Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
LondonJohn said:
The level of denial by some of the most idiotic pro-guilt commentators is astonishing! A frog seems to think that the very fact that Hellmann had to retire to consider whether or not to allow a new DNA examination is in itself proof that "the damage was done" by the prosecutors! (Clearly this frog is entirely ignorant of judicial process, as well as hopelessly biased). And that oddball running .net even thinks that Hellmann's refusal to allow new DNA work might be because he (Hellmann) has concluded that the Conti/Vecchiotti report is rubbish and the knife/clasp are both fine as evidence!!

The mindsets of some of these people are truly extraordinary. I also see they are now jumping on their former heroine, Barbie Latza Clouseau. Sad, really.
Click to expand...

Comodi and the frog do not seem to be on the same page. This is ominous for somebody, I suppose.
 
smkovalinksy said:
It seems Comodi believes Hellman is against the prosecution, and is preparing for high court:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23984490-knox-will-be-freed-says-prosecutor.do
Click to expand...


HOLY SMOKE!

If Comodi really did say this:

"There is an ill wind blowing in this case. The judge and his assistant are clearly against us. I can see both Knox and Sollecito being freed which will be a shame as they are both involved."

and it's been accurately reported, then she's having a total and utter meltdown. This is contempt of court, pure and simple. She's questioning the court's integrity and neutrality, and she's also making wholly improper statements regarding the status of an acquittal.

If this is an accurate quote and translation (obviously she'd have said it in Italian), then I suspect that it might get Comodi in quite serious trouble. I hope so: she's a menace and a bully, and deserves her comeuppance.
 
LondonJohn said:
The level of denial by some of the most idiotic pro-guilt commentators is astonishing! A frog seems to think that the very fact that Hellmann had to retire to consider whether or not to allow a new DNA examination is in itself proof that "the damage was done" by the prosecutors! (Clearly this frog is entirely ignorant of judicial process, as well as hopelessly biased). And that oddball running .net even thinks that Hellmann's refusal to allow new DNA work might be because he (Hellmann) has concluded that the Conti/Vecchiotti report is rubbish and the knife/clasp are both fine as evidence!!

The mindsets of some of these people are truly extraordinary. I also see they are now jumping on their former heroine, Barbie Latza Clouseau. Sad, really.
Click to expand...
But if you look at the 2 article excerpts I posted above, do you think the prosecution will attempt to take this on appeal to the high court? ( i.e., Hellman was biased against them, and their evidence?)ETA: Posted this before you posted above....
 
Last edited:
smkovalinksy said:
It seems Comodi believes Hellman is against the prosecution, and is preparing for high court:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23984490-knox-will-be-freed-says-prosecutor.do

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/09/07/general-eu-italy-knox_8662380.html
Click to expand...

Ms Comodi said: "There is an ill wind blowing in this case. The judge and his assistant are clearly against us. I can see both Knox and Sollecito being freed which will be a shame as they are both involved."

Sue that bitch.
 
LondonJohn said:
HOLY SMOKE!

If Comodi really did say this:

"There is an ill wind blowing in this case. The judge and his assistant are clearly against us. I can see both Knox and Sollecito being freed which will be a shame as they are both involved."

and it's been accurately reported, then she's having a total and utter meltdown. This is contempt of court, pure and simple. She's questioning the court's integrity and neutrality, and she's also making wholly improper statements regarding the status of an acquittal.

If this is an accurate quote and translation (obviously she'd have said it in Italian), then I suspect that it might get Comodi in quite serious trouble. I hope so: she's a menace and a bully, and deserves her comeuppance.
Click to expand...

Perhaps Mignini would have been a better choice to handle the appeal hearing after all. Has the new prosecutor actually said much of anything?
 
RoseMontague said:
Perhaps Mignini would have been a better choice to handle the appeal hearing after all. Has the new prosecutor actually said much of anything?
Click to expand...


Oh I think Mignini may soon have other things to worry about. As may Comodi. In the UK, lawyers can be jailed for saying this sort of thing, let alone debarred or struck off. I hope that the Italian courts are aware of this Comodi interview (provided it's accurate). I wonder if she said it in a wider press conference scenario, or in a private interview with Pisa.
 
lionking said:
Half time victory dances are always unedifying.
Click to expand...

It's strange that the prosecution has pretty much given up. Perhaps they know more than they are saying.

It will be interesting if Maresca says something similar. The mystic pizza dude hasn't been very reliable in the past.

Ergon was right, should have adjusted for the seventh house.
 
I couldn't resist a peep down the rabbit holes... those people are simply incapable of revising their beliefs in light of new evidence.

They really do seem to run on a very simple program where all evidence that goes against their existing beliefs is dismissed regardless of how solid it is, and all evidence that goes with their existing beliefs is swallowed whole regardless of how absurd it is.

If you based your belief in Knox and Sollecito's guilt on Nadeau, then logically you should backflip when Nadeau backflips. I don't think their belief is actually based on anything any more, their belief exists in a vacuum, unrelated to proper evidence or logic, and untouchable by it. They believe because it's what they believe.
 
Some UK solicitor* has opined that nobody knows what the court is thinking, or which way the judge and jury are leaning. While this might be universally true in common law jurisdictions in which the judge and jury are totally separate entities, it's not true in the Italian system where the lead judge also heads the judicial panel.

And in this case, we have very strong indications as to what the judge and judicial panel think, because Hellmann has already issued various significant rulings on findings of fact (which he will have reached in consultation with the entire judicial panel). It's absolutely obvious to anyone with an ounce of intelligence and reason that Hellmann's court is leaning very strongly towards acquittal already. If you don't believe that, just ask prosecutor Comodi, who apparently made an astonishing outburst claiming that Hellmann's court was biased against the prosecution.

* FYI, in UK criminal courts solicitors are not allowed to speak for clients. Their role is limited to merely sitting in court (if that), and supporting the only grade of lawyer permitted to actually stand up in a criminal court and present a case: criminal barristers.


ETA: For more accuracy, I should say "England and Wales" rather than "UK". Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate jurisdicions.
 
Last edited:
What Comodi said - just :jaw-dropp


Bringing back the snitch Aviello revealed how really desperate they are and how little faith they have in their "10 000 pages" of evidence. Didn't Maresca jump to support that request? Nauseating.
 
LondonJohn said:
The level of denial by some of the most idiotic pro-guilt commentators is astonishing! A frog seems to think that the very fact that Hellmann had to retire to consider whether or not to allow a new DNA examination is in itself proof that "the damage was done" by the prosecutors! (Clearly this frog is entirely ignorant of judicial process, as well as hopelessly biased). And that oddball running .net even thinks that Hellmann's refusal to allow new DNA work might be because he (Hellmann) has concluded that the Conti/Vecchiotti report is rubbish and the knife/clasp are both fine as evidence!!

The mindsets of some of these people are truly extraordinary. I also see they are now jumping on their former heroine, Barbie Latza Clouseau. Sad, really.
Click to expand...

In-deed.

Their comments about how this decision might actually be good news for the prosecution are strongly reminiscent of similar statements by innocence supporters following Massei's denial of the independent review -- yet that decision was IMO the single biggest indicator of the verdict to come. Similarly, it's pretty clear to me that Hellmann's decision to appoint C&V, followed by this decision not to appoint a "C&V for C&V", constitutes writing on the proverbial wall.

Their suggestions that the defense's objections show how scared they are of finding Meredith's DNA are just hilarious, in light of the prosecution's and Maresca's earlier reaction to Conti and Vecchiotti's suggestion that the knife be opened (which was endorsed by the defense).

It's really almost comical; like they're unaware of how they look from the outside.
 
komponisto said:
Like another Maori or Ghirga?

Even with her other commitments, Bongiorno is and has been the best of the four defense attorneys in this case, IMHO.

I have yet to see any instance where having Bongiorno as his attorney has harmed Raffaele. Even her absence (unfortunate though it is) doesn't count, because Maori was there, and if Bongiorno hadn't been hired, the other lawyer in her place would have just been someone similar to him anyway.
Click to expand...

I can accept that, and you have more knowledge of the legal system in Italy than I do. She seems to be a very good attorney, but my comments are based more on the level of adjustments that have had to have been made per her schedule. I realize she is good, but my thoughts are based on the idea that there have to be other great attorneys who are not also politicians. If it all goes well, it is ultimately a moot point.
 
FWIW, the Hellmann refusal of the prosecution's DNA retest request is the "Breaking news" ticker on Sky News in the UK right now. I suspect we'll get a piece to camera from Pisa before long.

I actually think that the media have jumped too far the other way in the reporting of this news. Volatility and black-and-white certainties are the two stock-in-trades of the news media, especially in this era of 24-hour rolling news, intense competition between news media, and the power of the internet. It's less of a story to say something more accurate along the lines of "Hellmann's refusal of the request is an indicator that the knife and clasp will likely be rejected as probative evidence by the appeal court, and lends weight to the prospect of acquittal." Instead, the media know that the public crave sensationalism, lack of nuance and conflict. And they give the public what the public wants.
 
Last edited:
komponisto said:
In-deed.

Their comments about how this decision might actually be good news for the prosecution are strongly reminiscent of similar statements by innocence supporters following Massei's denial of the independent review -- yet that decision was IMO the single biggest indicator of the verdict to come. Similarly, it's pretty clear to me that Hellmann's decision to appoint C&V, followed by this decision not to appoint a "C&V for C&V", constitutes writing on the proverbial wall.

Their suggestions that the defense's objections show how scared they are of finding Meredith's DNA are just hilarious, in light of the prosecution's and Maresca's earlier reaction to Conti and Vecchiotti's suggestion that the knife be opened (which was endorsed by the defense).

It's really almost comical; like they're unaware of how they look from the outside.
Click to expand...

Agree with this logic completely. It's clear what is happening. Just some are in denial.
 
LondonJohn said:
Volatility and black-and-white certainties are the two stock-in-trades of the news media,
Click to expand...

The irony is that these two are mostly incompatible, almost by definition: volatile situations are usually those about which black-and-white certainty is the most difficult to have!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom