Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
HumanityBlues said:
Prediction tomorrow if AK and RS are acquitted:

Expect a long angry post from Peter Quennell with a lot of CAPS. Am I right or am I right?
Click to expand...

The hangers-on will mostly disappear into the night but the lifers will go ballistic. Be prepared for a cacophony of goalposts being moved all over the place. Wait for the motivations report. Wait for the supreme court. Did the FOA get to Hellmann? Amanda's guilty in a moral sense that no earthly court can adjudicate. And so on.

It occurred to me today that the pro-innocence people are accustomed to being at odds with the authorities. This will be a brand new experience for the guilters.
 
Does anyone have the link for the live streaming coverage of the appeal trial that was posted previously. I looked for it but can't find it. I'd like to see Amanda and Raphaele's statements here soon, and I'm sure they will be streamed.

I'm hoping for the best but honestly felt the same way during the first trial. Enough has changed to remain optimistic.

Maybe discussed before, but is the jury from perugia? (I know that Hellmann is not). I'm worried that a perugian jury may be more susceptible to intimidation from other perugians involved in the case, who have a history of intimidating people. With the desperation displayed by the prosecution recently (deceptively trying to insert documents into the court record, and getting caught), I'm not putting anything past these individuals.
=sd=
 
Last edited:
HumanityBlues said:
the google translate on this is pretty bad. The Quintavalle translation makes it sound like he is backtracking and now saying he saw Amanda at 7:45, except that's what he said during the original trial......
Click to expand...

Non ho visto = I did not see

But the really new is about Zanetti.
The article says that the prosecution during the closing argument made a complaint against Zanetti for his opening remark.
Was it mentoned at that time?
 
Last edited:
bolint said:
Last day firework...

La Stampa:


and
Click to expand...

OK, Bolint, I translated it with my google tool, now what on earth does it say?

In Perugia (and America) because they are all convinced that Amanda and Raffaele will be acquitted by the judges of the Appeal, for the murder of Meredith Kercher. The fear (perhaps superstitiously) also charges that Hall, summing up the trial, denounced by way 'of a posthumous recusal of the court, the Judge Zanetti opening process gives prior acquittal: "The 'one thing about this process is that there is a dead man, Meredith Kercher. "
How to say these tests deemed by the courts of first instance are not worth anything.

The store owner Conad the house of Raffaele, Quintavalle, had already taken a step back: "I saw Amanda at 7.45."

What I'm getting out of it is a mysterious reference to the quote from the opening trial that went something like 'All we know for sure is that Meredith Kercher is dead' and can see no reason for it. Then something that sounds like it's wondering why the tests from the Massei Court are worthless.

Then something about Quintavalle, with no rhyme or reason to its inclusion.

So, what does it mean Bolint? :)
 
bolint said:
Non ho visto = I did not see

But the really new is about Zanetti.
The article says that the prosecution during the closing argument made a complaint against Zanetti for his opening remark.
Was it mentoned at that time?
Click to expand...

That's the first I've heard of the Zanetti thing. Do you remember what was said?

Interesting about Quintavalle. So he's now saying he didn't see them at 7:45. Did he just tell this to La Stampa recently? Pretty amazing if true. (Although, he might have seen them at 7:46)
 
Last edited:
Kaosium said:
OK, Bolint, I translated it with my google tool, now what on earth does it say?

In Perugia (and America) because they are all convinced that Amanda and Raffaele will be acquitted by the judges of the Appeal, for the murder of Meredith Kercher. The fear (perhaps superstitiously) also charges that Hall, summing up the trial, denounced by way 'of a posthumous recusal of the court, the Judge Zanetti opening process gives prior acquittal: "The 'one thing about this process is that there is a dead man, Meredith Kercher. "
How to say these tests deemed by the courts of first instance are not worth anything.

The store owner Conad the house of Raffaele, Quintavalle, had already taken a step back: "I saw Amanda at 7.45."

What I'm getting out of it is a mysterious reference to the quote from the opening trial that went something like 'All we know for sure is that Meredith Kercher is dead' and can see no reason for it. Then something that sounds like it's wondering why the tests from the Massei Court are worthless.

Then something about Quintavalle, with no rhyme or reason to its inclusion.

So, what does it mean Bolint? :)
Click to expand...

As I understand it they made a complaint claiming prejudice of the judge because his sentence implies that the whole first degree trial doesn't worth anything.

The second is that Quintavalle had already made a step back, "I did not see her at 7:45".

But no details in either case.
 
Last edited:
bolint said:
Non ho visto = I did not see

But the really new is about Zanetti.
The article says that the prosecution during the closing argument made a complaint against Zanetti for his opening remark.
Was it mentoned at that time?
Click to expand...

The remark was noted, as it suggested to some it was an indication of what they thought of the credibility of the Massei Report. I don't recall reading any official complaints about it though.

Am I to understand this is a recanting by Quintavalle, even though Google Translate has it the opposite? I'd hate to think that, along with causing brain hemorrhaging, that Google Translate could make a mistake like that... :p
 
Kaosium said:
The remark was noted, as it suggested to some it was an indication of what they thought of the credibility of the Massei Report. I don't recall reading any official complaints about it though.

Am I to understand this is a recanting by Quintavalle, even though Google Translate has it the opposite? I'd hate to think that, along with causing brain hemorrhaging, that Google Translate could make a mistake like that... :p
Click to expand...

The Quintavalle recanting claim may be only an interpretation of the defence source of the article, as it is argued in the appeal doc.
 
bolint said:
As I understand it they made a complaint claiming prejudice of the judge because his sentence implies that the whole first degree trial doesn't worth anything.

The second is that Quintavalle had already made a step back, "I did not see her at 7:45".

But no details in either case.
Click to expand...

It sounds to me like one of the prosecutors is making a pre-emptive charge of pro-defense bias against Zanetti, laying the grounds for a Supreme Court appeal.

It would indicate to me that they're not particularly optimistic about the outcome today. If they're reading Zanetti right -- and I don't think they'd seize on an innocuous-enough quote from the beginning of the trial otherwise -- then, combined with what we suspect about Hellmann, the defense might already be at least 3/5ths of the way to the votes they need for acquittal, even before deliberations have begun.
 
Kaosium said:
Am I to understand this is a recanting by Quintavalle, even though Google Translate has it the opposite? I'd hate to think that, along with causing brain hemorrhaging, that Google Translate could make a mistake like that... :p
Click to expand...

Curiously, google negates the meaning of the Quintavalle quote if you remove the quotation marks.

«Non ho visto Amanda alle 7,45» --> "I saw Amanda at 7.45."
Non ho visto Amanda alle 7,45 ---> I have not seen Amanda at 7.45

... also, here is a link that has more discussion on "Non ho ...". To me this reinforces the "I have not seen" translation.
http://italian.about.com/library/fare/blfare141a.htm
 
Last edited:
Bolint,

As pretty much the only person arguing for guilt that I have respect for, I'm curious if you think, based on what you know (obviously none of us were in court) if you think the prosecution did a good job during the appeal or not.
 
DarkStar2011 said:
It sounds to me like one of the prosecutors is making a pre-emptive charge of pro-defense bias against Zanetti, laying the grounds for a Supreme Court appeal.

It would indicate to me that they're not particularly optimistic about the outcome today. If they're reading Zanetti right -- and I don't think they'd seize on an innocuous-enough quote from the beginning of the trial otherwise -- then, combined with what we suspect about Hellmann, the defense might already be at least 3/5ths of the way to the votes they need for acquittal, even before deliberations have begun.
Click to expand...

The title of the La Stampa article is "Now even the prosecution is afraid that Amanda will be acquitted"
(Ora anche l'accusa teme che Amanda sia assolta)

http://www3.lastampa.it/cronache/sezioni/articolo/lstp/422945/
 
Kaosium said:
Am I to understand this is a recanting by Quintavalle, even though Google Translate has it the opposite? I'd hate to think that, along with causing brain hemorrhaging, that Google Translate could make a mistake like that... :p
Click to expand...

It happens all the time, sadly; bolint is right about the meaning here.
 
bolint said:
As I understand it they made a complaint claiming prejudice of the judge because his sentence implies that the whole first degree trial doesn't worth anything.
Click to expand...

Which meant they read the report and thought it a stinking pile of crap like every rational actor in this debate, which includes a few you might not even suspect from the guilt side, notably, SomeAlibi, Tom and Michael who I saw discussing it in an abandoned thread when I first looked into it last summer, not even really knowing what any of it meant.

As that sentence would be described as revealing by 'Italian Courtwatchers' it's probably not unique to this case, thus a practice perhaps not unlike watching for pillars of smoke. That probably might have indicated that the prosecution might have been better off making a case that could be sustained by evidence and the Judges were signaling they weren't about to write 400 pages of 'it's possible, indeed probable' and accept absurdities as 'science' and sophistry as logic.

If the prosecution refused to accept that and instead tried to make a case far past their own evidence again, that's their own damn fault, the trial de novo is automatic, and generally includes a new prosecution team, this one didn't, but it's not the fault of the defense that the prosecutor from the last trial crept into this one, and more the proper function of the oversight element of the Italian system that the new judicial team wasn't impressed with the Massei Report.



bolint said:
The second is that Quintavalle had already made a step back, "I did not see her at 7:45".

But no details in either case.
Click to expand...

It's weird that this is the first anyone has heard about it! No details at all, no context?
 
HumanityBlues said:
As pretty much the only person arguing for guilt that I have respect for, I'm curious if you think, based on what you know (obviously none of us were in court) if you think the prosecution did a good job during the appeal or not.
Click to expand...

Definitely not.
Even by common sense they should not have infuriated the experts and occasionally the judge.
One thing is sure with these university/academic people. The may not be the best in practical things but they are certainly the masters of critique. :D
I saw once a doctoral debate.
The candidate got into dispute with one of the opponents. And it was disastrous. She never got the doctorate.
Later the opponent told us that he did not want to fail her at all, but she made it like "either I am the stupid, or she, and I had to make the choice" :)

Furthermore, not only in the appeal but also in the first trial, the prosecution frequently did not check their cards before playing them. Like then postal police arrival time.
 
Last edited:
Any idea what time we should hear stuff? Waiting for tech support in england, so I'll probably still be up
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom