Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
there is no way to know if the judges have made up their minds or in what direction they are leaning.

they could believe that the prosecution made their case so strongly that the defense can't possibly make an argument that would overcome.

tm said he knew the outcome a couple of weeks ago. i didn't believe him and i don't believe we can know now.

i do believe that the last days will count. we will never know.
 
DarkStar2011 said:
Assuming an impartial attitude on the part of the judges and magistrates, this would indeed be the most likely conclusion. But it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility that they reached a conclusion of guilt based on the written and oral testimony presented already, and that they have concluded that nothing the defense is likely to say in summation would be enough to change that. Accordingly, they figure on a rather quick deliberation. Presumably, should something in the summations tomorrow change that, they might adjust their schedule further out.

I agree that the notion that the panel has decided already is probably a good sign for the defense rather than the prosecution...but, then again, as the old song goes, "It Ain't Necessarily So."
Click to expand...


Sure, it's not any more than a good indication that there will be acquittals. On the other hand, it would be so improper of Hellmann to pre-empt half of the defence argument (both for presentational reasons and underlying judgemental reasons) by indicating that the judicial panel may have already essentially reached guilty verdicts, that I think the only reasonable inference is this: if Hellmann's court has reached a provisional verdict, it can only be a verdict of acquittal.

Of course, it may be incorrect to infer that Hellmann's court even has reached any provisional verdict, in which case the indication of a Saturday verdict is only indicative of the fact that the judicial panel is going to reach its verdict from scratch within hours of the end of the argument phase. But I find this an unlikely inference to draw: to me, it's far more likely that Hellmann's court has indeed provisionally decided which way to vote. And if that's the case, then logic dictates that the vote is far more likely to not guilty than guilty
 
pilot padron said:
Is there a point where one watches you argue this absolute certainty of acquittal so exaggeratedly over and over and over again ....

That one might just wonder maybe you are just trying to convince yourself of something that, at this point, no mortal being could ever possibly know 'with absolute certainty'
Click to expand...

Hi Pilot
I would sincerely like to hear your opinion and reasons for your opinion. I would have been unable to form my opinion if it weren't for opinions and iseas from both sides.
Thanks
 
Grinder said:
there is no way to know if the judges have made up their minds or in what direction they are leaning.

they could believe that the prosecution made their case so strongly that the defense can't possibly make an argument that would overcome.
tm said he knew the outcome a couple of weeks ago. i didn't believe him and i don't believe we can know now.

i do believe that the last days will count. we will never know.
Click to expand...


I don't believe the highlighted part of your post makes any logical sense. The judicial panel simply wouldn't be able to make a proper decision of guilt before even hearing half of the defence argument, no matter how strong the prosecution argument was (the fact that the prosecution argument was very poor in this case is actually irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion). Moreover, it would be entirely improper for Hellmann to essentially broadcast the fact that his court had made its mind up for guilt before even hearing the whole defence argument. If verdicts of guilt were announced on Saturday evening, there would certainly be questions asked about this issue.

But by contrast, it's perfectly logical and proper that Hellmann's court could have reached legitimate decisions for acquittal as early as yesterday evening. This is because by then they had heard all the arguments for guilt. Clearly if they agreed that these arguments did not constitute proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, they wouldn't even need to hear the defence arguments in order to know that they were going to acquit.
 
DarkStar2011 said:
Where did they get all that money? Easy! Amanda conjured it up with one of her spells, that witch! :D
Click to expand...

well i can tell you one thing - i wouldn't convict a witch - i'm surprised mignini's head hasn't exploded yet.

btw over what distance can a witch cast a spell? i'd think some north west seattle resident would have had some flooding problems or some tragedy if in fact she was a witch
 
LondonJohn said:
I don't believe the highlighted part of your post makes any logical sense. The judicial panel simply wouldn't be able to make a proper decision of guilt before even hearing half of the defence argument, no matter how strong the prosecution argument was (the fact that the prosecution argument was very poor in this case is actually irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion). Moreover, it would be entirely improper for Hellmann to essentially broadcast the fact that his court had made its mind up for guilt before even hearing the whole defence argument. If verdicts of guilt were announced on Saturday evening, there would certainly be questions asked about this issue.

But by contrast, it's perfectly logical and proper that Hellmann's court could have reached legitimate decisions for acquittal as early as yesterday evening. This is because by then they had heard all the arguments for guilt. Clearly if they agreed that these arguments did not constitute proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, they wouldn't even need to hear the defence arguments in order to know that they were going to acquit.
Click to expand...

back at you with the highlight - the case has been in appeal for almost a year - the judges reviewed everything the appellants put forward and ruled on what evidence to review - many were disappointed at how few items were reviewed - it is clearly possible that they will not rule not guilty.

i have no way to read an italian panel.

i don't think they have a case for guilty beyond a reasonable doubt but i don't get a vote
 
Anyhow, I'm off down to Brighton for a conference from tomorrow to Friday afternoon. I'll probably read and post sporadically during that time. Tomorrow is a day off for the trial in any case. I shall drive right past Coulsdon on my way to Brighton, and I'll think of Meredith Kercher as I do so.
 
LondonJohn said:
But by contrast, it's perfectly logical and proper that Hellmann's court could have reached legitimate decisions for acquittal as early as yesterday evening. This is because by then they had heard all the arguments for guilt.
Click to expand...

There is perhaps another reason. The prosecution was only interested in a verbal stoning. They were trying to kill Amanda with words.

We've all heard stories of bullies causing people to commit suicide or mass murders. The bullies can be classmates, internet acquaintances or others.

Make no doubt about it, the prosecution lawyers are bullies and they would like nothing better than to drive Amanda and her family insane. We've seen it happen before and we know it can happen again.

If Hellmann is a decent man, he would put a stop to this abuse of his court.

There is no reason to coddle these evil bullies.
 
lionking said:
I wouldn't bother applying for the MDC if I were you. Your ability to read my mind is on par with the ability of others here to read Judge Hellmann's mind.

I think the result of the appeal is too close to call. I lack the zealous certainty of a number here.
Click to expand...

Based on the evidence Amanda is clearly innocent. Yet I thought the same thing in the first trial. So my doubts aren't about whether or not the evidence is good, it's not, my doubt is whether the courts are corrupt/incompetent. Until there is a ruling I see no real reason to be optimistic.
 
Grinder said:
there is no way to know if the judges have made up their minds or in what direction they are leaning.

they could believe that the prosecution made their case so strongly that the defense can't possibly make an argument that would overcome.

tm said he knew the outcome a couple of weeks ago. i didn't believe him and i don't believe we can know now.

i do believe that the last days will count. we will never know.
Click to expand...
-

I disagree Grinder,

Maresca messed up big time by showing those photos. If John Kercher authorized this, then I take back every sympathetic benefit of the doubt comment I have ever afforded him. That is all I will say about that, because it goes beyond my ability to describe how sick an action it was.

Experienced criminal lawyers (prosecution or defense) would NEVER do what Maresca did. Eight foot high gross picture after gross picture after gross picture of Meredith (virtually shoved down the juries throat) will only work if the defendant is evil looking.

The seriously demented ◊◊◊◊ Maresca did will not work. Why you ask?

Because (sorry to say), you might be able to make Amanda evil looking in very short videos and single frames, both taken out of context or cherry picked, but the jury has been studying her for months now, and she is not (even close to) that kind of evil looking where that kind of tactic will work.

If she were, the flip-side would have had no need to explain anything about the sweet angelic Amanda vs the devil witch side of her that is hidden and only comes out when she drops the mask.

I have said here many times that I hope she and Raffaele are acquitted, but have always qualified that by saying I won't hold my breath that it will really happen, because of what happened in the first trial.

I've changed my mind.

I NOW GUARANTEE (RIGHT HERE AND NOW) THAT AMANDA AND RAFFAELE WILL BE ACQUITTED OF ALL CHARGES INCLUDING (if Hellmann is even half the critical thinker I believe him to be) THE "ACCUSATION OF LUMUMBA" SLANDER CHARGE!!!
How can I say this? It's possible because I know enough about jury psychology to be able to point out that if Maresca's tactic had actually worked, every one on the jury (judges and lay-judges) would have been so incensed at Amanda and Raffaele that not one of them would have laughed the next day at the eskimo nose kissing reference made by Ms. B.

Some (if not all) of the jury actually laughed with the defense here. Think about that. Can you drop any bias you might have and actually have the ability to wrap your mind around this idea? Let me ask you this. Did Mignini (if he was awake) laugh at this?

You can ridicule or deride or argue the point with me all you want, but I don't care, because you'll see for yourself in less than a week,

Dave
 
Last edited:
Justinian2 said:
There is perhaps another reason. The prosecution was only interested in a verbal stoning. They were trying to kill Amanda with words.

We've all heard stories of bullies causing people to commit suicide or mass murders. The bullies can be classmates, internet acquaintances or others.

Make no doubt about it, the prosecution lawyers are bullies and they would like nothing better than to drive Amanda and her family insane. We've seen it happen before and we know it can happen again.

If Hellmann is a decent man, he would put a stop to this abuse of his court.

There is no reason to coddle these evil bullies.
Click to expand...

They say that bullies have few friends the day they get their comeuppance,hopefully comeuppance starts on Saturday for Mignini Comodi and Maresca and all the other judges who allowed this travesty of justice to stay on the road for four years
 
AmyStrange said:
-


How can I say this? It's possible because I know enough about jury psychology to be able to point out that if Maresca's tactic had actually worked, every one on the jury (judges and lay-judges) would have been so incensed at Amanda and Raffaele that not one of them would have laughed the next day at the eskimo nose kissing reference made by Ms. B.

Some (if not all) of the jury actually laughed with the defense here. Think about that. Can you drop any bias you might have and actually have the ability to wrap your mind around this idea?

Dave
Click to expand...

Dave,

I would normally think that such a theory would be kind of silly, but I think you might be onto something here.

I say that only because, when I stopped and thought about it, you are right. If I were on a jury, and thought the defendants were guilty, and saw those disgusting crime scene photos the day before, a description of anything those people did would not be funny to me under any circumstances.

Interesting observation.
 
Dougm said:
Dave,

I would normally think that such a theory would be kind of silly, but I think you might be onto something here.

I say that only because, when I stopped and thought about it, you are right. If I were on a jury, and thought the defendants were guilty, and saw those disgusting crime scene photos the day before, a description of anything those people did would not be funny to me under any circumstances.

Interesting observation.
Click to expand...
-

Doug,

sometimes I get lucky and some of the spaghetti actually sticks,

Dave
 
billyryan said:
I am trying to imagine the scene on Saturday night when the verdict of not guilty is brought in,Amanda being taken back to Capanne to be officially released,a mighty scrum of reporters and camera men waiting outside the prison,hoping to catch a glimpse to interview some of the people there to take her away to freedom

Pressmen asking Maresco if he still felt showing the post mortem photos of Meredith was the right thing to do,camera's pushed in Mignini's and Comodi's faces for reaction,analysis by sky news and all of the American networks as to why this miscarriage of justice took place,the kind of publicity that no tourist destination could ever want,the mayor of Perugia telling a newsman why it is still safe for families to send their daughters to study in his city even after Rudy gets out
Click to expand...

I wonder if Giobbi will be fired?? An be forced to take the pics down.
 
AmyStrange said:
-

Grinder,

have I told you lately that I love you. You know in a manly macho kind of way, not that there's anything wrong with the other way,

Dave
Click to expand...

Not since Paris.

I do think your read on the judges laughing at the defense jokes is a very good one.

I will still remain cautiously optimistic.

If they are acquitted, I think the Seattle region believers in not guilty should have a beer in West Seattle.
 
Grinder said:
Not since Paris.

I do think your read on the judges laughing at the defense jokes is a very good one.

I will still remain cautiously optimistic.

If they are acquitted, I think the Seattle region believers in not guilty should have a beer in West Seattle.
Click to expand...
-

Your cautious optimism is duly noted and (since I've been there and done that too) quite understandable.

"Casablanca" is AWESOME, and my favorite movie of all time!!!

Here's thinking of you Meredith, Amanda and Raffaele. Salut!
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
Where did I contend C?
Click to expand...

Think you meant innocent position here, but no matter
hypGo.png


and here:
n0nmo.png


and here:
TTH1S.png


and this jab:
moHkA.png


here:
Oh4z7.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom