Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[bolint]

Do we know who they are?

ABC said the jury consists of 5 women and 1 man.

 

[smkovalinksy]

ABC said the jury consists of 5 women and 1 man.

Guess there is an alternate, I count 7 with sashes here.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Yes indeed! The "c" in his name does indeed have the same "ch" pronunciation as the "ch" in "Kercher". How ironic....

But in the Italian language the "ch" is pronounced as a "k" sound. Think chianti, bianchi, gli occhi, etc.

 

[Ammonitida]

ABC said the jury consists of 5 women and 1 man.

I'd be more comfortable with a majority of men. Women can really be hard on other women. Acquittal seems even more unlikely now.

 

[pilot padron]

OK Sounds good

Thank you Pilot! I appreciate the assist!

So...how do you think it is going to go tomorrow? Acquittal? Conviction? Conviction on some charges not others? Conviction for a lesser charge?

I'll give you a picture in return, the 'changing face of evil.'

[qimg]https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/9PHiIFdoGDw98s7sktv9Lp-eZri_IbudFR6rnY07bnfcyuI9S0txAxn90vpD5ctzXWHE9x-zNaPfSrYdfxILeJ8rIbd4TYJoGLDCF19CfV-Vejpv-TE[/qimg]

Bambi's got a gun!

1) the picture swap below:
Bambi seems to me possibly signalling Sollecito something that only the two of them can appreciate.
A "changing face" indeed.

2)RE: Tomorrow. I am far from "certain". Again.."it ain't over til..."

In fact my leanings toward a probable guilty verdict were diminished with:
1) the selection of C&V as 'unbiased' experts
1) the unopposed version of C&V, especially the flying contamination videos
2) some of Judge Hellmann's decisions, e.g no further review of Forensics, etc
3) problems with Mr Curatolo

My leanings toward probable guilty verdict were strengthened
1) some particularly effective focused rebuttal of C&V by equally qualified and more practically experienced experts. Their terribly telling "anything is possible" admission.
2) dalla Vedova's miscues:
2a) about timing of events (corrected after tug on his robe)
2b) shocking admission of:
2b1) Defense error in calling child killer and other jailbird as witness.
(note: the *defense* error; not the Court requirement as argued in length here
2b2) evidence on bath sink faucet that had been widely argued insignificant
3) With small exceptions, my perception of Prosecution Attorneys presenting much stronger case

RE: Reduced sentence:
I am still unsure of the concept of a 'reduced sentence' as even being possible outcome ;
1) Arguments about legal constraints against this have been somewhat contradicted recently.
2) Common sense seems to indicate guilt is guilt.
Like it is not possible to be a 'little bit pregnant'.
Unless some legal way to change charge, murder is murder and guilt is guilt.

RE: Conviction on only some of existing charges.
Not really a consideration, is it?
If murder charge is decided not guilty, time served will cover all the others.

BTW:
ABC News (a.k.a. "Amanda and Edda Forever") cited above, discusses "exoneration" as an outcome.
Great 'supertanker spin' from a PR media briefer to producers,, but really absurd as a legal or even a practical real world 'outcome'.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I'd be more comfortable with a majority of men. Women can really be hard on other women. Acquittal seems even more unlikely now.

I agree. I was really bothered by seeing all those women.

 

[bolint]

OK, so there was no confusion. He deliberately lied about Popovic, going out, his father phone call and SMS, not watching movies that he watched, browsing web when he didn't, not listening to music when he did listen etc. To make up so many lies when he had very good, corroborated truth in those time periods, it was quite an effort, but to what purpose?


You mean they made him say these lies? How?

He was smart enough to selectively erase his DNA, fingerprints, footprints. Now you say he told the lies because he was dumb? I don't buy it. Even a cretin would think hard about his alibi after such a horrible crime!

Come on, Amanda admitted to watching and even named some movies.


Do you mean Amanda didn't tell him and he had no idea Popovic called off the ride? That makes no sense, why didn't he drive out as agreed before? And why did he lie about it? Why lie about not meeting Popovic at all? What was he trying to hide?

I really don't think the cops had any "time of interest" already. AFAIK all of the night was the time of interest. And yes a call "around 23:14" would be handy if it wasn't imaginary. Are you trying to say that Raffaele lost hist mind because of the pressure of interrogation and hallucinated imaginary calls and imaginary events in place of real ones?
But didn't he lie cunningly? And those were purposeful lies - he didn't admit to watching the movies; He tried to hide that 2:42 phone call; he lied about midnight ride with Popovic (!). He decided it's better to tell the obvious lie about going out and then browsing the web then admit to all those things..


Ha! Why was it so important to lie that he didn't watch Naruto? What was he trying to hide?


Oh I disagree. He lied about not watching it. Very suspicious.


You almost convinced me. There is something really fishy here. An innocent person wouldn't try to hide that he watched movies. An innocent person wouldn't even watch "Amelie".

You are getting extremely dispersive. It is like a branching processs.
Keep it shorter. Select your most important questions.

 

[Ammonitida]

1) the picture swap below:
Bambi seems to me possibly signalling Sollecito something that only the two of them can appreciate.
A "changing face" indeed.

2)RE: Tomorrow. I am far from "certain". Again.."it ain't over til..."

In fact my leanings toward a probable guilty verdict were diminished with:
1) the selection of C&V as 'unbiased' experts
1) the unopposed version of C&V, especially the flying contamination videos
2) some of Judge Hellmann's decisions, e.g no further review of Forensics, etc
3) problems with Mr Curatolo

My leanings toward probable guilty verdict were strengthened
1) some particularly effective focused rebuttal of C&V by equally qualified and more practically experienced experts. Their terribly telling "anything is possible" admission.
2) dalla Vedova's miscues:
2a) about timing of events (corrected after tug on his robe)
2b) shocking admission of:
2b1) Defense error in calling child killer and other jailbird as witness.
(note: the *defense* error; not the Court requirement as argued in length here
2b2) evidence on bath sink faucet that had been widely argued insignificant
3) With small exceptions, my perception of Prosecution Attorneys presenting much stronger case

RE: Reduced sentence:
I am still unsure of the concept of a 'reduced sentence' as even being possible outcome ;
1) Arguments about legal constraints against this have been somewhat contradicted recently.
2) Common sense seems to indicate guilt is guilt.
Like it is not possible to be a 'little bit pregnant'.
Unless some legal way to change charge, murder is murder and guilt is guilt.

RE: Conviction on only some of existing charges.
Not really a consideration, is it?
If murder charge is decided not guilty, time served will cover all the others.

BTW:
ABC News (a.k.a. "Amanda and Edda Forever") cited above, discusses "exoneration" as an outcome.
Great 'supertanker spin' from a PR media briefer to producers,, but really absurd as a legal 'outcome'.

That "anything is possible" statement was in response to a lie told by the prosecution -- that Raff's DNA wasn't found at the cottage when in fact it was. I'm sure Conti's revelation that there was at least 8 genetic profiles on the clasp will weigh more in Hellman's mind anyway.

 

[snook1]

Is there a voting or a in depth discussion? I know there has been talks about votes etc, but I kinda don't get it. Is this a legitimate voting? And is it anonymous? I always thought that Hellmann has more power than just two votes.

What if Hellmann wants to acquitt and the jury dont? Let's say he(2 votes), Zanetti and two more people from the jury are voting for acquittal and the rest against it? Then they are free, correct? When the votes are even they still go free?
But, if let's say he votes for acquittal and only two more people vote the same, then Amanda and Raffaele stay in jail?

 

[smkovalinksy]

So 4 pm or later, GMT, which is noon or later New York time:

DanielePinto Daniele Pinto
Verdict for #MeredithKercher murder appeal expected late on 03 Oct '11: Anytime after 1600 GMT, but could go into the night.

 

[bolint]

I'd be more comfortable with a majority of men. Women can really be hard on other women.

The ideal jury would be: Juve, Shaky, Spiros, and the rock band Hot.

Acquittal seems even more unlikely now.

Reduced sentence is my bet, anyway.
Then acquittal
Then uphold
Tougher sentence extremely unlikely.

 

[smkovalinksy]

The ideal jury would be: Juve, Shaky, Spiros, and the rock band Hot.



Reduced sentence is my bet, anyway.
Then acquittal
Then uphold
Tougher sentence extremely unlikely.

 

[snook1]

For me, one thing is for sure. There will be no upholding, nor increasing the sentence. This is out of the question.

The reduced sentence is rather a mysterious one.

Acquittal is, for me, most possible.

 

[Ammonitida]

I agree. I was really bothered by seeing all those women.

I'm hoping that they'll be smitten by Raff's pretty face when he gives his statements on Monday. I now really, really wish he had been the focus of this trial and not Knox.

 

[Justinian2]

I think the charges will be reduced to time served.

I think the court has gotten all the information it needed on DNA and witnesses. I think they also got a few examples of prosecution bigotry. Since the information was all positive for Amanda and Raffaele, I think there will be an acquital.

However, I also think there will be something said to save face while at the same time keeping Amanda from further harrassment so that she can live her life.

That's they tricky part. How does Italy save face without hurting the rest of Amanda's life?

 

[smkovalinksy]

I'm hoping that they'll be smitten by Raff's pretty face when he gives his statements on Monday. I now really, really wish he had been the focus of this trial and not Knox.

I know. Amanda likely stirs antagonism in these Italian women.

 

[smkovalinksy]

For me, one thing is for sure. There will be no upholding, nor increasing the sentence. This is out of the question.

The reduced sentence is rather a mysterious one.

Acquittal is, for me, most possible.

Sure hope you are correct. I can sense a "nothing has changed since 2009" verdict, but then, I am extremely pessimistic by nature.

 

[snook1]

I think the charges will be reduced to time served.

I think the court has gotten all the information it needed on DNA and witnesses. I think they also got a few examples of prosecution bigotry. Since the information was all positive for Amanda and Raffaele, I think there will be an acquital.

However, I also think there will be something said to save face while at the same time keeping Amanda from further harrassment so that she can live her life.

That's they tricky part. How does Italy save face without hurting the rest of Amanda's life?

Yeah, the saving face part will be tricky indeed. To be honest, that;s something that I fear the most.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I think the charges will be reduced to time served.

I think the court has gotten all the information it needed on DNA and witnesses. I think they also got a few examples of prosecution bigotry. Since the information was all positive for Amanda and Raffaele, I think there will be an acquital.

However, I also think there will be something said to save face while at the same time keeping Amanda from further harrassment so that she can live her life.

That's they tricky part. How does Italy save face without hurting the rest of Amanda's life?

Well, they could save face by saying that they believe there was a peripheral involvement, and let them go with time served. Of course this would still outrage Mignini, Maresca, and the Kerchers. A righteous acquittal would please the world, and stand all proud and aloof in front of the accusers, but I have grown used to really crappy endings, and I am bracing myself for one here. I do not like the look of this jury.

 

[pilot padron]

Actually pretty easy to understand

Is there a voting or a in depth discussion? I know there has been talks about votes etc, but I kinda don't get it. Is this a legitimate voting? And is it anonymous? I always thought that Hellmann has more power than just two votes.

What if Hellmann wants to acquitt and the jury dont? Let's say he(2 votes), Zanetti and two more people from the jury are voting for acquittal and the rest against it? Then they are free, correct? When the votes are even they still go free?
But, if let's say he votes for acquittal and only two more people vote the same, then Amanda and Raffaele stay in jail?

Your argument seems to be making a pretty straightforward procedure quite complex.

There are 8 'jurors'.
A simple majority decides their verdict.
Therefore "in depth discussions" as in a unanimous vote required jury would seem improbable as well as unnecessary
If, and only if, the vote is tie (4 to4), one 'juror', Judge Hellman, gets another vote to break the tie

With us so far ??

Judge Hellmann does not get an extra vote to make it a tie as your last example infers,.