Did Ms Camodi state these times from memory, after looking at the records, or did she deliberately falsify the records to agree with her statement?
That would make a difference would it not?
The same for any witness for the prosecution. Did they not give testimony based on their recall.
I think a case can be made this was just a mistake she didn't bother to correct as it worked to their advantage, thus no forethought, but considering the pattern displayed elsewhere it can be damned hard to proffer the benefit of the doubt. As in they knew that they didn't have much of a case going in, plus that a Motivations Report would have to be written of the trial by the judge which would be published, and read by the appeals judge. There's a number of places, notably ToD and the breaking of the glass where questions were asked by the prosecution to elicit answers that could be cherry-picked to support otherwise impossible, or nearly so, contentions.
That might sound odd, but consider that kind of report has to be written for every single case of this nature in Italy, so it's not like it would take long for people to figure out that would be a good strategy if they want the motivations report to be more damning and the conviction become more likely to stand in the mandatory appeals process.
It seems that the pro acquittal side want to have different standards of evidence for the prosecution and defence.
Let me just note that it can be damned deadly difficult to make an argument when the opposition case was created by a corrupt but brilliant (in some respects) conspiracy theorist who has the weight of authority behind him and has attracted to his 'cause' some not all that different in a general sense. Especially when they know how to employ gutter-level American political campaign tactics.
Without sounding crazy yourself that is!
According to the pro acquittal side, the prosecution have zero evidence against Sollecito and Knox. Given the outcome of the first trial, this sounds strange and certainly would give rise to suspicion of conspiracy.
I think what happened was the cops had coincidental and mistaken reasons to think Amanda was complicit with Patrick Lumumba in the murder and blew the interrogation but had convinced themselves she and Raffaele must have still been involved. With a lack of oversight they figured they could just scapegoat her as they still figured she was involved, and Mignini most of all because he became wedded to his nutty theory just like he did in the Monster of Florence case. Thus an easily corrupted system with a woeful lack of oversight caused careers and reputations to be put on the line.
It would have been so much easier just to
frame them. However Mignini knows how to play his system as he's done it his whole life, so he can just use every last dirty trick the system allows because it maintains some vestige of its inquisitorial roots which assumes the prosecutors are 'incorruptible' men, which gives them wide latitude in court, especially regarding rules of evidence.
Thus the luminol footprints test negative for blood with TMB but he (or his team) can still think of a way they
might be blood, so they are entered into court as 'bloody footprints.' The negative TMB and DNA tests get discovered, however a way is imagined they might
still be blood and
trust me it's a lot easier to say that than it is to disprove it--but it can be done if you want to wade through a dozen or two papers on the properties of luminol and TMB. Comodi just has to say 'they could be blood or turnip juice, you decide' and despite the odds they are blood is minimal and they don't even fit into a theory of the crime, who do you suppose the jury believes?
The rest of the (physical) 'evidence' lies in shambles in the previous threads, but it all amounts to things like that. Thus not 'planted' but each an illusion created with sophistry, the basis of forensics is logic. In the online debate there's those who've spent literally years thinking up ways the 'evidence' could still be valid, and spreading it to the four corners of the ether, as weird as that sounds.
So basically there was a conspiracy (corrupt authorities covering their asses) caused by a conspiracy theorist (Mignini) which attracted other conspiracy theorists (PMF TJMK) who've gone beyond the bounds of propriety in promoting their 'cause.' They've managed to fool some people who ought to have known better or have some irrational reason to think Amanda and Raffaele guilty regardless of whether the evidence is valid, because they know that and created another scenario where the cops messed up the evidence but they 'know' Amanda and Raffaele are still guilty.
Then there's those who just like posting pictures of their bunnies and kittens and hanging out with the clever people who did this because they think Amanda guilty, and if they think she did, it validates their
belief. That would be most of them. Through mining fluff for 'lies,' Astrology, Statement Analysis, political beliefs, being overly deferential to authority, 'determining guilt' by looking at someone, and animus one can find 'reasons' to believe in their guilt.
That's the simple version and skipping to the end, and yes of course I know it sounds nutty. I wrote a post on page 230 of the last thread to Lionking trying to explain it. The easy way is to just start with the evidence, or realize that this all started when the police arrested three people on mistaken or coincidental reasons after they put the screws to a traumatized girl and freaked her out. Then the forensics came in and they found no evidence of any of the three at the scene, but instead a burglar who'd fled the country. Mignini had came up with a crazy theory and wouldn't let it go, and he was convinced Amanda and Raffaele were still involved, so he just fit them into his conspiracy theory and got away with it in the short run because he defamed the defendants which works especially well in Italy, the press ran with it, and it's really easy to get a conviction out of an Italian trial of the first instance.
Or you can simply realize, Amanda's just a
girl, Raffaele's just a
guy, and they unexpectedly got the night off
together. Do you really think they murdered someone they had no reason to dislike, then went home, came back the next day and called the cops? That this duplicitous plan would have worked had not
Mignini's bizarre theory based on no evidence turned out to be true? Or did the kook just do his best to make his theory true and those around him helped him make it happen as they'd already committed and figured they'd get away with it because of lack of oversight and the absolution of guilt reflected by the press of the time?
Some of them might have figured they'd get off on appeal, so it wasn't that big of a deal. Happens all the time in Italy.
)
