Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
HumanityBlues said:
Think you meant innocent position here, but no matter
[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/hypGo.png[/qimg]

and here:
[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/n0nmo.png[/qimg]

and here:
[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/TTH1S.png[/qimg]

and this jab:
[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/moHkA.png[/qimg]

here:
[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/Oh4z7.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...


No I meant guilt position, so you are completely wrong.
 
Sollecito family phone wiretaps 5000 - Amanda & Raff's Interrogation wiretaps 0
 
Last edited:
I can see I have to spell this out. I'm was talking about the belief from the innocent camp that for AK to be found guilty required a conspiracy of police, prosecutors and forensic scientists to hide, plant or concoct evidence. I do not accept this CT without evidence.
 
AmyStrange said:
-


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

Here's thinking of you Meredith, Amanda and Raffaele. Salut!
Click to expand...

One group or another is going to be "shocked, shocked!!" when the verdict is read, I can say that for sure.
 
lionking said:
No I meant guilt position, so you are completely wrong.
Click to expand...

lionking said:
I can see I have to spell this out. I'm was talking about the belief from the innocent camp that for AK to be found guilty required a conspiracy of police, prosecutors and forensic scientists to hide, plant or concoct evidence. I do not accept this CT without evidence.
Click to expand...


I don't think it is a conspiracy between the police, forensics and prosecution.
I just thnk they believe that she's a Witch. :p

She's a Witch!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

If that were true they wouldn't have appointed Conti and Vecchiotti.

After all, what would have been the point? Why waste all the time and money if outcome of the review literally didn't matter (in the sense that even if it were maximally favorable to the defense, the verdict wouldn't be affected)?

It must be remembered that this isn't an American or British trial, where the jury hasn't heard the case until it's presented in court, and their thoughts are a total mystery (and can't be read by the judge's rulings). Here, the judges and jury are the same. Hence the procedural rulings tell you information about what the jury is thinking - because they're made by the jury! And, just as importantly, they already know what the arguments are. At least, the most important jury members -- the professional judges Hellmann and Zanetti -- do. They've read the motivation document from the first trial, and they've read all the appeal briefs. This is one crucial respect in which the proceeding is more like an appeal in U.S. courts than a jury trial: the case is mainly argued in writing before anyone shows up in the courtroom.

If you know anything about the U.S. Supreme Court, for example, you know that by the time a case is argued orally, the nine justices have already read all of the arguments in the case in written form, and are there mainly just to ask questions of the lawyers to receive clarification on particular points. Although the lawyers always start by going through the motions of "presenting the case", it usually only takes a few seconds before the justices begin interrupting them with questions about the issues they (the justices) are interested in.

This is pretty much analogous to what is going on in Perugia. Hellmann and Zanetti read the appeals, and they decided they wanted clarification on the DNA, so they appointed Conti and Vecchiotti. Since they didn't order reviews of the other evidence (except for that sideshow involving various witnesses, whose purpose may have been just to give them something to do while waiting for C and V to report back), we can assume that that was all the information they needed to make their decision.

Now, given this -- given that the decision was made as soon as the C and V report came out (and, if you insist, after it was debated in court), what do you think that decision is? Do you really think that the presentations by the prosecution and their witnesses -- and the theatrics of the past few days -- were so utterly compelling, that they managed to completely reverse the judges' opinions up to that point, without the judges wanting any more information, argument, or even time to digest these new spectacular revelations?

If Hellmann and his court had been planning to convict, then (1) they wouldn't have granted the review, and (2) if they had granted it, they would have done so in the expectation that it would confirm Stefanoni -- whereupon when it failed to do so, that would have been a surprise that would have caused them to have to regroup, reconsider, and alter the schedule. They would either have begun having genuine doubts (due to the unexpected results), or at the very least would have needed to do some additional CYA work in order to justifiably end up with a guilty verdict (since otherwise everyone will wonder what the point of the C-V review was); either way, what you would see at this point would be more reviews of more aspects of the case, and maybe even a second review of the knife and clasp (per the prosecution's request).

What you would not expect to see is what we're seeing now: Hellmann denying prosecution requests, calling out their shenanigans (e.g. not letting Stefanoni's faked evidence, or this nonsense about prior Cassazione rulings, into the record), and basically expressing impatience with how long this thing has been going on.

Now I could be wrong: perhaps Hellmann could have a sudden change of mind this week (perhaps transfixed by Maresca's awe-inspiring, heartwarming tribute to Meredith) and suddenly become such a full-blooded PMF-style guilter (about the only people who think there isn't reasonable doubt in this case) that he's willing to hurry up and give Amanda and Raffaele the ergastolo (that is, lo slammer for life, as one might put it) by Saturday.

But then again, as Giuseppe Novelli might say: perhaps a meteorite will fall from the sky and knock down the courthouse.
 
The poll that Pilot Padron is so fond of has rather weirdly remained on a static 69 - 31 % ratio all day, all through the day.

I voted on it. Don't votes change the dynamic ?
 
HumanityBlues said:
You've already said here that C) it requires some sort of vast conspiracy by the police for Knox to be innocent.
Click to expand...

lionking said:
Where did I contend C?
Click to expand...

lionking said:
My problem is for the innocentisti narrative to play out, it would require a large and sophisticated conspiracy involving the police, forensic scientists and probably also the prosecution. Lasting years. With no whistleblowers. In what many people here describe as a shambolic justice system.

Sorry, I don't buy it.
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7296587#post7296587

How is HB wrong?

Oh, wait he isn't.
 
Don't know about you, but I'm pleased that someone has finally yelled at Mignini that he is evil in court.

It will have no affect on Raff and Amanda's result.

That's it for now, I think I'll nick off and get back to practicing my spells.
 
this thing about Harry's Rag Machine comment about a reduced sentence leaked a few weeks ago...

I wondered how could that happen?

Here's how..

Reading DarkStar2011's post, it was mentioned a few pages back how the case is discussed by the Judges during the trial in Italy.

So the fact the judges also are not sequestered, makes them much more accessible during the trial, which could lead someone to talk to someone else who has spoken with an insider in the judges room discussions, for free or for money, which told someone else who told someone else who told someone the verdict is already decided...based on the discussions.

to leak what the Judge is saying in the chambers, would be very possible of one of the Judges, if this person had no morals.

maybe a leak for some money? it wouldn't be the first time in history there was a dishonest person on a jury/judge. "people talk" we know....

if a reduced sentence happens to be the verdict. a Reduced "pass-the-buck" sentence and then to Rome?

Guilty because of a Cartwheel verdict/the Forensic evidence destroyed?

just a possibility... when dishonest people are involved, who knows what can be leaked?
 
lionking said:
I can see I have to spell this out. I'm was talking about the belief from the innocent camp that for AK to be found guilty required a conspiracy of police, prosecutors and forensic scientists to hide, plant or concoct evidence. I do not accept this CT without evidence.
Click to expand...


You are bit mixed up here. It may require a conspiracy to hide, plant or concoct evidence. However, there is NO EVIDENCE!

There are few other things involved:

1) Brotherhood of Flying Thug Squad - Hey, when we hit people during interrogations it is understood no on squeals.

2) Paid mumbo jumbo expert - Rinaldi footprint analysis

3) Liars and Deceit - Stefanoni with knife paperwork, hiding TMB test.

4) Corrupt prosecutors willing to do whatever it takes - Mignini with witnesses, press leaks. Comodi - creative paperwork. Maresca
 
Thank you.

komponisto said:
If that were true they wouldn't have appointed Conti and Vecchiotti.

After all, what would have been the point? Why waste all the time and money if outcome of the review literally didn't matter (in the sense that even if it were maximally favorable to the defense, the verdict wouldn't be affected)?

It must be remembered that this isn't an American or British trial, where the jury hasn't heard the case until it's presented in court, and their thoughts are a total mystery (and can't be read by the judge's rulings). Here, the judges and jury are the same. Hence the procedural rulings tell you information about what the jury is thinking - because they're made by the jury! And, just as importantly, they already know what the arguments are. At least, the most important jury members -- the professional judges Hellmann and Zanetti -- do. They've read the motivation document from the first trial, and they've read all the appeal briefs. This is one crucial respect in which the proceeding is more like an appeal in U.S. courts than a jury trial: the case is mainly argued in writing before anyone shows up in the courtroom.

If you know anything about the U.S. Supreme Court, for example, you know that by the time a case is argued orally, the nine justices have already read all of the arguments in the case in written form, and are there mainly just to ask questions of the lawyers to receive clarification on particular points. Although the lawyers always start by going through the motions of "presenting the case", it usually only takes a few seconds before the justices begin interrupting them with questions about the issues they (the justices) are interested in.

This is pretty much analogous to what is going on in Perugia. Hellmann and Zanetti read the appeals, and they decided they wanted clarification on the DNA, so they appointed Conti and Vecchiotti. Since they didn't order reviews of the other evidence (except for that sideshow involving various witnesses, whose purpose may have been just to give them something to do while waiting for C and V to report back), we can assume that that was all the information they needed to make their decision.

Now, given this -- given that the decision was made as soon as the C and V report came out (and, if you insist, after it was debated in court), what do you think that decision is? Do you really think that the presentations by the prosecution and their witnesses -- and the theatrics of the past few days -- were so utterly compelling, that they managed to completely reverse the judges' opinions up to that point, without the judges wanting any more information, argument, or even time to digest these new spectacular revelations?

If Hellmann and his court had been planning to convict, then (1) they wouldn't have granted the review, and (2) if they had granted it, they would have done so in the expectation that it would confirm Stefanoni -- whereupon when it failed to do so, that would have been a surprise that would have caused them to have to regroup, reconsider, and alter the schedule. They would either have begun having genuine doubts (due to the unexpected results), or at the very least would have needed to do some additional CYA work in order to justifiably end up with a guilty verdict (since otherwise everyone will wonder what the point of the C-V review was); either way, what you would see at this point would be more reviews of more aspects of the case, and maybe even a second review of the knife and clasp (per the prosecution's request).

What you would not expect to see is what we're seeing now: Hellmann denying prosecution requests, calling out their shenanigans (e.g. not letting Stefanoni's faked evidence, or this nonsense about prior Cassazione rulings, into the record), and basically expressing impatience with how long this thing has been going on.

Now I could be wrong: perhaps Hellmann could have a sudden change of mind this week (perhaps transfixed by Maresca's awe-inspiring, heartwarming tribute to Meredith) and suddenly become such a full-blooded PMF-style guilter (about the only people who think there isn't reasonable doubt in this case) that he's willing to hurry up and give Amanda and Raffaele the ergastolo (that is, lo slammer for life, as one might put it) by Saturday.

But then again, as Giuseppe Novelli might say: perhaps a meteorite will fall from the sky and knock down the courthouse.
Click to expand...



Brilliant.

Take a bow.
 
komponisto said:
If that were true they wouldn't have appointed Conti and Vecchiotti.

After all, what would have been the point? Why waste all the time and money if outcome of the review literally didn't matter (in the sense that even if it were maximally favorable to the defense, the verdict wouldn't be affected)?

It must be remembered that this isn't an American or British trial, where the jury hasn't heard the case until it's presented in court, and their thoughts are a total mystery (and can't be read by the judge's rulings). Here, the judges and jury are the same. Hence the procedural rulings tell you information about what the jury is thinking - because they're made by the jury! And, just as importantly, they already know what the arguments are. At least, the most important jury members -- the professional judges Hellmann and Zanetti -- do. They've read the motivation document from the first trial, and they've read all the appeal briefs. This is one crucial respect in which the proceeding is more like an appeal in U.S. courts than a jury trial: the case is mainly argued in writing before anyone shows up in the courtroom.

If you know anything about the U.S. Supreme Court, for example, you know that by the time a case is argued orally, the nine justices have already read all of the arguments in the case in written form, and are there mainly just to ask questions of the lawyers to receive clarification on particular points. Although the lawyers always start by going through the motions of "presenting the case", it usually only takes a few seconds before the justices begin interrupting them with questions about the issues they (the justices) are interested in.

This is pretty much analogous to what is going on in Perugia. Hellmann and Zanetti read the appeals, and they decided they wanted clarification on the DNA, so they appointed Conti and Vecchiotti. Since they didn't order reviews of the other evidence (except for that sideshow involving various witnesses, whose purpose may have been just to give them something to do while waiting for C and V to report back), we can assume that that was all the information they needed to make their decision.

Now, given this -- given that the decision was made as soon as the C and V report came out (and, if you insist, after it was debated in court), what do you think that decision is? Do you really think that the presentations by the prosecution and their witnesses -- and the theatrics of the past few days -- were so utterly compelling, that they managed to completely reverse the judges' opinions up to that point, without the judges wanting any more information, argument, or even time to digest these new spectacular revelations?

If Hellmann and his court had been planning to convict, then (1) they wouldn't have granted the review, and (2) if they had granted it, they would have done so in the expectation that it would confirm Stefanoni -- whereupon when it failed to do so, that would have been a surprise that would have caused them to have to regroup, reconsider, and alter the schedule. They would either have begun having genuine doubts (due to the unexpected results), or at the very least would have needed to do some additional CYA work in order to justifiably end up with a guilty verdict (since otherwise everyone will wonder what the point of the C-V review was); either way, what you would see at this point would be more reviews of more aspects of the case, and maybe even a second review of the knife and clasp (per the prosecution's request).

What you would not expect to see is what we're seeing now: Hellmann denying prosecution requests, calling out their shenanigans (e.g. not letting Stefanoni's faked evidence, or this nonsense about prior Cassazione rulings, into the record), and basically expressing impatience with how long this thing has been going on.

Now I could be wrong: perhaps Hellmann could have a sudden change of mind this week (perhaps transfixed by Maresca's awe-inspiring, heartwarming tribute to Meredith) and suddenly become such a full-blooded PMF-style guilter (about the only people who think there isn't reasonable doubt in this case) that he's willing to hurry up and give Amanda and Raffaele the ergastolo (that is, lo slammer for life, as one might put it) by Saturday.

But then again, as Giuseppe Novelli might say: perhaps a meteorite will fall from the sky and knock down the courthouse.
Click to expand...

Great analysis.

It has seemed logical to me all along that when Hellmann ordered C&V to do the review, it indicated he must already have questions about guilt. But I have been questioning this all the time because A) I am not Italian, and don't understand all the nuances of the courts there, and B) What happened in the first trial, where the evidence, to me, was as clear as it is now.

But it what you say seems completely on target. Why do the review if you don't question the first verdict? And why, once the review is done, proceed speedily toward the end (in relative terms)? It all makes sense.

Here's hoping you have it right -- seems really logical to me.
 
AmyStrange said:
-
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.
Click to expand...

While not proof of anything, I have to say this is an excellent point, and maybe the strongest indication of which way the ill wind is blowing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom