heck, even a single strand of her hair found in that bedroom after she and Meredith fought?

I also find it very odd that Rudy,
the most street-wise of the 3 supposed assailants, was the only person with knife cuts on his hands...

Anyways, Fuji,
Chime in with your thoughts please, but I believe that much of this prosecutorial theory has been debunked by the fine discussions here on the JREF!
Take it easy, RW

PS-
What Chris C posted above is interesting:

<snip>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.

 

[platonov]

Platonov, if the DNA 'evidence' is thrown in the Tiber to rust in its muck, will that cause you to reconsider anything?

No - unless there is a snake, a chicken and a monkey also involved [IIR Tacitus ? correctly]

And we are hardly short of monkeys or snakes.

In any case shouldn't you be reading the posts I referred you to earlier.

* I may have the above wrong - no doubt the google experts will be along shortly to correct me !