Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just noticed this comment on a thread related to a Barbie N video on youtube by somebody called lillym27:

"she did it or was a part of the murder, she was the only one with keys to the house, the two other flatmates had solid alibis and no links were to them,... "

Sometimes people just take ignorance to a whole new level! ;)
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
I think (and hope) that Hellmann has a more objective and balanced way of approaching disputes between prosecution and defence: he's certainly amply demonstrated this so far with his approach to the DNA evidence and the recall of Curatolo.
Click to expand...

One thing for sure--the defense will be able to knock the ball out of the park on the forensics. Not only can they show the cops and forensics people to be totally incompetent, but if the defense wants to, it can show them to be liars as well. They can totally gut the prosecution case on the forensics.

I expect, though, that the prosecution is well-aware that they are dead in the water on any forensics issue (as proved by their recent request for additional testing), and they will therefore shift the focus of their case to non-forensic issues. This means, I think, that the predominant thrust of their argument will be on the defendants' own statements. That's why you see the interview with Pacelli--he and his colunnia charge, and the evidence that it brings with it, are suddenly the crux of the whole prosecution case.

I wish the defendants had an expert on false confessions to testify. Lacking that, they have to rely on an ability to put the jury in the shoes of Knox and hope that the jury will understand that the accusation was false and coerced. The key question for the defense to get the jury to focus on is: how did the cops get her to say what she said--is there a viable reason aside from guilt? If the jury is already suspicious of the cops--which they may very well be if the forensics can be used to prove the cops to be liars--then the jury may very well believe that something untoward happened behind the interrogation room doors. It's offensive, really, that they have to defend against this when she was denied her right to counsel, but the reality is that they will have to unless Lumumba can be gotten rid of.

I would consider having Boungiorno be responsible for the (easy) job of totally destroying the cops' credibility on the forensics issue. She should go after them like an attack dog, charging them with every lie and deceit on the record. Then Knox's lawyers will have to focus on the interrogation issue, adopting a different tone with the jury. If the jury considers the interrogation, already believing the cops to be liars (or at least hopelessly biased), then they may understand what happened.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Uggggghh. What a disgusting woman. Not only is she a rabid "hang 'em, flog 'em, gas 'em" law-and-order specimen, she's also a nasty self-promoter who deliberately creates outrage and volatility as a means to courting publicity and attention.

The very fact that so many pro-guilt commentators chose to applaud her dreadful piece on Knox, simply because it had an overtly pro-guilt bent, also speaks volumes about what's going on in the pro-guilt camp: "Overlook the source, so long as it supports our position."
Click to expand...

Quoting from her article:

He is as innocent as every other executed man since at least 1950, which is to say, guilty as hell.
Click to expand...

This is quite the claim. Boggles the mind, really.
 
I'm not exactly sure of the exact status of the new computer evidence, but it occurs to me that if an expert report has been prepared and submitted, that Boungiorno is damn well going to try to argue that Sollecito sat at his computer all night.

Ironically, the prosecution may have limited ability to rebut this argument, if they don't have their own expert testimony on the after-discovered evidence.

In the end, this somehow seems just, since the prosecution had exclusive control of the computer evidence, generated the first report, and F'd up the harddrives. Perhaps we'll have a case of what comes around goes around.

I think Sollecito/Boungiorno argue first, because it's easy to show that he didn't do it: no clasp, computer activity, "footprint" could be anybody, etc. Once the jury is in the mindset that Sollecito is innocent, it will be impossible to pull Knox in, because the prosecution will have already argued that they did it together.
 
Last edited:
Dan O. said:
I only find it mentioned in Massei's summary of Amanda's testimony
From page [56] (always the Italian page number)
... Continuing on page [67]

​
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]​
Click to expand...

Also thanks Dan O.

Here is what I don't understand. Meredith comes home with damp clothes to a cold house, doesn't change clothes for two hours or more and doesn't turn the heat on? Something doesn't make sense. Unless she didn't have time to change clothes and turn the heat on. Hmmmm.
 
Another question on the heat/cold discussion. What kind of heat was in the flat? I remember something about a radiator. Were these individually controlled in each room?
 
Yeah, the guilters are loosing it.The vision of Knox walking out of jail is driving them crazy. Every single one of them, apart from Thoughtful.
 
Yesterday they aired a 1 hour 4 min discusion on Rai about this case.

http://www.rai.tv/dl/RaiTV/programmi/media/ContentItem-6f179f02-9dc8-4423-81b1-3f8f5324ec0f.html

It started out well for the defence, with Amanda's father talking. Then they brought on a series of guest speakers, including Maresca, Giuseppe Castellini (the newspaper reporter that "helped" the police), some judge named Simonetta Matone, an editor of Oggi magazine, a pyschologist, and a lady (forget her name) that was in favour of the defence.

All I can say, is that if this program is the general feeling in Italy, and of the court in this case, Amanda and Raffaele are in trouble.

First of all, we are lucky that the judge Simonetta Matone is not presiding over this case - she was disgracefully in the prosecution's corner on this. Incredibly that stupid newpaper reporter was allowed to speak and hypothesise longer than anybody else on the show - he talked such ******** that even Maresca had to correct him on one thing (the footprint). The Pychologist claimed it was not so strange for two young people in love to commit such a crime.

On the other hand, the two people in favour of the defence were weak, and spoke little.

Curatolo was interviewed and fortunately the Oggi editor managed to mention about the problems in his testimony.

There was constant reference to there being lots of evidence, and not just the DNA - but what evidence? They didn't say much about it.

No discussion on why false accusations/confessions occur.

Dubious statements made about footprints and Amanda's DNA in the bathroom.

Very little discussion about Rudy Guede's role in this, and even a few minutes spent on his testimony placing Amanda and Raffaele at the scene as it if it were reliable. No discussion about his previous break-ins, about the smashed window, although it was mentioned that he didn't know AK and RS hardly at all.

No mention of Mignini the egomaniac, of course.

Overall, a very disappointing and worrying account of the events of this case.
 
pilot padron said:
Since this.... uhhhhh.......'argument', has been up for several days, and has apparently passed the Moderator 'sniff test' so as not be moved, may I venture a quick reply.

1) If you have any specific proof that stint7 also posts here, and you "hope" for Mod tolerance on that wildly off topic, personal, picayunish point....
Please:
1a) Once and for all put up that proof here.
1b) But do spare us your personal, tired, oft echoed, yet totally subjective, communications engineering analysis of writing 'styles'

Or yet again, if you have no other 'proof'.
Again, once and for all, please shut off the unsupported, off topic, innuendo and outright illusionary unfounded accusations about other posters.

In addition to being very long in tooth, very tired, it additionally fails to satisfy your own oft repeated arguments that:
2a) This Forum is fact based
2b) This Forum wants to discuss only facts of the case
2c) Only guilters discuss only other posters,...
.............eh???

3) As I go and read exactly what stint7 said, I notice this verbatim:
"Take your sorry sockpuppet skills back to JLOL.
The loudmouths there use newbie named sockpuppets endlessly to tell themselves how great they are.

4a) This appeared to be in reference to a PMF imposter, imported from 'elsewhere' who openly bragged about how he used other IP Addresses to circumvent PMF Moderator action.(sock puppetry extraordinaire)
4b) Nowhere did I see "London John" mentioned by stint7 in this matter.
4c) As clearly implied in your post, you choose to for whatever strange reason, feel a need to decide to apply the very non specific, very generic noun loudmouth to your own arguments.

I respectfully defer to your argument's probably vastly superior intimate knowledge on this point.
Click to expand...
Pilot - I noticed that LondonJohn rebutted your take on the interviews with Pisa, Vogt and Nadeau being linked to Knox's PR machine. I'm surprised I haven't seen you counter that yet. Why is that?
 
Quoting oneself in third person to attack a member here is probably not sufficient to circumvent the membership rules.
 
Teddy2007 said:
The Pychologist claimed it was not so strange for two young people in love to commit such a crime.
Click to expand...

LOL. I remember the good old days when I used to go out with new girlfriends and we would happily murder people. Ahh . . . young love.

Was this the piece that Andrea Vogt was involved in? A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

The whole thing is not really surprising. The Italian press seems to have very little appetite for any kind of self-critical analysis on this whole thing. Have to save face and all that.
 
Last edited:
Since you find necessary to ask

Teddy2007 said:
Pilot - I noticed that LondonJohn rebutted your take on the interviews with Pisa, Vogt and Nadeau being linked to Knox's PR machine. I'm surprised I haven't seen you counter that yet. Why is that?
Click to expand...

That is because I had confidence that well informed readers are well aware that TV networks and stations routinely use resources other than their own to produce shows.
The fact that yours is the only such request for rebuttal supports my view.

To expand for you, this extensively employed use of resources that are conveniently available on site rather than expend money to send their own full crews again, is a pretty self obvious, cost efficient, widely used way to do business.

That self evident fact IMHO made any reply from me not only superfluous, but rather demeaning to all those so well informed.
 
Last edited:
Interesting, are they interviewing Curatolo in jail?

It doesn't surprise me no one wants to speak openly on the TV. They don't want a diffamazione or calunia charge. They showed the bra clasp video and the bloody "felpa" being found, though.
Did Curt mention the hits to the head, or was he cautious too?

Teddy2007 said:
Overall, a very disappointing and worrying account of the events of this case.
Click to expand...
Prepare for more worry and disappointment, as the next few days belong to the prosecution and their "civil party" goons.
 
Try that 'argument' again fo effect

Dan O. said:
Quoting oneself in third person to attack a member here is probably not sufficient to circumvent the membership rules.
Click to expand...

Then maybe you should send out this red letter call to action 'argument' again.
Dan O. said:
Attack the argument not the arguer

Find contemporaneously recorded statements made prior to the time Amanda became a murder suspect.
Click to expand...

It had absolutely no effect at all last time you played it except to prove that your pseudo moderating arguments are baseless and fruitless.

But... hey....ya' never know......;)
 
Last edited:
pilot padron said:
That self evident fact IMHO made any reply freom me not only superfluous, but rather demeaning to all those so well informed.
Click to expand...

Pilate: Thank you for considerately sparing us from your reply. Thanks in advance for continuing this very considerate behavior.
 
Katody Matrass said:
Interesting, are they interviewing Curatolo in jail?

It doesn't surprise me no one wants to speak openly on the TV. They don't want a diffamazione or calunia charge. They showed the bra clasp video and the bloody "felpa" being found, though.
Did Curt mention the hits to the head, or was he cautious too?


Prepare for more worry and disappointment, as the next few days belong to the prosecution and their "civil party" goons.
Click to expand...

Curatolo appeared to be behind bars when interviewed. The Oggi editor then mentioned he was in prison, which Maresca responded was not true. Well, if that wasn't a prison, he has a wierd house... ;)

No mention by Curt Knox of any hits to the head. He was very dignified, and spoke of his pride at how his daughter spoke up for herself during the hearings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom