Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Supernaut said:
IN the 'cold light of day', an innocent AK might have been rather self-conscious about it, particularly given how vulnerable she was being made to feel, without it ever crossing her mind that the cops were actually wondering if it were something that she acquired during MK's murder.

Have you ever remarked on a hicky to a girl with one? I have (on at least on a couple of occasions - I'm lacking decorum sometimes) - one of them, not that long ago, was a girl I knew quite well who served at a local shop (she would have been about AK's age), and the very fact of being reminded that it was conspicuous turned out to be acutely embarrassing to her - although the only people within earshot were me and a friend, immediately she finshed my shopping she left her position and hurriedly made for (I assume) the 'ladies room', presumably to check it out and maybe put on a little foundation..
Click to expand...


I once embarrassed my nephew the same way. I thought it was funny; he did not.
 
babycondor said:
To me it seems that it is the prosecution's job to show that the evidence was not contaminated. As you pointed out, the prosecution failed in this regard.
Click to expand...


Well that's not strictly true. But it's certainly the prosecution's job to demonstrate that the forensic evidence was collected, handled and tested in such a way as to reasonably minimise chances of contamination. Personally, I would say that

- swabbing evidence from the sink using a wide smearing action, rather than dabbing carefully onto very small areas with separate swabs

- leaving a bra clasp to be kicked around on a dirty floor for 47 days

- leaving other potentially-important forensic evidence, including the footwear, jacket and handbag used by the victim on the night of her murder, similarly lying around in a clearly-disrupted and rearranged crime scene for 47 days

- taking a knife out of a sealed envelope in the police station, and placing it into a non-sterile box that had previously contained a desk diary

- wrapping the handle of a potentially-important mop in gift wrapping paper found in the very cottage where the murder occurred

- running LCN-type tests on key evidence items in an environment totally devoid of the special protocols necessary for working with such tiny amounts of DNA, in an unaccredited laboratory

all count as fairly egregious examples of a failure to reasonably minimise the chances of contamination.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the original trial or the current appeal trial?
 
halides1 said:
The Washington Post picked up a story about Italian lawmakers becoming involved in this case. "They [a petition and a letter] also maintain that Knox, who has been in jail since before her conviction, should not have been kept behind bars."
Click to expand...


This is FANTASTIC news. There is no going back.

Interestingly, Girlanda could have done this awhile ago. It raises questions about the choreography of the steps toward acquittal for Amanda and Raffaele. Was it part of a Master Plan, to wait until the appeals had made a certain amount of progress before releasing this letter?

My belief has been that the US State Dept. is working behind the scenes to move this process along in a way that allows the Perugians (and Italy) to save face, as opposed to just charging in and demanding the release of the prisoners. Hence, the placement of a fair judge, who allowed the scientific evidence to be reexamined. Now, an investigation of Mignini's office has been requested. It's all reaching critical mass.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Are you referring to the original trial or the current appeal trial?
Click to expand...


Technically, the current appeal trial (it's a trial de novo). But since the appeal trial has automatically admitted all the evidence and testimony that was presented in the first trial, it's the same as saying the first trial and the first appeal trial.
 
Mary_H said:
This is FANTASTIC news. There is no going back.

Interestingly, Girlanda could have done this awhile ago. It raises questions about the choreography of the steps toward acquittal for Amanda and Raffaele. Was it part of a Master Plan, to wait until the appeals had made a certain amount of progress before releasing this letter?

My belief has been that the US State Dept. is working behind the scenes to move this process along in a way that allows the Perugians (and Italy) to save face, as opposed to just charging in and demanding the release of the prisoners. Hence, the placement of a fair judge, who allowed the scientific evidence to be reexamined. Now, an investigation of Mignini's office has been requested. It's all reaching critical mass.
Click to expand...


I think you're getting way ahead of yourself here! The US State Dept has no chance of holding any sway over the Italian judiciary (e.g. the choice of appeal judge), and nor - I suspect - would it want to be seen even attempting such a thing. The US Govt might hold some subliminal sway over the Italian executive branch of government, but the Italian executive has no sway over the judiciary either (and nor should it) - as Berlusconi is currently finding out!

I don't think the State Dept has been doing any more than keeping an eye on this case. It's an ordinary criminal case in a sovereign nation which is a US ally, but a case which just happens to involve a US citizen as a defendant. Personally, I suspect that even if Knox gets ultimately convicted (which I think is moot because I think she'll be acquitted in this appeal), there will be no "behind the scenes" moves from any branch of the US Government: Italy should be allowed to manage its criminal justice system as it wishes, so long as there are no fundamental breaches of human rights.

That's why I think that the pro-guilt groupthinkers who continue to crow that "the State Dept thinks there is nothing wrong with this case" are on totally the wrong track. The US Government would never say anything else - certainly not in public, and almost certainly not in private on-the-record conversations either. The standard practice for countries whose citizens are on trial for offences committed abroad is for the local embassy or consulate to send representatives to

a) meet with the suspect, to ensure that (s)he has adequate legal representation and is being treated properly,

b) ensure that the defendant's family is kept in communication if required,

c) monitor the trial to ensure that the proper judicial procedures are performed.

It is diplomatically out of order for anything more than this to occur. Even if officials within the US State Dept perceive that a miscarriage of justice has taken place regarding US citizen Amanda Knox, it will still fall well short of communicating that concern to the Italians or anybody else. That's the way that international diplomacy works - particularly with countries that are reasonably important military and trade allies.
 
It ties in with the Berlusconi political agenda (judicial system is bad) so I think they will really be on a role. It seems to be the way the system works in Italy, big guys swatting each other. It seems like that was the only way they could have been sprung free, unfortunately. I've notice in Perugia there has been almost complete silence on the case recently.
 
spartacus said:
It ties in with the Berlusconi political agenda (judicial system is bad) so I think they will really be on a role. It seems to be the way the system works in Italy, big guys swatting each other. It seems like that was the only way they could have been sprung free, unfortunately. I've notice in Perugia there has been almost complete silence on the case recently.
Click to expand...


I think your last sentence is the most important part. I think that people in authority in Perugia are currently taking care not to connect themselves to this case - and I think that's because they can clearly see which way the wind is blowing.

Of course, the main exception to this is the increasingly-desperate-sounding Mignini, who inexplicably chose to give a long rambling interview to CNN: a thoroughly improper act for a man who was the lead prosecutor in the first trial of a case which is ongoing, and who is also actively involved in the prosecution in the appeal. Quite what he aimed to achieve through this interview is unclear - I suspect it was to feed his ego most of all. Regardless, he came over as a blustering man grasping at straws in a last-ditch effort to salvage some sort of reputation. If anyone's in any doubt of that, I suggest they read the part where he addresses his own criminal charges: it's a case study in denial, minimisation and obfuscation.
 
Alt+F4 said:
I've posted many times what I feel the most important evidenc is.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you. Someone with genuine answers would either post links to the messages where they could be found, or simply repeat the earlier content. Those on the pro-innocent side have no hesitation in repeatedly posting what the facts are, and why they support our position.

You can use the search function to find them.
Click to expand...

<Yawn> Sorry, I've no intention of wasting time combing through acres of your evasive posts, when there's no clear indication of what I would be looking for. The most important part of my question (to which you are avoiding giving an answer) is why, exactly, your so-called "evidence" makes you think a second guilty verdict is, in your description. "guaranteed". That's something I would have to be a mind-reader to work out from your posts to date.
 
LondonJohn said:
I think you're getting way ahead of yourself here! The US State Dept has no chance of holding any sway over the Italian judiciary (e.g. the choice of appeal judge), and nor - I suspect - would it want to be seen even attempting such a thing. The US Govt might hold some subliminal sway over the Italian executive branch of government, but the Italian executive has no sway over the judiciary either (and nor should it) - as Berlusconi is currently finding out!

I don't think the State Dept has been doing any more than keeping an eye on this case. It's an ordinary criminal case in a sovereign nation which is a US ally, but a case which just happens to involve a US citizen as a defendant. Personally, I suspect that even if Knox gets ultimately convicted (which I think is moot because I think she'll be acquitted in this appeal), there will be no "behind the scenes" moves from any branch of the US Government: Italy should be allowed to manage its criminal justice system as it wishes, so long as there are no fundamental breaches of human rights.

That's why I think that the pro-guilt groupthinkers who continue to crow that "the State Dept thinks there is nothing wrong with this case" are on totally the wrong track. The US Government would never say anything else - certainly not in public, and almost certainly not in private on-the-record conversations either. The standard practice for countries whose citizens are on trial for offences committed abroad is for the local embassy or consulate to send representatives to

a) meet with the suspect, to ensure that (s)he has adequate legal representation and is being treated properly,

b) ensure that the defendant's family is kept in communication if required,

c) monitor the trial to ensure that the proper judicial procedures are performed.

It is diplomatically out of order for anything more than this to occur. Even if officials within the US State Dept perceive that a miscarriage of justice has taken place regarding US citizen Amanda Knox, it will still fall well short of communicating that concern to the Italians or anybody else. That's the way that international diplomacy works - particularly with countries that are reasonably important military and trade allies.
Click to expand...


It was also diplomatically out of order for the US to drop into Pakistan and execute Osama bin Laden, but it happened.

We only know about the international diplomacy that is revealed to the public eye. All the State Department has to do is work with people who are not Perugians, but who could indirectly influence Perugians. There are many forms of currency. Here's one:

"These distortions, not without reason, are fuelling accusations against the administration of justice in our country," Mr Girlanda said in the letter to the president.

Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...-treated-unfairly-16004650.html#ixzz1NUMYSByi

Deals are made all the time. Who knows, maybe the Perugians would even accept a large sum of money for their new Questura recording system.
 
negative controls

I just have time to make one point. If the prosecution failed to run negative controls, then I would personally favor excluding the evidence. I am not saying that negative controls are perfect, but not doing them would be going against the prevailing wisdom of the field. Frank wrote that he believed negative controls were done; perhaps the independent experts can clarify this question.
 
halides1 said:
I just have time to make one point. If the prosecution failed to run negative controls, then I would personally favor excluding the evidence. I am not saying that negative controls are perfect, but not doing them would be going against the prevailing wisdom of the field. Frank wrote that he believed negative controls were done; perhaps the independent experts can clarify this question.
Click to expand...

Frank would probably be more likely to be able to find out the truth since it seems like he and Stef are buds (Nara too).
 
halides1 said:
shuttlt,

I thought (according to the pro-guilt narrative) Guede alone had shoes on, not Amanda or Raffaele. I thought Guede alone departed the flat, leaving Raffaele and Amanda behind to clean up. If so, how could there be the sound of multiple people running?
Click to expand...
I don't feel committed to any narrative. They/he could all have been barefoot or wearing clogs. I was just responding to the claim that it had been "proved" that she couldn't have heard.
 
halides1 said:
shuttlt,

Frank Sfarzo believes that if Nara heard Meredith scream, then the front door must have been open. However, my own view is in agreement with Matthew_Best's, and I would go further. The whole discussion of Nara's competence is at best a side-issue. Whatever she heard is unrelated to the crime at hand.
Click to expand...
All that may or may not be true. I have no idea, but I dispute that it has been "proved" that Nara couldn't have heard what she claimed based on the distance, windows and so on. If it's down to timing, that's something else.
 
spartacus said:
http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=375&start=500

The moderator kicked people out when they changed their minds so now it is all pro guilt people.
Click to expand...

I followed the link only to stumble upon this:
It's Knox who claims to have danced naked through the blood puddles without noticing that anything was wrong.
Click to expand...

Wow, those people did succumb to utter nutjobbery. They seem busy creating an alternative reality that is safe for their crazy hateful beliefs.
 
Katody Matrass said:
I followed the link only to stumble upon this:


Wow, those people did succumb to utter nutjobbery. They seem busy creating an alternative reality that is safe for their crazy hateful beliefs.
Click to expand...
Do you want to bet I can't find something nutty from a pro-innocence poster?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom