Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ann Coulter's previous article is about as bad

RoseMontague said:
The liberal thing was at least an issue in the Lacrosse case. Frankly, this is the first I have heard about it being a theme in Amanda's case. I guess her most well known supporter is Donald Trump. What am I missing on this one?
Click to expand...
RoseMontague,

Some, probably the majority, of the commentary in the Duke lacrosse case broke down along liberal (anti-players) versus conservative (pro-players) lines, but there were some prominent exceptions, such as Nancy Grace and Nicholas Kristof. With respect to Knox/Sollecito, Ann Coulter's previous piece on this case also touched upon the liberal versus conservative thing.
 
RoseMontague said:
She quotes the false accusation this way:

"He wanted her. ... Raffaele and I went into another room and then I heard screams...."

Has anyone ever seen Raffaele mentioned in any version of this statement?
Click to expand...

No. She made that up.
 
Been reading articles and comments - what happened to Harry Rag and his list of evidence?
 
Last edited:
RoseMontague said:
She quotes the false accusation this way:

"He wanted her. ... Raffaele and I went into another room and then I heard screams...."

Has anyone ever seen Raffaele mentioned in any version of this statement?
Click to expand...

Raffaele was vaguely mentioned in the 5:45 statement as Amanda saying she was not sure if he was at the cottage or not. Translation from Italian to English or English to Italian (I'm not sure which language Amanda gave the statement in and who then translated it onto paper), but nowhere in either translation can I find where she says she and Raffaele went into another room.
 
halides1 said:
RoseMontague,

Some, probably the majority, of the commentary in the Duke lacrosse case broke down along liberal (anti-players) versus conservative (pro-players) lines, but there were some prominent exceptions, such as Nancy Grace and Nicholas Kristof. With respect to Knox/Sollecito, Ann Coulter's previous piece on this case also touched upon the liberal versus conservative thing.
Click to expand...

That's all it's about. If the American media thinks the hippy-chick and the stoner are innocent, they must be ignoring the 'facts' that show them to be guilty as hell. So she lists what she thinks are 'facts' not knowing they're either based on police lies, dubious testimony or irrelevancies. I'm sure many will enjoy watching her make a fool of herself if she continues in this vein. :p
 
Despite how they are insisting on PMF that Hellman's refusal to grant a new review was good news for the prosecution as it revealed had such faith in them that he needed nothing further, note the wording in this piece:
American student Amanda Knox won another battle in her quest to overturn a conviction for murdering her British roommate in Italy when an appeals court rejected a prosecutor's request for more DNA testing.
The decision is good for Knox because it means that an independent review of DNA evidence - previously ordered by the appeals court and hugely favourable to Knox - will stand. It deals a blow to the prosecutors who had sought to counter the results of that review, which harshly criticised how genetic evidence was used in the case.The ruling by Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann also clears the way for closing arguments, which are set to begin September 23 with the prosecution going first, followed by civil plaintiffs and the defence. Further retesting would have inevitably extended the 10-month long trial, now set to end late September or early October


http://www.smh.com.au/world/knox-trial-court-rejects-new-dna-test-20110908-1jyly.html#ixzz1XJtaAt62
Click to expand...
 
One of the comments at the end...

JREF2010 said:
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/129372253.html

However, Knox's lawyer Luciano Ghirga warned that the court's rejection of new DNA testing was not equal to a positive outcome of the whole appeals trial.

Is Girgha being skeptical and extremely cautious?
Click to expand...
-

from the same article. This is all the proof they have left of her guilt... and it's ALL a crock because each individually is either a lie, a misleading misstatement of fact or irrelevant as any kind of positive proof for guilt. It's just so sad:
.
.

"Falsely accusing another man
Detailed cleaning early am of killing
Turning cell phone off when killing occurred
Doing Cartwheels at the police station
Changing her story several times

"By itself no one example above leads me to believe she did it regardless of dna. Taken together I am comfortable saying she did it regardless of dna... "
 
Its disappointing to see some of the headlines reporting on the current events. I understand that the media was handed the easy headlines due to the fact that the prosecution did request the testing but saying that Amanda will go free because Hellmann refused DNA testing is not representative of what is actually going on and it also gives more fuel to yellow journalists like Barbie Nadeau to claim that Amanda "got away with it"

The truth is that the prosecution fought to stop any additional testing. The evidence was unassailable!

Now they shout for additional testing only after the evidence has been shown to be useless by court appointed experts.

The Judge denied the prosecution a second chance. Why should that bother anyone? The prosecution was extremely confident with the results they achieved the first time.
 
Last edited:
Bruce Fisher said:
Its disappointing to see some of the headlines reporting on the current events. I understand that the media was handed the easy headlines due to the fact that the prosecution did request the testing but saying that Amanda will go free because Hellmann refused DNA testing is not representative of what is actually going on and it also gives more fuel to yellow journalists like Barbie Nadeau to claim that Amanda "got away with it"

The truth is that the prosecution fought to stop any additional testing. The evidence was unassailable!

Now they shout for additional testing only after the evidence has been shown to be useless by court appointed experts.

The Judge denied the prosecution a second chance. Why should that bother anyone? The prosecution was extremely confident with the results they achieved the first time.
Click to expand...

Although I applaud the Judge's decision to deny the additional testing, since the items have been examined by a series of experts already (when would it stop?), part of me wants to say "bring it on!!". Although it would delay the trial and allow the prosecution to go on a fishing expedition, the defense, and Amanda and Raffaele, are not afraid of finding more information. I suspect if they did test the knife again, either nothing would be found, or it could be shown that whatever is found was the result of contamination. How the hell do they collect evidence in this manner, test it using the wrong processes, and then claim it is valid evidence? It is completely invalid, because they don't have any real evidence, and they needed to trump something up.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Its disappointing to see some of the headlines reporting on the current events. I understand that the media was handed the easy headlines due to the fact that the prosecution did request the testing but saying that Amanda will go free because Hellmann refused DNA testing is not representative of what is actually going on and it also gives more fuel to yellow journalists like Barbie Nadeau to claim that Amanda "got away with it"

The truth is that the prosecution fought to stop any additional testing. The evidence was unassailable!

Now they shout for additional testing only after the evidence has been shown to be useless by court appointed experts.

The Judge denied the prosecution a second chance. Why should that bother anyone? The prosecution was extremely confident with the results they achieved the first time.
Click to expand...

People need to stop evaluating the case and the court based on how they feel about the defendants, and look at each issue independently. In the first trial, the court pretty much accepted any argument that agreed with the theory that these defendants were guilty, in a totally non-analytical way. This court appears to want to actually analyze the evidence in a way that will find the truth.

I am hoping that continues.
 
At the beginning of the appeal and when the independent experts were assigned the task to review the knife and the bra clasp, the first question Conti (I think...anyway its the short easy name)ask was can we open the knife handle? The prosecutors and Maresca almost jumped out of their skin in objection to this request. The defense said yes...go ahead. Hellmann made the decision to not open the handle but that he would consider the matter later if necessary. Since he made so few rulings in this case I’m certain he remembers the prosecution objection on this item. First, because it made no sense at all for the prosecution to object...in fact Mignini had a duty to fully inspect this evidence. An Italian prosecutor is charged with protecting and providing evidence that can help a defendant prove their innocence. Hellmann certainly remembers this issue. And he remembered it today too. Second…repeat first above.

Today I expected Mignini to file charges against Comodi as Italian law requires him to do. I have not heard about it yet but he must certainly realize that Comodi today accused President Hellmann and his assistant Zanetti of very serious crimes. Not only did she defame them both but she defamed the whole court system of Italy and she did so publicly in a newspaper. Certainly legal papers are being prepared against her before the week is out. He must do it. He did it against Amanda. He did it against Amandas parents and against RS parents. This caluninga (sp) charge is quite serious and I would expect the maximum of 6 years since she did it against the whole Italian court....not just some slap happy brunette whose name rhymes with Rita...errr is Rita. (sue me I cant think of a rhyme for Rita) Nita....yea lets call her Nita...NO ...Comodi cluninganizes the whole frikkin Italian court system...you can bet your sweet potato Mignini better be filing papers against this crime. Its his duty.

I might just write my own letter to the Perugia Court and remind Mignini of his duty. I feel I owe it to Italy.
 
Last edited:
RandyN said:
At the beginning of the appeal and when the independent experts were assigned the task to review the knife and the bra clasp, the first question Conti (I think...anyway its the short easy name)ask was can we open the knife handle? The prosecutors and Maresca almost jumped out of their skin in objection to this request. The defense said yes...go ahead.
Click to expand...
Good time to replay The Machine's prediction about the knife re-examination:

4) Two possible game-overs

Re-examination of the knife

In “Darkness Descending” the former Carabinieri General Garofano wrote that the police should have separated the plastic handle from the knife and checked for blood there.

The defence teams will regret having asked for the independent review if the new experts do this and they find there a testable quantity of Meredith’s blood.
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php...why_they_probably_wont_help_defense_and_may_/
 
Last edited:
Out of curiosity, how do people feel Meredith's DNA profile came to be found on the knife? Or is the claim that the identification is in fact pareidolia?
 
shuttlt said:
Out of curiosity, how do people feel Meredith's DNA profile came to be found on the knife? Or is the claim that the identification is in fact pareidolia?
Click to expand...

We'll probably never know.

Deliberate contamination is in my view the most likely explanation, followed slightly behind by accidental contamination plus wishful thinking and the kind of total lack of understanding of scientific methodology you might expect of someone with only an undergraduate degree and no research qualifications.

Accidental contamination could have occurred when the knife was collected, or when it was repackaged, or when it was in Stefanoni's laboratory.

There are multiple reasonable options to divide our bets between. I'm sure that the hypothesis that the DNA got there because the knife was used to stab Meredith is less likely than, say, the odds of me winning the lotto, and hence takes up very little of the possibility space, but beyond that how to divide up the remaining space is fuzzy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom