Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
I noticed people were saying (a few pages ago) it's unlikely that Mignini has a legal loophole saying the DNA reviews can be discounted as invalid.
Also, rather strangley that the prosecution is unlikely to raise this for the final appeal.

If they did raise the objection it would be far more honest than a lot of their more criminally inspired dealings. They'll do anything that lot. They have no interest whatsoever in ruining other people's lives or what's right or wrong. They just blithely push under any circumstances, using any means for their own result in the ridiculous case they presented.
Mignini could ask for his own new referral one day and dismiss the defence's recent referral as invalid the next, having known all along he would do so. Most lawyers are like that and laws do contain loopholes that can be freely exploited in that manner.

I can remember when the reviews were allowed it was announced that it was unusual to do so at the appeal stage of a proceeding.

Mignini may still have yet another dirty trick up his sleeve. What a surprise.
 
Last edited:
I also noticed some commentary on the scream.

For a start if Rudy said there was one there was. That's it.
He'd believe that other people could also say there was and he'd know.

The discussion about the scream was about whether it happened when Meredith first sighted Rudy in the flat or at the start of the violence.

The beginning of the fight was seen as more likely.

My opinion is that it's a 98% probability that the scream occurred when the knife was produced.
 
Last edited:
I read recently that it was presented in the original trial that the heat in the cottage wasn't turned up. Does anyone have a source for this?
 
Hellman's tactic of bringing the nutty lying prison witnesses into court is quite noteworthy.
It highlights the vulnerability of certain types of people (like all the prosecution witnesses) to tell lies and confirm crazy stories on the stand.


just like Steff.....


and Commodi....
 
Last edited:
AmyStrange said:
-


IF Mignini is right (big if) and the review is illegal, and when and IF (another big if) this court does acquit Amanda and Raffaele, they can easily make a case that all they needed to reject the (knife and bra clasp) DNA evidence (as probably contaminated) was the original video showing the collection of the bra clasp, it's current condition (as proof of improper collection and storage techniques), and the "new" test (and thus "new" evidence) showing there was no bleach or blood found on the knife, but that starch was detected which thus proved (or a strong case could be made) that it being the murder weapon is highly unlikely.

Mignini would then have nothing to protest about at the Supreme Court level.
Dave
Click to expand...

I've been posting in the last few days while sort of skipping the content of the forum due to lack of time, but I did notice your comment on using the video and starch etc and I felt it was a very well thought out post.

Hopefully the Motivations report from Hellman's trial will make gruesome reading for the PMF brigade. (and the Supreme Court if the trial gets there)

AmyStrange said:
-

IF, of course, Italy does allow him to continue practicing law, but that would be their problem because they would then be admitting that they didn't themselves learn anything from this charade either,

Dave
Click to expand...

Italy should try to get people who correctly administer the law instead of the Mignini, Commodi types who are only experimentally practicing it

and fail..
 
Last edited:
Dougm said:
While not being an Italian law expert, I can't imagine Mignini is right here. If this review is wrong, it is really blatently wrong. So Hellmann is just walking merrily down the path, and allowing something obviously wrong? Of course he could make a mistake, but this would be too huge to be missed.

As others would say, why have an appeal at all if you can't challenge anything? Especially when the defense requested a review of the same evidence and was denied, and the reason given for the denial was NOT that it was not requested at the correct time.
Click to expand...

There's still a lot of doubt placed squarely in the minds of the Italian public from it anyway.

It amazes me that we are so well informed here on every twist of the tale and have been for so long, but the jurors seem to know very little. That was astounding that they could still gasp in court at that old crime-scene video.

The continual illegalities of the prosecution's evidence and case were extremely hightlighted in this evidence faze and that should be the overriding factor in regard to the additional review.

Young innocent lives are at stake and the nature of the stain being applied to them has been provnd to reek so badly that it might be time to quickly rewrite and pass that little law if required. That's if it exists of course. (which is just the type of thing that happens all the time)
 
Last edited:
Draca said:
I read recently that it was presented in the original trial that the heat in the cottage wasn't turned up. Does anyone have a source for this?
Click to expand...


I only find it mentioned in Massei's summary of Amanda's testimony
From page [56] (always the Italian page number)
In the June 12-13, 2009 hearing, Amanda Knox underwent questioning , requested by
the civil party Patrick Lumumba and by the defence.
Click to expand...
... Continuing on page [67]
The house was cold and, upon arrival, she had not turned on any type of heating.
Click to expand...
This part is apparently not in the transcripts of Amanda's testimony that I have.

The fact that the recorded temperature was only 13ºC is also an indication that the heat was not turned on:
from page [177]
Massei said:
He recalled, the data input by Dr. Lalli: ambient temperature 13º C
Click to expand...
 
christianahannah said:
I think some of this subject of a non-apology to Patrick came from Amanda's testimony during her June 2009 court appearance where she was asked whether she had apologized to Patrick and she replied no.<snip>
Click to expand...

I thought the same thing, christianahannah, but I don't find it in the testimony transcript. This may be the exchange we are thinking of. It's about compensation, not an apology.

CP: Did you ever make any proposal to give Patrick some money?

AK: Me? Personally?

CP: Yes, or through your lawyers? Personally, of course.

AK: Me, no. [Laughs] I don't remember that.

CP: For now, I've finished. Thank you, Presidente.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Grinder said:
I'm sure Yummi would tell you that unless the defense specifically asked the prosecution if Curatolo was a heroin dealer and user, there was no reason for them to be told.:rolleyes:

It took them 6 years because they needed Curatolo away from the press and the defense when they finally charged him. The risk became too great to allow him to talk freely so they put him away.
Click to expand...


Curatolo is another example, along with Rudy, of the selective nature of Italian law enforcement.

37% of Italy Prison Population are Foreigners
NAPLES, JUNE 17, 2009
According to data provided by the ISMU Foundation, an independent and autonomous scientific body promoting studies, research, and initiatives on multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society, 37% of the prison population in Italy is made up of foreigners. The group reports that almost 22,000 foreign inmates were counted in Italy's prisons at the beginning of 2009. Of these, 6,000 are awaiting trial. Inmates making appeals and claims total 7,000, while 8,000 have been sentenced. For the Italian population, 0.7 per 1,000 individuals are in prison, while there is an eightfold increase for foreigners in Italy, with 5.5 per 1,000 individuals in prison. On January 1 2009, reports showed that the group with the most individuals in Italy's prisons are Moroccan nationals (4,700), followed by Romanians (2,700), Albanians (2,600), and Tunisians (2,500). For the Romanian population, the percentage of the population in prison is relatively low (3.5 per 1,000), while the Albanian population has a higher percentage (6.0 per 1,000), as well as Moroccans (11.8 per 1,000), and Tunisians (25 per 1,000). (ANSAmed).
Click to expand...
 
Diocletus said:
If required to choose between these two, which one would you pick:

1) Execute an actual murderer, or

2) Wrongfully imprison someone for 26 years for a murder he did not commit
Click to expand...

Don't know.

But judging by the discussions here, I would say there are numerous people who would have no qualms imprisoning many innocent people for 26 years if it ensures one guilty person does not go free.

With the implicit exception of course that the innocent person imprisoned is never them.
 
Vogt:

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/84799...n-innocent-abroad-or-getting-away-with-murder

And so the vile spewings of 'released on a technicality / legal loophole' begin.
Reasonable doubt is not a legal loophole. It is a cornerstone of justice.
Police and forensic misconduct and incompetence are not technicalities.
It makes me so sad that even once (if?) Amanda and Raffaelle are acquitted, their entire lives will be defined by this debacle, and suspicion and disgust will forever be responses they will have to anticipate from some people.
Vogt's comparisons will politically sensitive situations will be seen for what they are (facile, and completely dissimilar) by those already thinking rationally about this case, and be honed in on by those who are unable to. Having spent a lot of time in Italy (and Perugia specifically), though, I suspect that the sophomoric anti-americanism rife there will mean many Italians will view this situation similarly to Vogt.
 
Vogt, Nadeau, and Keynes

bri1 said:
Vogt:

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/84799...n-innocent-abroad-or-getting-away-with-murder

And so the vile spewings of 'released on a technicality / legal loophole' begin.
Reasonable doubt is not a legal loophole. It is a cornerstone of justice.
Police and forensic misconduct and incompetence are not technicalities.
It makes me so sad that even once (if?) Amanda and Raffaelle are acquitted, their entire lives will be defined by this debacle, and suspicion and disgust will forever be responses they will have to anticipate from some people.
Vogt's comparisons will politically sensitive situations will be seen for what they are (facile, and completely dissimilar) by those already thinking rationally about this case, and be honed in on by those who are unable to. Having spent a lot of time in Italy (and Perugia specifically), though, I suspect that the sophomoric anti-americanism rife there will mean many Italians will view this situation similarly to Vogt.
Click to expand...
bri1,

Vogt wrote, "And therein lies the crux of the Amanda Knox case. There may be just enough reasonable doubt to convince a jury that, regardless of the whole truth, Knox's precise role in the murder has not been proven solidly enough for a clean conviction." I suppose I should no longer be surprised by what she and Nadeau write, but this is so very disappointing. John Maynard Keynes may or may not have actually said, "When the facts change, I change my mind -- what do you do, sir?" Whether this quote is a misattribution or not, it is a good way of looking at things.

EDT
BTW, There is someone else on trial here as well, as Ms. Vogt should be well aware.
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
bri1,

Vogt wrote, "And therein lies the crux of the Amanda Knox case. There may be just enough reasonable doubt to convince a jury that, regardless of the whole truth, Knox's precise role in the murder has not been proven solidly enough for a clean conviction." I suppose I should no longer be surprised by what she and Nadeau write, but this is so very disappointing. John Maynard Keynes may or may not have actually said, "When the facts change, I change my mind -- what do you do, sir?" Whether this is a misattribution or not, it is a good way of looking at things.

EDT
BTW, There is someone else on trial here as well, as Ms. Vogt should be well aware.
Click to expand...

It is not only disappointing, it is disgusting and dangerous. I hope the soon-to-be unemployed Andrea Vogt is happy when people use her false facts to justify endangering the defendants when they are released.

This one really takes the cake. Vogt is getting desperate.
 
Whenever judge Hellmann presides in court he can see the journalists for the worlds largest media outlets in his courtroom,he must know full well that this case is going to be made into a major film,some leading actor is going to play the role of judge Hellmann,his children his grand children are going to view this film there is only one way he is going to get the respect of his descendants and of the viewing public is if he acquits and exonerates the two innocent defendant,all the other judges who ruled on this case will be judged as clowns an idiots and as corrupt officials who should be removed from their positions of power for the safety of the public,

So far in this appeal head prosecutor Costagliola has hidden behind the two main architects of this miscarriage of justice Mignini and Comodi,if he believes in this case he should take a lead role in presenting the state's case in the closing arguments faze,if not,and all his actions to date indicate this,by inviting in Mignini and Comodi by being as invisible as possible in court he does not appear to believe in the prosecution case,on Friday and Saturday he can order all prosecutors to be silent he can look for acquittals for the defendants or he can bury his head in the sand and hope that not too much of the fallout of this case lands on him,he just then becomes like Matteini and Michielle and all the others who just rubber stamped Mignini's evil campaign.I would be willing to bet that some judges who ruled on this case so far,as incompetent and stupid as they obviously are,if they had a second chance having seen the publicity that this case has got they would never allow their names to be associated with the evil imaginations of a mentally ill prosecutor,this fiasco that has lowered the standing of Italy in the free world at a time when economically they are in great danger of collapse is not of Costagliola's making only he can decide if he wants to go down with the sinking ship Mignini

And on a side note would it not be some blow to the boys on Pmf if Costagliola was to request that the court acquit on the grounds of lack of evidence,which is just another way of saying that the attempt to frame was not good enough to work
 
halides1 said:
bri1,

Vogt wrote, "And therein lies the crux of the Amanda Knox case. There may be just enough reasonable doubt to convince a jury that, regardless of the whole truth, Knox's precise role in the murder has not been proven solidly enough for a clean conviction." I suppose I should no longer be surprised by what she and Nadeau write, but this is so very disappointing. John Maynard Keynes may or may not have actually said, "When the facts change, I change my mind -- what do you do, sir?" Whether this is a misattribution or not, it is a good way of looking at things.

EDT
BTW, There is someone else on trial here as well, as Ms. Vogt should be well aware.
Click to expand...

Although the immorality and intellectual dishonesty displayed by 'journalists' covering this case no longer surprises me, Vogt's stupidity surprises me. While Nadeau and Pisa are at least intelligent enough to realise that unless they start reporting in a more balanced way, they're going to end up looking malicious.
Vogt seems to not understand even this much.
I think Pisa (from what he said at the Dateline roundtable) realises that not only would these two would have (probably) not even been brought to trial in the UK, it's probably beginning to sink in a bit that because of our (excellent) sub-judice rules in the UK, his reporting would not have been allowed either. If only he could connect the two and realise that it was in part because of reporting like his that they were found guilty in the first trial.
With Nadeau, I'm fascinated as to whether the abuse from the guilters following her more balanced recent reporting has caused her to rethink what she's been part of these last 4 years...
 
halides1 said:
Lothian,

Thank you for your thoughts. Welcome to ignore.
Click to expand...

There are still, I suspect, more than a few 'old hands' at JREF who resent finding this discussion being "in their faces", for which read;

the Knox discussion has been bumped continuously to the top of the 'Social Issues & Current Events' forum for [edit >] 2 1/2 + 1 1/2 +years, which irritates those who view the forum as their 'turf'.

Tough, I would say.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
A few weeks ago I attended a public lecture given by a well-known novelist about the Lockerbie affair. The lecture was clear, coherent and well-argued. At the end the chairman, a senior politician who is also a lawyer, began to attack the speaker in a condescending and frankly insulting manner. His basic premise was that he, as a lawyer, understood these things far better than mere laymen, and of course we (most of the audience agreed with the speaker) were wrong.I have never in my life encountered such a breathtaking display of closed-mindedness. It was quite genuinely educational. The more so when I had a chance to question the chairman directly, and he continued his arrogance, condescension and veiled insults. He went from stonewalling ("I don't agree" with no reasons given) to sneering shakes of the head, to flat-out lying (when I quoted a section from the appeal judgement to him, he said "that's not the case").

Part of his thesis was that we mere mortals might think a jury would have acquitted (it was a non-jury trial), but judges know better than juries, having such great experience in reading the credibility of witnesses and being able to see a pattern rather than unpick individual parts of the evidence.

I know juries can come to some damn-fool decisions, but after listening to that lot, I would never, ever contemplate waiving my right to a jury trial - innocent or guilty.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

A politician who happens to have been trained as a lawyer? There's something you don't see every day.:D

Oh - I forgot about the Blairs, the Clintons et al.

Seriously, it's no coincidence that so many 'successful' politicians are trained lawyers.

What these 'professions' have in common is that they are essentially that of 'professional liar'.

I would tend to suspect that this guy's behaviour was not simply a result of hubris and arrogance, but that he had a very specific agenda and 'game plan'.

apologies for going OT.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom