Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
charlatan said:
Seems to me the prosecutors made three critical errors in their closing arguments:

1) They opted for a disjointed and even contradictory series of presentations instead of laying out their theory of exactly what happened that night in plain Italian.

2) They assailed the fitness and competency of the independent experts in the most inflammatory terms possible -- I'm surprised they didn't also give Hellmann the finger while they were at it.

3) They tried to rehabilitate Curatolo's testimony, which only reminded everyone just how sketchy that testimony is. Comodi also helpfully reminded everyone that Meredith's cell phone activity that night undermines this very testimony.

I suspect posters here could have made a much more compelling argument for guilt.
Click to expand...

Agree with all. Isn't the cell phone thing a direct contradiction to not only Toto's testimony, but the prosecution's TOD in the first trial?
 
Dougm said:
I have always found this insistence on multiple attackers a key weak point of the pro-guilt scenario. In fact, the minute they admit that it would have been possible for one person to have killed Meredith, their entire argument falls apart, because there is no evidence there was anyone else there. ....
Click to expand...

Surely and unfortunately there must be thousands or tens of thousands of documented knife attacks by a man on a woman that can be used as examples to show how 'possible' it would have been for Rudy to subdue and kill Meredith single handedly.


Last will and testament clause for travel in Italy:
'If I am murdered do NOT allow the police to railroad my friends. That would make me very sad.'
 
LondonJohn said:
They obviously went to deliberate whether Comodi was even allowed to reference the Supreme Court Guede ruling in Hellmann's court. This should put to bed once and for all the whole issue of the Supreme Court Guede ruling and its admissibility/relevance/impact upon the trial process of Knox and Sollecito. Unless padron has anything *ahem* interesting to add to the debate, that is.....
Click to expand...


Is it just me or does anyone else think that so far the prosecution arguments seem to be following the same weak illogical arguments made on PMF and TJMK? Right down to this ridiculous Supreme Court argument abut Rudy Guedes case that can in no way be applied to this separate case against the defendants.

I see what the prosecution is trying to do now though. They are indeed moving the TOD back. Now they will have three killing Meredith at 9:25. AK and RS wait to return for the clean up in the plaza until 11PM forced there that long by the broken down car people...etc,etc...

The problems I see for that argument is Totos statement about seeing them from 9 until 12.or even 9 til 11. It is a much better case for the prosecution to do this. They only have to leave out Nara and the other scream hearers. They have to get around RS computer data. But everything else can be squeezed in time wise. Of course there is still no hard evidence of either in the murder room and the mixed traces are still meaningless. I don’t know how the prosecution is getting away with attributing this pillow case footprint to a woman when its been shown to be a partial print of Rudys shoe. And finally the logical departure of the semen stain being "untested" because of said print just does not hold muster. Some small part of the stain could have and in fact still can be tested without destroying anything of the partial print found there.

It seems to be a smart move for the prosecution to move the TOD to 9:20. it’s a much better argument. Now if the defense is prepared for that to happen ??? I expect this to come out during the rebuttal portion…exactly like Mignini changed the TOD in the first trail. Sneaky Bass turds.
 
RandyN, I think most today were twitter lines...some media is starting to become available.

On Saturday, Comodi attacked the independent experts, noting they were both professors of forensic science, rather than practising investigators. She asked the jury of five women and one man: "Would you entrust the wedding reception of your only daughter to someone who knew all the recipes by heart but had never actually cooked?"

Comodi said the independent experts had put up on "embarrassing performance". She told the two judges and the jurors (technically, lay judges) that the two Rome university professors had been given an assignment "that they did not know how to fulfil, betraying your trust".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/24/amanda-knox-life-prosecutors?newsfeed=true


She also attacked the review's contention that traces of starch found on the knife identified as the murder weapon suggested it had not been washed, which in turn meant that it could not have been used to murder Kercher.

Comodi argued that the knife was "spotlessly clean" and that the traces of starch stemmed not from cutting potatoes or bread but from talc in gloves used by police.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/09/24/uk-italy-knox-idUKTRE78M2O420110924

Manuela Comodi, summing up the case Saturday, said there is "gigantic, rock-solid circumstantial evidence." The prosecutors believe the defendants deserve the harshest possible punishment because of the brutal nature of the murder, the sexual assault, and the lack of a motive.

"They have killed for nothing," she said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...chers-friend-Perugia-can-be-a-dark-place.html


geeez...2007 all over again? Like Frank stated!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...chers-friend-Perugia-can-be-a-dark-place.html


I was watching a tru crime show last night and though a suspect was found not guilty, the small town still never accepted the courts ruling. I think this case will be the same. Acting wierd, behavioral suspicions is ok to justify some investigation time, but a court cant be allowed to convict on it. And on the evidence I think more and more they'll be released soon. (unless theres the reduced sentence thing, which I still dont really understand? partially Guilty?partially Innocent?)
 
Last edited:
ForTruth said:
I've been wondering... what was the surprise that Migini promised yesterday. So far my only surprise is that they are just rehashing the previous closing arguments without virtually nothing new...
Maybe the surprise was the dramatic arrest of Frank Sfarzo???
Click to expand...

A surprise witness spotted Amanda and Rudy playing basketball that night. Apparently she even dunked on him!
 
katy_did said:
Depends on what it says; it could outline a case where the appellate court ruled against the Supreme Court in certain restricted conditions, for example, conditions which might not apply in this case. What seems certain anyway is that it was the prosecution who wanted the document to be admitted, a document the defence didn't have (hence Dalla Vedova objecting), and that the Judge refused to admit it.
Click to expand...

I thinking the same thing but why would they have to anticipate this at this time? I would have thought that if the court of the second instance made a mistake it would come out in the appeal to the supreme court.
 
RandyN said:
Is it just me or does anyone else think that so far the prosecution arguments seem to be following the same weak illogical arguments made on PMF and TJMK? Right down to this ridiculous Supreme Court argument abut Rudy Guedes case that can in no way be applied to this separate case against the defendants.
.... Sneaky Bass turds.
Click to expand...
It is amazing the degree to which Barbie, Andrea, PMF, TJMK, Mignini, and Comodi seem connected on talking points.
There has got to be a liaison between the prosecution and TJMK at the very least in my opinion. Who knows the info may flow both ways.
As for the Barbie and Andrea - I think there's already been some confirmed contacts between them and PMF.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Ganong writes the following on .org:




What a deeply unpleasant sentiment, expressed by a deeply unpleasant and vindictive little woman. When Knox and Sollecito are found not guilty by Hellmann's court, and are then acquitted and released, they will do so without a stain on their characters related to the murder of Meredith Kercher. There are only two cases in recent memory where acquittals have been generally agreed as unsatisfactory: those of OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony. But both of these cases were unique in different and very specific ways. In Simpson's case, the politics and race aspect overtook the facts and evidence of the case, and the Rodney King case a couple of years previously had a clear and demonstrable effect on the way the (predominantly black) jury voted in Simpson's case. In the case of Casey Anthony, it now seems perfectly clear that prosecutors simply over-charged Anthony: they went for the maximum murder charges, when the available evidence and elapsed time actually warrated lesser (but still serious) charges that would very likely have resulted in conviction.

In contrast, Knox and Sollecito will be acquitted because not only is there insufficient evidence to prove their guilt, there's actually no real evidence that even shows that they were anywhere near the cottage at the time of Meredith's death. At the same time, all the available evidence points to just one man - Rudy Guede - as the lone killer. I hope that Ganong finds time to reflect upon her disgusting comment, and I hope for her sake that she doesn't continue spewing such bile once Knox and Sollecito are acquitted.

PS: Has anyone got any idea why Ganong maintains the ludicrous pretence that she doesn't read this thread? What does she think she stands to gain by pretending this? Very strange. I would have thought that anyone professing a strong interest in this case would want to read all the main resources discussing it. I know I do :)
Click to expand...


This type of thing is so common there that I hope after Amandas release that the FBI keeps a close eye on Ganong and the UW employee (Fly By Night) who both are literal neighbors of the Knox, Mellas families. Nutty thoughts lead to nutty actions sometimes. And there is clear evidence that this hate group has plenty of nutty ideas.
 
the TOD is very problematic for the prosecution

Minadin said:
I have not been following this case as closely as many of you have.

Is there a general consensus among skeptics as to Knox's guilt / innocence?
Click to expand...
Minadin,

If one accepts a TOD of around 9:30, it is very difficult to come up with a scenario in which Knox and Sollecito are guilty that makes even a lick of sense. I suspect that the majority here would indicate that the two are both not guilty (not culpable) in a legal sense and factually innocent.
 
Grinder said:
I thinking the same thing but why would they have to anticipate this at this time? I would have thought that if the court of the second instance made a mistake it would come out in the appeal to the supreme court.
Click to expand...

Sounds like it could be something like this (another case setting a precedent for how the appellate court can rule) based on a further update from Nadeau:

The pros. introduced a doc outlining a case similar to this: high court ruled on 1 aspect/lower ct dealt with another.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why the prosecution are trying to introduce it now - could be they're setting the stage for a further appeal to the Supreme Court? Bit ominous for the outcome of this appeal if they're thinking about the second one already...
 
Last edited:
Katody Matrass said:
New post from Frank.
Click to expand...

I love this piece by Frank. It's really evocative.
The idea that they killed her for nothing...
The dehumanising of this girl by all these people in ILE, the portrayal of someone rotten to the core, slutty, druggie, this is the natural endpoint to that horrific process that we've been watching for 4 years.
Saying she did it for nothing. She's not a human being, whose behaviour is rooted in character, in her relationships, in her education, her experience (because there is no evidence that she should be angry or violent as a result of any of these, and no evidence of these kinds of traits within them, and yet she did this thing) or who has the normal kinds of reasons for acting, greed, lust, jealousy- any normal human failings. No, she did it for no reason, because she's not like us.
Not even human. That's why the 6 months solitary for Amanda.
Mignini talking about Amanda's 'promiscuity' and the vibrator in court absolutely sickens me. The ignorance and hatred he spews is extremely dangerous, and the sooner the Italian Judiciary wise up to it, the better for everyone.
 
Last edited:
I asked this before, but did not get what I considered a good answer.

IF
Rudy did it
AND
Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito did not promptly report what they found, or knew, or in some way obstructed/did not cooperate with the investigation of the Italian police ...

Is that the matter for a separate trial, or, was obstruction of justice (or a similar charge) one of the charges in this case?
 
Darth Rotor said:
I asked this before, but did not get what I considered a good answer.

IF Rudy did it AND Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito did not promptly report what they found, or knew, or in some way obstructed/did not cooperate with the investigation of the Italian police ...

Is that the matter for a separate trial, or, was obstruction of justice (or a similar charge) one of the charges in this case?
Click to expand...
-

Darth,

the way you ask your two questions (assuming of course your "IF" question is yes), the answers are either yes to both, no to both, or yes (or no) to the first and no (or yes) to the second or a combination of yes or no with maybe to the first or second.

Which of all of these is a good answer for you, and why is that?

Personally I don't believe the "IF" question (concerning Amanda and Raffaele) is yes, but instead is no, which makes your subsequent questions both no, in my opinion,

Dave
 
Last edited:
AmyStrange said:
-

Darth,

the way you ask your two questions (assuming of course your "IF" question is yes), the answers are either yes to both, no to both, or yes (or no) to the first and no (or yes) to the second or a combination of yes or no with maybe to the first or second.

Which of all of these is a good answer for you, and why is that?

Personally I don't believe the "IF" question (concerning Amanda and Raffaele) is yes, but instead is no, which makes your subsequent questions both no, in my opinion,

Dave
Click to expand...
Dave:
WTF were they charged with, besides murder?
Was murder the only charge, or were there, as in many cases here in the US, other charges as well ... like obstruction of justice and such.

No need to include the charge for illegal cartwheel in a police station, that's been covered nicely, thanks.
 
they were both convicted of staging

ETA:Knox has been sentenced to 26 years in prison. Her ex-boyfriend, Italian Raffaele Sollecito gets 25 years. Meanwhile Rudy Hermann Guede, an Ivory Coast citizen was sentenced to 30 years in prison for the murder of Meredith Kercher, who was found fatally stabbed in the neck and sexually assaulted. They were also convicted of staging a burglary at the crime scene, in hopes of sidetracking the investigation.
 
Last edited:
charlatan said:
Seems to me the prosecutors made three critical errors in their closing arguments:

1) They opted for a disjointed and even contradictory series of presentations instead of laying out their theory of exactly what happened that night in plain Italian.

2) They assailed the fitness and competency of the independent experts in the most inflammatory terms possible -- I'm surprised they didn't also give Hellmann the finger while they were at it.

3) They tried to rehabilitate Curatolo's testimony, which only reminded everyone just how sketchy that testimony is. Comodi also helpfully reminded everyone that Meredith's cell phone activity that night undermines this very testimony.

I suspect posters here could have made a much more compelling argument for guilt.
Click to expand...

I think you might be right. Certainly, repeating easily disproved crap would reduce one's credibility in many situations. But here where the defense has a time limit to respond to your points and there is no single strong piece of evidence against AK/RS, maybe the best prosecution strategy is to throw a bunch of stuff on the wall and hope something sticks. The defense needs to mount a response to each of the prosecution's points and this can't be done quickly and thoroughly at the same time.

It only takes a few seconds to make the claim that Kercher's DNA was found on a knife in Sollecito's apartment. It talks a lot longer to talk about why this so called evidence is crap. And in doing so one needs to be careful that the approach one takes does not offend the target audience by the use of jargon or complicated reasoning.

If the goal was a search for truth, the knife "evidence" would probably not be mentioned. It has been thoroughly discredited. But when the facts aren't on your side baffling them with BS might be the only strategy with any chance of success.
 
Grinder said:
they were both convicted of staging
Click to expand...
-

and staging is obviously a life sentencing offense in Italy, although I don't know how you can construct a building without some kind of staging, but that's just me.

It might explain why all the buildings in Perugia are so old. Who in their right mind would construct anything new without staging, not to mention getting sued because any house of cards they built without it would just fall down all around them,

Dave
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom