Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Alt+F4]

Do you think the 6 lay judges in Amanda's trail would have the guts to go against the wishes of the presiding judges?

Yes, why wouldn't they? Are you suggesting that under the Italian system the presiding judges determine the verdict and that the lay judges are just there for show?

 

[Diocletus]

Is there any evidence that this influenced the jury?

Maresca asked the questions about sex. Therefore, it's obvious that he intended that the questions should influence the jury.

It's also obvious, because Maresca asked these questions, that his clients must really believe that Knox murdered Meredith Kercher for sex, which is nuts. That is, unless, not really believing that sex was the motive, Maresca asked the questions in bad faith just to prejudice Knox by making the jury think that she's a tramp.

 

[Alt+F4]

The jury in Anthony trial was sequestered. They were picked carfefully after long interviews. They didn't know who Casey Anthony was, with whom she had sex with and how many boyfriends there were. They didn't know if she had any nicknames or didn't see her photos from, let's say, museums.

How do you know they didn't know these things considered the massive amount of pre-trial publicity that trial got (much more than this case)? None of the jurors said they didn't know who Casey Anthony was. What they knew beyond this no one can say.

 

[snook1]

Yes, why wouldn't they? Are you suggesting that under the Italian system the presiding judges determine the verdict and that the lay judges are just there for show?

No, they're not, but the two judges have the last word on the verdict and the lay judges express their opinion during the deliberations.

BTW, what do you think about the independent experts report? Still haven't heard that answer.

 

[Diocletus]

Yes, why wouldn't they? Are you suggesting that under the Italian system the presiding judges determine the verdict and that the lay judges are just there for show?

In those two criminal trials you mentioned did you have the sitting judge deliberating with you? No?

That's why they call them "lay judges." They're supposed to lay down for the real judge. Or maybe they're supposed to base their decision on whether somebody has been laid too many times. I'm confused. What do those people do? More importantly, do they get to keep those fancy tricolori sashes, or do they have to give them back?

 

[Alt+F4]

Maresca asked the questions about sex. Therefore, it's obvious that he intended that the questions should influence the jury.

Of course he was trying to influence the jury. But did he?

It's also obvious, because Maresca asked these questions, that his clients must really believe that Knox murdered Meredith Kercher for sex, which is nuts. That is, unless, not really believing that sex was the motive, Maresca asked the questions in bad faith just to prejudice Knox by making the jury think that she's a tramp.

So you think it's nuts, why don't you think the jury also thought it was nuts? If it's so obvious to you wouldn't it be obvious to them, the jury that heard the entire trial verbatim? You really think that this jury, or any really, is so niave that once a lawyer says, "that woman is a tramp!" it's automatically accepted as truth?

 

[snook1]

How do you know they didn't know these things considered the massive amount of pre-trial publicity that trial got (much more than this case)? None of the jurors said they didn't know who Casey Anthony was. What they knew beyond this no one can say.

I've seen the whole trial via YouTube. The presiding judge, Belvin Perry, multiple times stated that the jury is cherry picked and that they made sure that no juror had any knowledge whatsoever about the case. There is a possibility that the jurors lied while being interviewed by the judge, prosecutors and the defense during the selection. I highly doubt that though.

 

[Alt+F4]

The presiding judge, Belvin Perry, multiple times stated that the jury is cherry picked and that they made sure that no juror had any knowledge whatsoever about the case.

Not true. Juror 2 knew that Casey Anthony was a single mom. Jurors 3 & 7 said they had, "little knowledge" of the case. Juror 9 believed that, "Casey Anthony’s whole story has not come out". Juror 11 came right out and said he thought she was guilty and that the case had been discussed at his job.

http://blogs.discovery.com/criminal_report/2011/05/casey-anthony-trial-juror-profiles.html

 

[snook1]

Not true. Juror 2 knew that Casey Anthony was a single mom. Jurors 3 & 7 said they had, "little knowledge" of the case. Juror 9 believed that, "Casey Anthony’s whole story has not come out". Juror 11 came right out and said he thought she was guilty and that the case had been discussed at his job.

http://blogs.discovery.com/criminal_report/2011/05/casey-anthony-trial-juror-profiles.html

What exactly is not true? I've seen judge Belvin Perry saying that. Nothing else.

 

[Onofarar]

Phantom Wolf\Kaosium



I could be wrong but isn’t the defences position that the knife is not the murder weapon, therefore how could Meredith’s blood have been found?



The court appointed experts requested dismantling the knife for further investigation not the defence teams, but they quickly agreed; if they are as confident as some say then why didn’t they make the request in their appeal submissions? However, because this was outside scope of the re-examination Maresca and prosecution were able to argue on that technicality and won!

Hi Coulsdon,

Not trying to "pile on", but did not see anyone else point this out.
The defense had to submit their appeal briefs within a certain period after the Motivation Report was filed (90 days IIRC). Thus, the appeals would be filed before the appeals court met to decide anything about the trial "de novo". They had no way of knowing if the court would agree to an independent review - it was possible that the court would just do nothing, or worse in my view, request Steffi do additional tests. Given their concerns about her work up to that point - giving her another specific aspect to test would be a dubious defense strategy IMHO.

To summarize, the defense had to hope (if they wanted the knife opened) that the independent experts would be appointed and once appointed would hve the creativity ogf thouht to open the knife and if Steffi was doing more tests no sense giving new opportunities to find phantom evidence.

BTW - the strategy worked until the prosecution and Maresca played "Jack in the Box" and even then Hellmann left the way open to opening the knife if the independent experts came back again with a scond request.

 

[snook1]

Alt+F4,
how about that independent experts report?

Any thoughts?

 

[Diocletus]

Of course he was trying to influence the jury. But did he?

So you think it's nuts, why don't you think the jury also thought it was nuts? If it's so obvious to you wouldn't it be obvious to them, the jury that heard the entire trial verbatim? You really think that this jury, or any really, is so niave that once a lawyer says, "that woman is a tramp!" it's automatically accepted as truth?

Well, dimwit Massei thought the whole thing was all about sexy time. If you want to believe that Maresca's questioning about Knox's sex life was irrelevent to that, well ok.

And yes, when a lawyer asks questions intended to convey that a woman is a tramp, that is prejudicial. That's why we have rape shield laws.

I don't know whether this jury was nuts, but they sure were stupid.

 

[Kaosium]

Wow you know what's going to happen on September 5th and it's only August 16th! I don't even know what's going to happen an hour from now.

As I said in the beginning, am now, and always shall say:

The bra clasp and knife are evidence against the prosecution.

Thus they will lie and misdirect and squeal like the bad little piggies and sleazy lawyers they are. Or like naughty children dearly in need of a sound spanking.

Daddy Hellmann is coming home and I hear he has a firm hand.

 

[snook1]

As I said in the beginning, am now, and always shall say:

The bra clasp and knife are evidence against the prosecution.

Thus they will lie and misdirect and squeal like the bad little piggies and sleazy lawyers they are. Or like naughty children dearly in need of a sound spanking.

Daddy Hellmann is coming home and I hear he has a firm hand.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Perugia and Bologna

Alt+F4,

After the verdict John Follain wrote an error-filled article subtitled, "Amanda Knox snared by her lust and her lies," for the Sunday Times. So apparently someone believed Mignini's bologna.

 

[Alt+F4]

Alt+F4,

After the verdict John Follain wrote an error-filled article subtitled, "Amanda Knox snared by her lust and her lies," for the Sunday Times. So apparently someone believed Mignini's bologna.

Well that article appeared after the verdict and the author was not on the jury.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Alt,

You have said time and time again that Amanda and Raffaele will lose their appeals. Are you still confident in that? If so, would you be willing to make a friendly wager?

 

[Diocletus]

Alt+F4,

After the verdict John Follain wrote an error-filled article subtitled, "Amanda Knox snared by her lust and her lies," for the Sunday Times. So apparently someone believed Mignini's bologna.

Love this quote from the article:

"Peggy Ganong, an Italian-speaking Seattle blogger who followed the case closely, said: “The implication was that Italian forensics are inferior to American forensics, and I think that’s just not true. The forensic evidence was a lot stronger than her supporters said.”"

Umm. I'll have the opposite of whatever she had.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Follain's reporting

Well that article appeared after the verdict and the author was not on the jury.

Alt+F4,

At least two journalists, Candace Dempsey and Barbie Nadeau, reported on what one or more jurors said. From the title I infer that Follain also spoke with a juror or two.
EDT
My point was not that this article influenced the thinking of the jury; but rather that this article might reflect the thinking of the jury. MOO.

 

[Diocletus]

Well that article appeared after the verdict and the author was not on the jury.

What's the point of all of this. You think it was A-Ok for Maresca and the prosecution to trash this girl on the basis of her private life. I don't. The fact that she slept with some men doesn't make it more likely that she killed someone for sex. There's no nexus. It's just prejudicial rubbish that has no probative value. The questioning was irrelevant, unfair, and classless. It tells me more about the people doing and allowing the questioning than it does about the crime.

And where's the proof of this sex motive? The only sex evidence implicates only Rudy Guede. Oh yeah, Amanda's DNA was on the knife. That would be the knife that never should have been admitted as evidence because the forensics job was a clown act. But it was admitted. And why was it admitted over defense objection. Could it have been because the dimwit judge had already heard and been mesmerized by all of this sexy talk? So in comes the knife without further question. What a sham.