Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[js202]

Those little faces are basically what my GF's face looked like.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Patrick Lumumba

1) called her 'the world’s best actress' in an interview with Britain’s Sunday Times.

2) says: He is living proof of her guilt.

3) says: I went to prison unjustly. I was called an assassin. Who said that? Amanda. I'm the proof that she is involved in the murder.

The 'actress' comment seems particularly timely in view of tomorrow's widely anticipated 'spontaneous declaration'.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/10/02/knox-is-world-s-greatest-actress.html

Her statement should be quiet, and last at most 60 seconds, or her goose is cooked.

 

[Kaosium]

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

Do you think it had anything to do with the murder, is that the reason for her smile?

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

"...the Fat Lady sings!"

That's what happened on Friday, when Mignini made his rebuttals argument, the fat lady sang.

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

What problems did you have with the selection of Conti and Vechiotti? As I remember it, there was no controversy regarding them when selected, it was only after their report was issued and it was revealed as damning that there was ever an uncool word uttered regarding them personally. The Machine was still saying 'It looks ominous for Knox and Sollecito' right up until their report was issued.

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

The 'defense' can't help that Alessi and Aviello wrote the court saying they had relevant knowledge of the murder and both had been in a position to know something about it, through being locked up with Rudy and Raffaele. They are remiss in their duties both to their client and to the court if they don't bring them to the court's attention. Aviello's testimony turned out to be worthless, not so Alessi and his corroborators, though the weight given it to the jury is speculative. As for Aviello, wasn't it the prosecution who wished to call him or his buddy back to the stand to talk about the 'Cat Lady?' Wasn't it the prosecution who went on a fishing expedition for worthless testimony in exchange for a sex change operation? Whatever makes you think Aviello definitely wrote the court to benefit the defense as opposed to his own purposes or even on the behalf of the prosecution? Or did the defense put him up to it simply to demonstrate how gullible and paranoid Mignini's reaction would be?

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.

Actually I think you may have a point here, that option was more along the lines if the prosecution in the appeal might have tried to make a case that wasn't far past their evidence like the idea of Raffaele and Amanda hacking away in the murder room is. In other words had they tried to make a case that Raffaele and Amanda had tried to cover it up, then they might be found guilty of a lesser charge. For example, that gravedigger in the other case in Puglia, convicted of six months for 'disturbing the crime scene' or somesuch.

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.

Yes, so does that suggest your only interest in this case is seeing Amanda in a cage? This must be your favorite picture:

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'.

Her exoneration may be more complete than anyone else ever wrongfully convicted of a crime. I can think of no other case in history that had about a dozen books published, one movie complete with two more in the tank, and a multitude of netizens so dedicated to the idea--this before due process was ever completed! Truthfully at this point the only thing that might suggest to a newcomer to this debate that she's not innocent is the Massei verdict which will shortly be a part of history, and to great fanfare.

So...what do you think will happen if she's acquitted? Will Mignini appeal, or was he bluffing? Will Amanda and Raffaele be in Italy, and if not would any nation in the world outside the EU extradite them, and would even a EAW be honored against them?

 

[smkovalinksy]

Those little faces are basically what my GF's face looked like.

Cannot say as I blame her. And supposing those female jury members think just like this woman???

 

[Dan O.]

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.

Hellmann doesn't need to save Mignini's face. The guilty verdict came from Massei's court and any acquittal is going to completely upset Massei's motivation report so Massei's face is toast too (though Massei may be able to claim that he was lied to by the prosecution, he was given plenty of notice that the prosecution was not being honest and he should have sought his own reviews). If Hellmann is going to find them culpable of anything he is going to need documentation to back it up or he'll just be joining Massei and Mignini. What documentation is left to back a verdict of culpability?

 

[js202]

Her statement should be quiet, and last at most 60 seconds, or her goose is cooked.

Unlike some others, I'm not willing to make too many overconfident predictions in this case. But I do strongly feel that Hellmann will heavily drive this decision. Remember, he must write the motivations report to which he will give his imprimatur. Hellmann has given the impression that he is a rationalist, and that is the best sign possible for AK and RS.

 

[bolint]

After seeing the gender make-up of this jury, I'm now bracing myself for a conviction that recommends an increased sentence with several months of solitary confinement. When I first saw that jury photograph, my heart just dropped.

Forget it.
No way it will be increased.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Mr. Lumumba

Patrick Lumumba

pilot padron,

I would feel greater sympathy with Mr. Lumumba if his lawyer did not use terms such as she-devil (IMO words like this have no business in any courtroom) and in general did not bring forth such misogynistic drivel. I would feel greater trust in Mr. Lumumba if would refrain from claiming that he is Patrice Lumumba's nephew until and unless he offers proof that clearly overrides Patrice Lumumba's actual relative's statement on the matter.

 

[ForTruth]

My perspective for those who care and don't care - 100% confident of acquittal on all counts for both Raffaele and Amanda.
Reason - first trial was a trial by media with all chummy perugia folk.
The appeal judge is from out of that circle and has proven he would go against the prosecution during the sessions (and against the grain in previous cases).
And the media, has been following, with messaging from she is innocent, wrongly convicted, to she will get off.
In the end the Italian media will again accurately forecast the verdict.
100% confident on all counts. I'll come back and say I was wrong if I am...

 

[smkovalinksy]

Unlike some others, I'm not willing to make too many overconfident predictions in this case. But I do strongly feel that Hellmann will heavily drive this decision. Remember, he must write the motivations report to which he will give his imprimatur. Hellmann has given the impression that he is a rationalist, and that is the best sign possible for AK and RS.

Yes, I suppose you are correct. But I do not like a certain constellation of events I am seeing:

• polls with Italian women anti-Knox
• pieces appearing in the Italian media which seem anti-Knox
• the look of the jury, female -dominated
• Hellman having lunch AND dinner catered in, as though a bunch of points to deal with -UGH

 

[pilot padron]

Just an opinion

Her statement should be quiet, and last at most 60 seconds, or her goose is cooked.

Although hesitant to predict "with certainty" the outcome tomorrow.

I will go out on a limb and say I think it will be longer than 60 seconds.
I base this on:
1) Her rambling incoherent evasive off topic, very lengthy answers to simple questions while testifying
2) Her rambling, incoherent, poorly constructed 'diary' entries.
3) Her 'not short' gifted confession statement
4) Her Father's comments on contents of her upcoming statement during the Marriott approved interviews
5) The widely mentioned 3 month effort she has dedicated to the statement.

I also personally believe that her statement, which the jurors know is allowed to be, and in fact expected to contain as much as 100% lies will have little effect on their decision

I base this on the fact that the jurors know:
1) Knox is allowed to lie
2) Knox, as any defendant is expected to lie
3) Knox knows that whatever she says, will not be subject to any cross examined or rebuttal.

 

[Dougm]

Barbie Nadeau
Latest universinet.it poll on verdict. 48% guilty 44% not guilty in Amanda Knox case. Of guilty responses 68% are female.

I might be an outlier here, but I see that as very positive for them. If I lived in Italy, and was not that interested in the details of the case, only what is in the newspapers, I would probably think they are guilty. A poll showing close to 50/50 seems positive to me.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Although hesitant to predict "with certainty" the outcome tomorrow.

I will go out on a limb and say I think it will be longer than 60 seconds.
I base this on:
1) Her rambling incoherent evasive off topic, very lengthy answers to simple questions while testifying
2) Her rambling, incoherent, poorly constructed 'diary' entries.
3) Her 'not short' gifted confession statement
4) Her Father's comments on contents of her upcoming statement during the Marriott approved interviews
5) The widely mentioned 3 month effort she has dedicated to the statement.

I also personally believe that her statement, which the jurors know is allowed to be, and in fact expected to contain as much as 100% lies will have little effect on their decision

I base this on the fact that the jurors know:
1) Knox is allowed to lie
2) Knox, as any defendant is expected to lie
3) Knox knows that whatever she says, will not be subject to any cross examined or rebuttal.

 

[Katody Matrass]

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

Pick one!
Or don't

I understand these are tough questions for you to answer and I intended them as mostly rhetorical and to highlight the indefensibility of your position. Your answer kind of confirms their effectiveness

 

[smkovalinksy]

I might be an outlier here, but I see that as very positive for them. If I lived in Italy, and was not that interested in the details of the case, only what is in the newspapers, I would probably think they are guilty. A poll showing close to 50/50 seems positive to me.

 

[bolint]

Hellman having lunch AND dinner catered in, as though a bunch of points to deal with

But he did not order breakfast.

 

[smkovalinksy]

But he did not order breakfast.

This may mean that they will not have the stomach for it, knowing what is pending.

 

[Ammonitida]

Cannot say as I blame her. And supposing those female jury members think just like this woman???

Well, that woman's comment seems to be rooted in simple ignorance -- not exactly misogynistic in nature. These jurors, however, are educated in law and should be more knowledgeable. I'm more worried that these female jurors possess a sort of subconscious misogyny that will influence their opinions of Knox. Italy is rife with misogyny and women are often complacent their own oppression (even for women who self-identify as feminists this is often true). We've already seen it in this trial, where a female prosecutor sat by while her male partner in crime said outright misogynistic statements in court against Amanda ("only a woman would do that") and wasn't called on it. Where civil attorneys hurled all kinds of vile misogynistic slurs at Amanda and not a single objection by Commodi. Perhaps though, these female jurors are "feminazis" and are furious with the display of misogyny at this trial and will let that influence their opinions instead.

 

[js202]

This may mean that they will not have the stomach for it, knowing what is pending.

What, for a coup de grace, is Maresca now planning to show photos of himself and Mignini in drag?

 

[Katody Matrass]

I think tomorrow's continuation of rebuttals and Raffaele's and the witch's statements are mostly a formality. I don't think any defendant statements will change anything (unless one of them confesses ).

"The judge and his assistant" really made it abundantly clear what their opinion is. IIRC most of the time the jury is unanimous and confirms the judge's opinion. To get that opinion overruled by the "lay judges", forcing them to write a votum separatum motivation document is something existing as a legal theoretical possibility that never happens in practice.