Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Rolfe]

Oh, I agree with you. They should be acquitted. And if the judge indicates that his mind is pretty much made up when he hasn't heard the defence submission of the defendant alleged to be the ringleader is a strong pointer to that.

But everybody thought Megrahi was going to be acquitted because there was no evidence against him at all.

If I PM you my mobile number, will you text me?

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

Saturday - damn. I'm going on a madrigal-singing course all day. No access to news feeds at all.

Rolfe.

Ooh lovely. I have lots of Byrd, Monteverdi and Tallis on my iPod - but then again I must have one of the more eclectic iPod collections on record And I turned down a choral scholarship (Bass vox) to Caius Cambridge because I didn't want to have to devote three nights a week plus most of Sunday to singing. On reflection, though, I sort of wish I'd done it....

Anyhow, if the verdict does arrive on Saturday, it's unlikely to do so before the latter part of the day. It's therefore entirely possible that you may have finished your workshop before the verdicts are announced. And remember that the Massei verdicts were announced at the ridiculous hour of midnight Italian time (11pm UK time).

 

[Poppy1016]

I don't understand why those believing in guilt bother to post here without even laying out their reasoning of the evidence. Many here would gladly debate on the guilt sites but are unable to do so for fear of being banned or being stalked at their workplace.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh, I agree with you. They should be acquitted. And if the judge indicates that his mind is pretty much made up when he hasn't heard the defence submission of the defendant alleged to be the ringleader is a strong pointer to that.

But everybody thought Megrahi was going to be acquitted because there was no evidence against him at all.

If I PM you my mobile number, will you text me?

Rolfe.

Sure I will

Make sure you put your phone onto vibrate though hehe (for reasons of musical non-interference, you understand.........)

 

[lionking]

I don't understand why those believing in guilt bother to post here without even laying out their reasoning of the evidence.

I don't understand why people come here debating the size and cost of a steak in Seattle or whether a photo has been photoshopped or not.

 

[HumanityBlues]

forget it

 

[Rolfe]

Ooh lovely. I have lots of Byrd, Monteverdi and Tallis on my iPod - but then again I must have one of the more eclectic iPod collections on record And I turned down a choral scholarship (Bass vox) to Caius Cambridge because I didn't want to have to devote three nights a week plus most of Sunday to singing. On reflection, though, I sort of wish I'd done it....

You must have been good! I was in the BBC Symphony Chorus for about 10 years, but it's not at that standard. My iPod is stuffed with big choral numbers and opera. Especially Wagner. (When sitting in the witnesses' waiting room last week on call for a case that got itself adjourned yet again, I started the playlist called Der Ring des Nibelungen out of sheer self-preservation.)

Anyhow, if the verdict does arrive on Saturday, it's unlikely to do so before the latter part of the day. It's therefore entirely possible that you may have finished your workshop before the verdicts are announced. And remember that the Massei verdicts were announced at the ridiculous hour of midnight Italian time (11pm UK time).

I hadn't realised it was as late as that. I might be home. But on the other hand if one of the other singers invites me home for dinner, I won't pass.

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

I've been disappointed too many times to uncork the Champaign just yet.

The Patriots hadn't lost all year and then they played the Giants in the Super. A 3rd rate receiver made a miracle catch and the Partiots' reign ended.

And how about those Bills on Sunday?!!!!! (The Bills are my adopted team since I saw them play an exhibition against the Eagles at Wembley Stadium 20-odd years ago, and I met Jim Kelly, Darryl Talley, Thurman Thomas and most of the Bills cheerleaders )

But seriously, I'd make the following observation about Saturday (or whenever the verdict comes). Firstly, you should be very confident that the verdict will be acquittal. And secondly, I don't think that acquittal will be a cause for huge celebration. It should be a cause for reflection, satisfaction that justice has been properly applied, and a realisation that nobody has won out of the whole sorry mess. And I hope and suspect that even Knox, Sollecito and their families will not be in the mood for exuberant celebrations. I hope and suspect that their predominant emotion will be one of relief. And after that, due reflection should be paid to the sad fact that Meredith Kercher was brutally murdered, and that her killer, Rudy Guede, has at least been caught and brought to justice.

 

[theRealBob]

-

Katody Matrass and London John,

unnecessary hypothesis? I don't think so. If the Defense tries to use your "compliant until the end" hypothesis, here is how I would counteract that if I was the Prosecution or Maresca:

"Sure she may have been compliant after Rudy showed her the knife, but once he started cutting her and/ or stabbing her, reflex and instinct would have taken over."

And THEN, I would throw a wadded up piece of paper at any one of the lay-judges or Hellmann himself or pretend to throw something.

99 out of a hundred times, that person will try to block the object.

"In order to be compliant you need to be rational, but once someone starts cutting or stabbing you, you stop acting rational and that's when reflex and instinct take over. You WILL reflexively ward off the knife blows just like you reflexively tried to ward off what I threw at you."

Here is another example. Suppose I hold a gun on you and tell you to not move while two guys beat the crap out of you. You fall to the ground and they start kicking you, wouldn't you reflexively curl into ball and try to defend against the blows no matter how much the guy with the gun told you not to do it?

You DEFINITELY need to show why she doesn't have defensive wounds, NOT that it's "possible" that Rudy could have forced her to be "compliant to the end".

Are you willing to take the chance they don't do this, especially considering the defense can't rebut the prosecution's rebuttal,

Dave

I did a reply to a post of yours a few days ago saying the 46 wounds trumpeted by the police eventually became 26.

You said that was still a lot.

Many of these small wounds were in the region between her hands (where there were quite a few) and her elbows.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the supertanker blows its horn

To address the confusion lest it become accepted as anything other than just that:

1) Your argument illogically boasts that your side has been "pro Meredith Kercher" for four years.
Why is it then that your side has so viciously attacked her family every time they ever dare speak publicly about anything concerning their murdered daughter/sister..
This particularly since their public speaking is probably less than 1% of what supertanker Marriott...err... "schedules" for the Mellox family.

pilot padron,

None of your three talking points contains any supporting data or examples. With respect to point 1, several of us have pointed out Mr. Kercher's factual or logical errors, but rarely has it gone beyond that. With respect to your point 2, it is your argument that is illogical. Whether or not Mr. Kercher has been the subject of previous criticism is separate from the criticism he has received here (but not at dot org or dot net) over the photographs. It was his choice to show them. Do you think it was a good choice? If not, why have the pro-guilt sites not discussed his decision?

 

[RoseMontague]

To address the confusion lest it become accepted as anything other than just that:

1) Your argument illogically boasts that your side has been "pro Meredith Kercher" for four years.
Why is it then that your side has so viciously attacked her family every time they ever dare speak publicly about anything concerning their murdered daughter/sister..
This particularly since their public speaking is probably less than 1% of what supertanker Marriott...err... "schedules" for the Mellox family.

I call it like I see it Pilot. If Justice for Meredith means the killer gets appropriate punishment then I would have to say that Rudy got off pretty easy in this thing, and he is the one who killed her, in my opinion.

Raffaele and the Witchgirl are both innocent so fighting to keep them in jail and having your lawyer do so goes against any definition of justice that I can see. They are wrong to do so.

2) Your argument illogically boasts that only your side speaks against Attorney Maresca's photos.
Attorney Maresca has been subjected to some of the most vicious vitriol of the entire case.
This has been all from your side.
Why should you now be so surprised?
Why should any informed observer attach an iota of significance to your self serving declaration that your side now whines loudest and longest about Attorney Maresca showing photos.
Kinda reminds me of male 3rd graders measuring urinating distance abilities.

Maresca showing those photo's so the press and those attending could see them was also wrong. The judges/jury have already seen them. I have no doubt those pictures are now out there and this action on the part of their lawyer will be one the Kercher's will regret.

3) Your argument illogically boasts that your side showed restraint about the crime scene photos.
Few if any of the objectionable pictures of the slain Meredith were available anywhere before yesterday.
Why should we be then impressed with the confused boasts about how considerate and respectful your side was in not showing them.
Can anyone show what they probably do not even have ? ?

They have them, pilot. One example is the frames cut out of the evidence collection video's. I have a few pictures from the court presentation that I will not post either.

BTW:
Maybe we should have a color enhanced post cut n' pasting the definition of 'vendetta'
As used above, it could understandably be applied as describing every single person who disagrees with a defense lawyer's arguments on behalf of his fully indicted client.

How about a color enhanced cut and paste definition of worm slime that we could add every time Maresca's name is mentioned?

I see the showing of these pictures to be an issue that both sides should be in agreement on. It was wrong. Maresca fully intended them to be showing exactly the way he showed them.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Poll for JREF community on whether Knox will be acquitted: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=220500

 

[DarkStar2011]

And as I said earlier, I think Hellmann is already giving indications that he's about to acquit. To me, the most clear indication is his suggestion that the verdict may be announced on Saturday. For him to say this even before one of the defence teams has given a closing argument can only lead to one inference: Hellmann and his court have now heard all that the prosecutors have, and have seen all the evidence/testimony with their own eyes, and are in no doubt that there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That's why the judicial panel will need very little time to deliberate after rebuttals, and that's why Hellmann already knows this to be the case.

A question about Italian court procedures, which are (of course) very different from those in the U.S.: Here, not only does the judge not participate in deliberations, but the jurors are theoretically not supposed to even begin discussing the case amongst themselves until both sides have rested and the judge has sent them off to begin deliberating. In Italian judicial practice, is it expected that the judges and "lay magistrates" (jurors) will have been discussing this case all along, and, thus, the lead judge should have already been able to "take the temperature" of the panel? If so, this potential advancement of the verdict may well mean a consensus has already been reached. If not, it only indicates Hellmann's own conclusion (for conviction or acquittal) has been decided -- and while, normally, the panel falls in behind the conclusions of the lead judge, it's quite possible for the lay magistrates, by a 6-0 or 5-1 margin, to overrule both judges.

 

[LondonJohn]

A question about Italian court procedures, which are (of course) very different from those in the U.S.: Here, not only does the judge not participate in deliberations, but the jurors are theoretically not supposed to even begin discussing the case amongst themselves until both sides have rested and the judge has sent them off to begin deliberating. In Italian judicial practice, is it expected that the judges and "lay magistrates" (jurors) will have been discussing this case all along, and, thus, the lead judge should have already been able to "take the temperature" of the panel? If so, this potential advancement of the verdict may well mean a consensus has already been reached. If not, it only indicates Hellmann's own conclusion (for conviction or acquittal) has been decided -- and while, normally, the panel falls in behind the conclusions of the lead judge, it's quite possible for the lay magistrates, by a 6-0 or 5-1 margin, to overrule both judges.

I believe that in Italian criminal trials there is no bar on the judicial panel discussing the case while it's in progress. And there also appear to be regular meetings of the entire judicial panel (including Hellmann, Zanetti and the six popular judges (i.e. lay jurors)). I would imagine that it is the group as a whole that has come to certain provisional decisions - not just Hellmann (or even Hellmann and Zanetti) acting on his own authority. But the other thing to bear in mind is something I referred to earlier: I suspect that the popular judges rarely - if ever - group up to countermand the professional judges. Regardless of this, however, I would be surprised if Hellmann isn't aware of the prevailing opinion of the entire judicial panel. I therefore am inclined to believe that the judicial panel as a whole has decided that acquittals are now forthcoming.

 

[JREF2010]

It's quite surreal reading this thread and the two PMF forums at the same time. One set of posters thinks it's going one way, and the other thinks it's going the other. Each set greets each new development as being favourable to its own point of view.

It's very hard to see beyond the confirmation bias.

Rolfe.

I know....its polarized.

Isn't it simply ignoring someones position. Refusal to listen, and blindly supporting a cause. It's surreal, but similar to many political campaigns. imo.

ex. When Amanda speaks Friday, I expect Maresca and others to storm out of the courtroom. So how will she change their views? Impossible, if they ignore and dont listen.

ex2. As Frank wrote, the prosecution refuses to accept the cell logs and the police testimony, and Masseis conclusion that the 112 call was before the Postals arrived.

ex3. Some refused the earth was round.

It all rests with Judge Hellman imo. He will direct the verdict.

If he goes by the reviewed information of C&V, he'll acquit.

If Hellman decides a verdict of guilty, because of "the other stuff", that he didnt bother to re-examine, then we can listen to the Machine next trial, when he says the "fix is in" before the Judges have even voted.

Seriously, Who can convict with a case that has No Motive, a witness based on Toto, and the C&V report?

 

[RoseMontague]

forget it

Love the Mignini quote. I noticed the avatar change as well, nice one. I had considered going to a pink Rose for my avatar to represent friendship and good thoughts for Raffaele but I felt that it would be taken the wrong way.

 

[RoseMontague]

Poll for JREF community on whether Knox will be acquitted: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=220500

I am interested in this simply from the standpoint of JREF. Has there been a change in the thinking of the rest of the JREF community? Do the majority still think the pro-innocence side is a bunch of CTer's? Thanks for starting the poll.

 

[lionking]

I am interested in this simply from the standpoint of JREF. Has there been a change in the thinking of the rest of the JREF community? Do the majority still think the pro-innocence side is a bunch of CTer's? Thanks for starting the poll.

How is it going to be interesting when everyone from this thread is going to vote and the rest of the forum doesn't give a bugger about the case?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

To address the confusion lest it become accepted as anything other than just that:

1) Your argument illogically boasts that your side has been "pro Meredith Kercher" for four years.
Why is it then that your side has so viciously attacked her family every time they ever dare speak publicly about anything concerning their murdered daughter/sister..
This particularly since their public speaking is probably less than 1% of what supertanker Marriott...err... "schedules" for the Mellox family.

2) Your argument illogically boasts that only your side speaks against Attorney Maresca's photos.
Attorney Maresca has been subjected to some of the most vicious vitriol of the entire case.
This has been all from your side.
Why should you now be so surprised?
Why should any informed observer attach an iota of significance to your self serving declaration that your side now whines loudest and longest about Attorney Maresca showing photos.
Kinda reminds me of male 3rd graders measuring urinating distance abilities.

3) Your argument illogically boasts that your side showed restraint about the crime scene photos.
Few if any of the objectionable pictures of the slain Meredith were available anywhere before yesterday.
Why should we be then impressed with the confused boasts about how considerate and respectful your side was in not showing them.
Can anyone show what they probably do not even have ? ?

BTW:
Maybe we should have a color enhanced post cut n' pasting the definition of 'vendetta'
As used above, it could understandably be applied as describing every single person who disagrees with a defense lawyer's arguments on behalf of his fully indicted client.

You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the crime scene photos, but as I have witnessed on many occasions, a lack of knowledge can't keep a good pilot down. Who needs facts anyway?

The rest of the post was too boring to remember so I will just ask you one question,

Do you think it was appropriate for Maresca to show those photos in court?

Yes or no will be fine.

 

[HumanityBlues]

How is it going to be interesting when everyone from this thread is going to vote and the rest of the forum doesn't give a bugger about the case?

What do you think will happen?