Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[smkovalinksy]

Imagine what it'll be like when the verdict is announced!

They're already beginning to realize what's in the cards; you can watch it sinking in as they frantically rehearse their talking points to themselves. They're like supporters of a political party facing an imminent election loss.

The only problem is, they are still making comments like the excerpt below, which makes one really want the verdict to come, so such tongue-wagging may be stopped:

I agree, she and Raff will be re-convicted.

Some of the strongest evidence, in addition to the mixed Knox/victim DNA evidence, is the dried blood of Knox (and Knox only; no Meredith DNA) on the faucet.

I didn't know about this evidence until I read Massei, but now I think it's some of the strongest in the case.

By her own testimony, that blood was not there the day before, when she left the apartment. By her own mouth, therefore, she admitted to bleeding on the night of the murder in that house.

 

[komponisto]

LOL. Thanks Komponisto. Comodi is such a lying liar.

You're welcome, RoseMontague; and might I add that many of your comments make me laugh -- particularly those containing the word "ominous".

 

[Onofarar]

Diocletus beat me to the punch, but I was going to say that I would love to make a bet with this person.

And I think you could get good odds in your favor - say 3 to 1.

 

[Draca]

Happy to hear Hellmann denied the new LCN DNA test. That would have caused huge delays for the verdict. The prosecution and Stefanoni have failed to redeem their 'evidence' from the DNA experts report. They actually made the evidence look worse with the multiple profiles on the bra clasp explained clearly and the new freezer storage Hail Mary. Things are looking good for Amanda and Raffaele.

TJMK/PMF - hey don't worry, you can be comforted in knowing that the Perugian authorities had them spend four precious years of their lives in jail. That's something right?

 

[Justinian2]

If they are acquitted in Hellmann's court, they will definitely be released from prison. Whether they are either put under some sort of house arrest or prevented from leaving Italy pending any sort of prosecution appeal to the Supreme Court is unclear. I suspect that they would be under some sort of licence until the case is finally over.

The prosecution will have no basis to refer Hellmann's refusal of the DNA "re-re-test" to the Supreme Court. This is clearly an acceptable and correct judicial ruling by Hellmann, taken after due consultation with all parties. If the prosecutors decide to appeal on those grounds, the appeal will be thrown out and will likely be deemed vexatious.

My guess is that unless there is a massive breach of law or process in Hellmann's court (which there won't be), the prosecution will not appeal an acquittal to the Supreme Court. To do so would simply look vindictive and vexatious, and would open the prosecutors up to massive criticism within and outside Italy. Besides, I think that many of the prosecutors might have legal/job problems of their own to deal with over the coming twelve months. I also guess that in the event of acquittals, the other trial processes against Knox and her parents would also be dropped - although I wouldn't be surprised if prosecutors continue with the action against the Sollecitos and the Telenorba executives over the crime scene video issue.

Thanks.

I also wonder if the entire Knox family split from Italy and never returned if there would be any ramifications.

I wonder if they left Italy without proper blessings if they could travel to any European country in the future.

 

[komponisto]

The only problem is, they are still making comments like the excerpt below, which makes one really want the verdict to come, so such tongue-wagging may be stopped:

Oh, I was already quite tempted to comment on this:

I agree, she and Raff will be re-convicted.

Some of the strongest evidence, in addition to the mixed Knox/victim DNA evidence, is the dried blood of Knox (and Knox only; no Meredith DNA) on the faucet.

I didn't know about this evidence until I read Massei, but now I think it's some of the strongest in the case.

So now the strongest evidence in the case is not "mixed blood", nor even Kercher's blood mixed with Knox's DNA, but rather Knox's blood alone, with no DNA from Kercher at all.

What do you suppose the next smoking gun will be? Knox's name on the lease?

 

[Kaosium]

And I think you could get good odds in your favor - say 3 to 1.

It's too bad for Darth Rotor who only got 1:1 on $100 total over on the slander thread. He wanted people to 'put their money where their mouths were' and appeared to be dismayed to have so many takers, so soon. It will all get donated to JREF I guess, so I guess the Cartwheels threads will have been an asset to the forum.

 

[komponisto]

And I think you could get good odds in your favor - say 3 to 1.

I should be able to get much better than that, if he/she thinks the chances of acquittal (nay, the combined chances of acquittal and reduced sentence) are below 1%!

 

[Onofarar]

I have a few questions about the process for the remainder of the trial.

1) Why is there a break right now and not after the closing arguments? I'm used to the American system where the case is "sent to the jury" after the closing arguments. Also, why is the break for a determined amount of time?

2) Are the judges/jury supposed to be reviewing the case for a set amount of time, or is it something more mundane like a scheduling issue for the courtroom?

3) Is the jury in this case comprised of a panel of judges? If so, have they been required to sit through the entire trial? Have they been allowed to ask questions, either to the witnesses or the presiding judge?

4) If the jury is indeed a panel of judges, how great is the opportunity for corruption?

1. - The judge(s) - (Hellmann for sure) had vacation time scheduled and in Europe generally vacation is sacrosanct nothing interferes with it.
2. - No, that portion of the timeline is probably based on the amount of time the first panel took to reach a verdict - 1 day.
3. - The panel is 2 judges and 6 "lay judges" - all comprise the jury. In this trial the lay judges must have a high school diploma which was not required in the first trial. All eight have been there every day the court has been in session. Don't know if lay judges can or have asked questions - I am sure if the lay judges had some burning issue that they wanted addressed they could bring in up to Hellmann outside court and if they were persuasive he would bring the matter up in the next court session.
4. - The prosecution and the judges (not lay judges) come from a common organization - we saw in the first trial numerous rulings by Massei that were poorly reasoned and/or clearly biased against the defense. One of the few rulings that went in favor of the defense occurred during one of Comodi's smoking breaks when she was not present (thank god! - that ruling resulted in the revelation of the "too low too low" in <Dr Stefi's notes on the DNA tests on the knife. The problem isn't corruption, it is cronyism - fortunately Hellmann is not from Perugia but from northern Italy and appears very willing to pursue his own path and not provide cover for his comrades in the prosecution.

 

[Kaosium]

Oh, I was already quite tempted to comment on this:



So now the strongest evidence in the case is not "mixed blood", nor even Kercher's blood mixed with Knox's DNA, but rather Knox's blood alone, with no DNA from Kercher at all.

What do you suppose the next smoking gun will be? Knox's name on the lease?

LOL!

Incidentally, nothing I wrote yesterday or the day before (?) was meant in the slightest to be derogatory to you, re-reading it occurred to me that it might have come across that way, when that was in no way my intention! I know you probably know all this that follows, I'm just putting it together to ensure that no argument advanced by the guilt faction goes unchallenged.

For this one, at least it's an honest argument, unlike Greggy who still apparently thinks the 'mixed DNA' is of any significance whatsover. It brings to his mind Amanda hacking away, all over the apartment, which is about as silly as one can get, being as the stuff in the sink and cotton box is pretty obviously the result of Rudy washing up in Amanda's sink, which might well have already been mixed with Meredith's DNA as they both used it. The only other place they found their DNA mixed IIRC was Filomena's room, in that splotch. Which of course is far more likely to have occurred at any time during the two or so months they lived together and not the twenty or so minutes of the attack, and as it isn't blood, and as there's nothing else there to think there was any struggle there, that becomes pretty obvious, at least in my mind.

The blood on the tap at least exists:

Plus this testimony of Amanda's, as reflected here in Massei:

On the front part of the tap of the sink, there was coagulated blood which was shown to belong to Amanda.

(...)

First, it should be recalled that Amanda Knox, in the course of her own examination (questioning), declared that when she left the house on Via della Pergola on the afternoon of November 1st, the bathroom was clean.

Of course, you might notice the lighting in the picture looks awfully different than the lighting in the crime scene videos. If you wish to skip the enthralling guided tour of the bidet and toilet, the tap is shown at almost exactly 3:00, 4:00 and ~4:32.

Lots tougher to see with normal lighting isn't it? Here's a picture with normal lighting from a different angle:

Now Amanda says it's probably from a pierced ear, which if you recall what she was attempting to do to her poor little ears shortly before the murder is quite likely to have happened, and even Massei accepted it:

Amanda was not wounded; in the days following no one spoke of wounds that she might have had; the examination which was carried out on her when measures restricting her personal freedom were taken ruled out the presence of wounds. Meredith’s situation was the complete opposite. In relation to this and to the circumstance by which haematological stains attributable to Meredith were found on the inside of the door, on the toilet-seat cover, on the light switch, it should be deduced that the haematological components found in the sink, in the bidet, on the box of cotton buds were also from Meredith. Nor can it otherwise be argued for the presence of a drop of Amanda’s blood on the tap of the sink. This consisted of a spot of coagulated blood, with respect to which Amanda explained that it came from her own ear having been pierced; this spot, furthermore, was located towards the inside of the sink: distinct, separate and morphologically different, therefore, from the trace found in the sink itself.

So there it is, the best actual physical evidence of Amanda being involved in Meredith's death. She had a smear of blood on the tap you can barely see under the normal lighting of the room, probably from one of the dozen extra holes she drilled in her head, apparently unhappy with the seven she started life with, and perhaps the two some like to add for ornamental purposes. She wanted to be especially well ornamented I guess, and got blood on the tap in the process, and now it's the best actual evidence she was involved in the murder. There's a moral in this somewhere!

 

[Draca]

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.

Ya, at this time their belief in guilt comes first. Anything saying otherwise is just an annoyance.

You'll like this one Kevin,

No blood on knife.
Kermit:
WELL, that's not true.... the only thing that they can say is that the blood tests were negative, not that there was definitively no blood.

haha

 

[smkovalinksy]

Ya, at this time their belief in guilt comes first. Anything saying otherwise is just an annoyance.

You'll like this one Kevin,

No blood on knife.
Kermit:
WELL, that's not true.... the only thing that they can say is that the blood tests were negative, not that there was definitively no blood.

haha

That degree of willful delusion is actually pathetic.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Get the "confirmation bias" cut and pastes ready, and add this to the ridicule sent to Lowe.

Nevertheless, IMHO,

1) Sollecito suddenly felt a very strange necessity and timing to extemporaneously come forth with his ludicrous cock and bollocks fabrication about pricking Meredith's finger with that knife in question.

2) That "stupid kid" story revealed more to me about what he thereby confirmed was *at one time* in sufficient quantity on that blade than any subsequent tests needed to.

3)Add to this the defendant documented anxiety about "what might be found on the knife" and then believe and send to leader Lowe what you may.

haha

So Sollectio anticipated blood being found. But why wasn't it?

 

[Draca]

Nevertheless, IMHO,

1) Sollecito suddenly felt a very strange necessity and timing to extemporaneously come forth with his ludicrous cock and bollocks fabrication about pricking Meredith's finger with that knife in question.

2) That "stupid kid" story revealed more to me about what he thereby confirmed was *at one time* in sufficient quantity on that blade than any subsequent tests needed to.

3)Add to this the documented anxiety about "what might be found on the knife" and then believe and sent to leader Lowe what you may.

pilot padron,

I know you find things that Amanda and Raffaele said suspicious. None of them are proof of guilt. The examples you list above are all things Raffaele said after he was arrested. All the things used to arrest him in the first place have long ago disappeared. Would you really send him to jail for what you think are suspicious statements? And Cmon, admit what Kermit said was funny.

 

[katy_did]

It's my opinion that if Sollecito had had a full-time top criminal defence laywer with a track record in murder cases working for him (and, by extension, for Knox too), there might never have been a provisional conviction in Massei's court. For example, to my mind, Curatolo could and should have been demolished in Massei's court - even before his catastrophic recall to Hellmann's court. And I think the DNA evidence, the mixed blood evidence, the bathmat partial print, the "staging" theory, the computer evidence, the ToD, Quintavalle, and the telephone evidence could and should have been far better argued in Massei's court.

Bongiorno might have been the best defence lawyer of the four, but an objective analysis shows that she was merely the "least bad". Dalla Vedova wasn't even a criminal defence lawyer before this case, and both Ghirga and Maori are no more than competent provincial lawyers. I strongly believe that Sollecito's father decided he wanted who he perceived as "the best" to defend his son. I think he made an ill-informed and incorrect decision as to who "the best" might be, and I think that Bongiorno was badly remiss in not disabusing him of that notion.

Hmmm, I have to agree with komponisto on this one. I don't know if you've read Sollecito's appeal, but it's extremely strong (far superior to Knox's) and it's obviously mostly Bongiorno's work. And the thing is, I'm sure that the vast majority of the points raised in it had already been argued in the first trial - the demolishing of Curatolo, for example - but were ignored by Massei. We've all seen his (lack of) reasoning, after all! There was little Bongiorno or any of the other lawyers could do against that kind of 'logic'. The first verdict was always going to be guilty.

I really can't see that any other lawyer would've been more likely to get a not guilty verdict in that first trial, and most would've made far fewer inroads into the prosecution case than Bongiorno (proving the timing of the 112 call, for example - without her input on that one, Massei would've used that as evidence of guilt as well, as he did with any other prosecution claim the defence couldn't disprove).

 

[LondonJohn]

Hmmm, I have to agree with komponisto on this one. I don't know if you've read Sollecito's appeal, but it's extremely strong (far superior to Knox's) and it's obviously mostly Bongiorno's work. And the thing is, I'm sure that the vast majority of the points raised in it had already been argued in the first trial - the demolishing of Curatolo, for example - but were ignored by Massei. We've all seen his (lack of) reasoning, after all! There was little Bongiorno or any of the other lawyers could do against that kind of 'logic'. The first verdict was always going to be guilty.

I really can't see that any other lawyer would've been more likely to get a not guilty verdict in that first trial, and most would've made far fewer inroads into the prosecution case than Bongiorno (proving the timing of the 112 call, for example).

Well, I hear what you're saying, and I never suggested it was a given that an experienced and fully-dedicated defence lawyer would have got acquittals in Massei's court. But I do think strongly that despite Bongiorno's evident skills, intellect and courtroom experience, more could have been done in the first trial. And it's undeniable that Bongiorno's lack of availability has had a hugely material effect on the speed of the whole trials process.

I therefore remain firmly of the view that Bongiorno should never have taken the case: primarily because she had a prior full-time job to attend to, but also because she had no prior experience in murder trials. I think that Sollecito (and by extension Knox) would have fared better if Sollecito had been represented by a top Italian criminal defence lawyer with murder-trial experience, who was also able to devote him/herself pretty much full-time to the case. I certainly think they could not have fared much worse.

But I caveat all of this by repeating what I said previously: Bongiorno clearly appears to be the most switched-on and effective of the four defence lawyers (although, as I also said, I don't think she's up against particularly stiff competition from the other three). And I agree that Massei seems to have thrown logic and reason out of the window in the way he conducted and ruled in the first trial. But there were still a lot of often-basic mistakes made by the defence, in my view. There's simply no escaping this sad fact. Fortunately, the mistakes now seem to be being robustly rectified in the appeal. However, I can't help but wonder how much of this might be due to the new legal consultants (notably Ted Simon) who've been brought in to provide behind-the-scenes legal advice.

 

[RoseMontague]

Get the "confirmation bias" cut and pastes ready, and add this to the ridicule sent to Lowe.

Nevertheless, IMHO,

1) Sollecito suddenly felt a very strange necessity and timing to extemporaneously come forth with his ludicrous cock and bollocks fabrication about pricking Meredith's finger with that knife in question.

2) That "stupid kid" story revealed more to me about what he thereby confirmed was *at one time* in sufficient quantity on that blade than any subsequent tests needed to.

3)Add to this the defendant documented anxiety about "what might be found on the knife" and then believe and send to leader Lowe what you may.

haha

Somehow I don't see the judge being persuaded by the fact that Raffaele said some pretty "dumb" stuff. I would say he has long since served enough time for that.

Raffaele is about to go free, pilot. Of this I have great certainty. It's not too late for you to come over from the *dark side*.

 

[Ammonitida]

pilot padron,

I know you find things that Amanda and Raffaele said suspicious. None of them are proof of guilt. The examples you list above are all things Raffaele said after he was arrested. All the things used to arrest him in the first place have long ago disappeared. Would you really send him to jail for what you think are suspicious statements? And Cmon, admit what Kermit said was funny.

Regarding his statement, wasn't he referring to a different knife than the one collected at his apartment? If so, that would be suggestive of innocence because if he had really been involved in the murder, then surely he would have known which knife Amanda used to cut Meredith.

 

[LondonJohn]

This CNN report is interesting regarding the Comodi situation:

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/09/07/italy.knox.appeal/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

The report contains the following passage:

Even the prosecutor's office told CNN that its attorneys are less certain of the outcome. The prosecution is still confident that the verdict will be upheld, but are aware that it could go either way, the office said.

Reading between the lines, I think that what happened today goes something like this:

1) Comodi had a conversation with Pisa and Chance first thing in the morning, in which she made the accusations of bias against Hellmann, Zanetti and the court.

2) Pisa and Chance both realised the significance of these inflammatory allegations, and reported on them: Pisa in print (Standard and Mail) and Chance on Twitter.

3) The Prosecutors' Office saw the articles and realised what a horrible mistake Comodi had made.

4) The Prosecutors' Office decided to try to diffuse the situation, and either contacted CNN (and probably also the Mail and Standard) or Chance/Pisa directly, with an attempt to finesse the issue.

5) The finesse that the Prosecutors' Office chose to try to apply was that prosecutors realised there was a possibility of acquittal, but that they (collectively) were still confident of an acquittal.

6) The Prosecutors' Office hoped that this would diffuse and detract from Comodi's extraordinary outburst earlier in the day. I suspect they leaned strongly on either Chance or CNN to print the "clarification".

Unfortunately, the cat is now out of the bag. It's abundantly clear that Comodi had some sort of moment of madness earlier today, in which she stood in front of journalists, and (probably in a state of high emotion) accused the court of being biased towards the defence.

I now judge more than ever that Comodi will be removed from this case before the next court session, and that she will probably face serious disciplinary issues (and possibly legal issues) over what she said. The apparent fact that the Prosecutors' Office has tried to manipulate the situation by issuing bogus "clarifications" only serves to make it clear that senior figures in Perugia/Umbria prosecution realise just what a grotesque error Comodi made today.

 

[charlatan]

Common sense dictates that the large cooking knife 'discovered' in Raffaele's kitchen drawer -- a knife that was at best compatible with one of the major knife wounds, and even then only if it weren't plunged in all the way -- was not in fact transported in Amanda's purse to the scene of an unpremeditated murder.

Even when I believed Amanda and Raffaele may have been culpable in the murder, it boggled my mind that the knife was accepted as evidence of anything but cooking. It's stunning that instead of questioning the culpability of that poor kitchen knife, Mignini concocted his elaborate, nonsensical multi-knife, multi-party theory of the crime.

If there is one thing I'm sure about in this whole mess it's that the knife is innocent. It has only been propped up by the prosecution to justify some deeply flawed logic.