Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[tsig]

Not just you and RM.

Almost all those convinced of innocence who post here have made that identical claim.
Its practically a 'trope' at this stage.

On closer inspection it turns out that many appear to have confused the Massei report with the cretinous (or mendacious) 'summaries' on 'Science Spheres' or the like.... or else the coincidence of 'misunderstandings' would startle Randi

When the same words phrased in the same way show up in different posts it feels like you're arguing with the Borg.

 

[platonov]

New study in Lancet shows Buffoons (or parrots) no match for strawmen

Exactly. At first glance, the Massei report might appear to be a joke. Which could explain why those on this forum who worship at its altar so regularly come across as buffoons.

<snip>

I take it who 'worship at its altar' translates as have read or at least 'scanned' and understood.

But this may explain why 'we' come across so badly relative to normally intelligent people

<snip>
As for the argument that the court must have some super-sekrit evidence that wasn't referred to in the public report, and wasn't reported by anyone who attended the trial, that's simply fatuous.

I don't understand what it is about some people on this forum, who call themselves sceptics, but at the same time cannot be sceptical of court verdicts which are after all reached by fallible human beings with no clairvoyance or telepathic powers to help them. Justice is supposed to be public and transparent. If a significant number of normally intelligent people find good reason to believe there is reasonable doubt about a verdict, this cannot be allayed simply by parroting that the court found them GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY.
<snip>

 

[babycondor]

deleted

 

[babycondor]

...
As I have said here and elsewhere, for me, the strongest indicator of guilt is the staging. In the absence of nigh unimpeachable exculpatory evidence to the contrary, if the staging actually occurred, it would be sufficient on its own to be confident of the pair's guilt. Your own citation is in agreement with me on this point.)

1. How was it conclusively proven that the burglary was staged?

2. How was it conclusively proven that Amanda and Rafaelle (and no other person(s)) staged the burglary?

 

[tsig]

So don't taunt us, Pilot, what is it?

Does that incorporate cases where the DNA 'evidence' received a thorough re-evaluation after being denied in the first trial and the experts had to ask for more time after five months of time to study it because the DNA expert from the first trial won't cough up all the information needed?

Does it take into account cases where the press that was building a bonfire to roast the defendants like marshmallows now speaks of an injustice and a 'collapsing house of cards despite the fact some eight defamation charges have been filed on them?'

How does it relate to cases where it can be shown that the police destroyed exculpatory evidence that has since been at least partially recovered and would suggest an alibi?

Does it include cases where the 'evidence' includes items that stink so bad the bunnies and kittens who were joyously dancing around the gallows singing 'hang 'em high!' when the first verdict was announced now scatter like cockroaches and try to change the subject when the 'evidence' is discussed?

Does it include cases where the appeals judge appeared to throw the Motivations Report from the trial of the first instance into the dumpster saying 'all we know is the victim is dead' and many of the people who read it laugh at it?

Would it be taking into account cases where it seems the police lied through their teeth during the 'investigation' and then told stories in court about the arrest that are so absurd even the vengeance-minded bunnies and kittens go silent and scurry away when the interrogation is brought up because they know the cops lied too?

Would it take into account the fact that the crime as prosecuted in the original trial is virtually unknown to students of criminal behavior and that two veterans of a top police institution have spoken out and flew to Italy to help the defense or are actively campaigning for the release of the innocents being persecuted?

I'm sick of typing, Pilot, why don't you help me out? What other factors outside it was a murder trial should be taken into account when trying to determine the cases most relevant to this one?

The only case relevant here is the Amanda Knox case.

 

[platonov]

Sentence reduction. I expect to see about a 24 year reduction for Raffaele's appeal.

To quote Mary H ..

...........
Where do you get this stuff, apart from free association?
................

But really, is that what happened in RG's appeal.

I see that it was reduced from 30 to 24 - a reduction of 1/5 - and furthermore that this reduction may have been to bring it into line with the AK/RS sentence although this is obviously not publicly stated.

And perhaps seeing as the mitigation in the 1st AK/RS trial was partly dependant on the covering the body and the knife having been carried for protection which we are assured is Massei nonsense [I don't believe it myself as it happens], perhaps in a perverse fit of pique* the appeal court will increase the sentences on the main charge from 24 to 30.

* This would tie in with the other 'vindictive' charges being brought against the defendants and their families, Would it not ?

 

[Matthew Best]

perhaps in a perverse fit of pique* the appeal court will increase the sentences on the main charge from 24 to 30.

* This would tie in with the other 'vindictive' charges being brought against the defendants and their families, Would it not ?

I don't think the Appeal Court is responsible for bringing the charges, so no.

 

[platonov]

The only case relevant here is the Amanda Knox case.

Maybe not, after a bout of free association I may have found a similar case

 

[Chris C]

1. How was it conclusively proven that the burglary was staged?

2. How was it conclusively proven that Amanda and Rafaelle (and no other person(s)) staged the burglary?

Even better than that. Why does the broken window even mean there was a staged burglary or better yet that the window was even the entrance point.

 

[Chris C]

To quote Mary H ..







But really, is that what happened in RG's appeal.

I see that it was reduced from 30 to 24 - a reduction of 1/5 - and furthermore that this reduction may have been to bring it into line with the AK/RS sentence although this is obviously not publicly stated.

And perhaps seeing as the mitigation in the 1st AK/RS trial was partly dependant on the covering the body and the knife having been carried for protection which we are assured is Massei nonsense [I don't believe it myself as it happens], perhaps in a perverse fit of pique* the appeal court will increase the sentences on the main charge from 24 to 30.

* This would tie in with the other 'vindictive' charges being brought against the defendants and their families, Would it not ?

The problem with increasing the sentence runs into a few rather large problems. No murder weapon, no witnesses, no dna, no motive, 2 ToD's. Whether or not they overturn the lower court is one thing, increasing the sentence when they are losing evidence is a different story. Plus to top that off, rudy's appeal took in the length of Knox/Sollecito's sentence and reduced his to match Knox's/Sollecito's before taking off the 1/3.

 

[platonov]

Originally Posted by Mairanse
I would still say I'm not convinced of their innocence because I haven't read everything there is to read but I seem to be leaning towards innocence given the lack of forensic evidence in the murder room.

Hello new person.

If you want to catch up the important documents start with the Massei Report. Available for download at several websites.

Alt+F4 means well and that may be good advice but it's not strictly necessary.

There is a less time consuming method

If you can find a number of normally intelligent people on a a website who state that the conviction is unsafe/ridiculous/ a conspiracy that's all you need. Primary documentation is apparently for parrots and buffoons.

Remember that's how the holohoax and the faked moon landings etc were exposed.

 

[Chris C]

Alt+F4 means well and that may be good advice but it's not strictly necessary.

There is a less time consuming method

If you can find a number of normally intelligent people on a a website who state that the conviction is unsafe/ridiculous/ a conspiracy that's all you need. Primary documentation is apparently for parrots and buffoons.

Remember that's how the holohoax and the faked moon landings etc were exposed.

Really? Does that report mention the knife? If it does, its a flawed document that has based its assumptions on false evidence. Does the report mention Curatolo? How many jurors would have voted guilty if the prosecution wasn't holding up the knife found in Sollecito's apartment and curatolo never testified?

 

[platonov]

Originally Posted by platonov

But really, is that what happened in RG's appeal.

I see that it was reduced from 30 to 24 - a reduction of 1/5 - and furthermore that this reduction may have been to bring it into line with the AK/RS sentence although this is obviously not publicly stated.
<snip>

The problem with increasing the sentence runs into a few rather large problems. No murder weapon, no witnesses, no dna, no motive, 2 ToD's. Whether or not they overturn the lower court is one thing, increasing the sentence when they are losing evidence is a different story. Plus to top that off, rudy's appeal took in the length of Knox/Sollecito's sentence and reduced his to match Knox's/Sollecito's before taking off the 1/3.

Really.

OK, If you say so

BTW How long and complex was this 'report' everyone keeps talking about.

 

[Chris C]

Really.

OK, If you say so

BTW How long and complex was this 'report' everyone keeps talking about.

You have been following this case haven't you? The last i heard, Guede's sentence was reduced to 24 for saying he was sorry someone else killed Meredith, which is less than Knox/Sollecito and then cut to 16. Because fast track trials get their sentence reduced by 1/3. Unless of course I slept through them changing it again, which is possible. Now if you think it wasn't reduced to bring it in line with Knox/Sollecito's thats an opinion. Then whats your opinion of why it was reduced to 24?

 

[platonov]

You have been following this case haven't you? The last i heard, Guede's sentence was reduced to 24 for saying he was sorry someone else killed Meredith, which is less than Knox/Sollecito and then cut to 16. Because fast track trials get their sentence reduced by 1/3. Unless of course I slept through them changing it again, which is possible. Now if you think it wasn't reduced to bring it in line with Knox/Sollecito's thats an opinion. Then whats your opinion of why it was reduced to 24?

Hey, as I already said, You have convinced me

 

[Matthew Best]

Platonov - you lied to me again.

And I was so hopeful!

 

[RoseMontague]

I see that it was reduced from 30 to 24 - a reduction of 1/5 - and furthermore that this reduction may have been to bring it into line with the AK/RS sentence although this is obviously not publicly stated.

And perhaps seeing as the mitigation in the 1st AK/RS trial was partly dependant on the covering the body and the knife having been carried for protection which we are assured is Massei nonsense [I don't believe it myself as it happens], perhaps in a perverse fit of pique* the appeal court will increase the sentences on the main charge from 24 to 30.

* This would tie in with the other 'vindictive' charges being brought against the defendants and their families, Would it not ?

I don't see the knife carried for protection mentioned in the Mignini/Comodi appeal. Perhaps they did not wish to draw further attention to it. The covering of the body is mentioned. From Catnip's summary:

# In allowing mitigation, the Court referred to: the post-crime conduct, that is covering Meredith’s body, and distancing themselves from the room when the door was forced open (i.e., as signs of conscience)

* The prosecution is appealing against this reasoning by saying: it is not reasonable to consider this as an expression of pity and a psychological rejection of the crime. The two types of behaviour are completely different and are expressions of different states of mind. It’s true that the covering of Meredith’s body expresses some form of pity towards the victim, but this gesture appears attributable solely to Amanda and as an instinctive expression of “feminine solidarity” which often characterises the murderous behaviour of women as against other women – rather than a conscience choice susceptible to ethical-legal evaluation. Both Amanda and Raffaele demonstrated a striking coldness, especially on the evening and night of 2 November.
As for being distant from the door when it was broken open, it is evident that the two accused had no need to go and look at the murder scene. They knew well what lay behind the locked door.

Pretty weak, on this point at least, in my opinion.

 

[Alt+F4]

Another question which I asked yesterday; does anyone know whether prisoner transfers between Italy and other countries are permitted in capital cases?

Between the U.S. and Italy, yes.

http://www.justice.gov/criminal/oeo/iptu/

 

[Matthew Best]

Another question which I asked yesterday; does anyone know whether prisoner transfers between Italy and other countries are permitted in capital cases?

This isn't a capital case. There is no death penalty in Italy.

 

[platonov]

I don't see the knife carried for protection mentioned in the Mignini/Comodi appeal. Perhaps they did not wish to draw further attention to it. The covering of the body is mentioned. From Catnip's summary:



Pretty weak, on this point at least, in my opinion.

I didn't mention the prosecution appeal.

As its a trial de novo - I think I have heard that mentioned once or twice - the Afghani might look at the entirety of the first trial evidence/judgment and decide that ruling out premeditation was yet another of Massei's errors. Or not.

That's what I was referring to - wasn't it obvious ?

This free association is not as easy as it looks you know