• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
smkovalinksy said:
Well, I do not agree.

Only the self-deluded will cling to this.

The good old judge spoke plainly, on the cases of A, B, C, D, etc. - one of which was simulation of a crime - the alleged clean up and staging - that he could not comply with the request for life prison terms, because in each of those cases, the defendants did not commit the crime. Capice???
Click to expand...


Yes. That's what he said.

Now you should understand that regardless if this non-commission was "absolutely certain" or only "beyond reasonable doubt", he would have said the same.
 
bolint said:
Yes. That's what he said.

Now you should understand that regardless if this non-commission was "absolutely certain" or only "beyond reasonable doubt", he would have said the same.
Click to expand...
Either way, it meets basic standards of jurisprudence, and is not likely to ever be seriously called into question. I think Mignini must now focus on his own appeal (for his received conviction).
 
halides1 said:
Many false confessions have an element of accusation to them.
Click to expand...

Okay. I just wondered why it's "freakish and frankly inexcusable" to harbor suspicion toward someone who would knowingly accuse an innocent man of a heinous crime.

-Mike
 
I feel sorry for the Kerchers, and feel they were exploited by Mignini and Maresca. The likely truth is, their daughter surprised a burglar, and paid with her life. And he is sitting in prison for just this crime.

The Kerchers say they have no closure. Lyle says this week’s ruling prolonged hope for closure even more. "We haven’t really had a chance to properly grieve,” he says. “It was a long difficult day, but we accept the decision and respect the court. But now we are left looking at this again. We really are back to square one.”
Click to expand...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...mother-siblings-in-shock-at-knox-verdict.html
 
bolint said:
Exactly that is disputed, a hurried conclusion to claim it.
The 530.1 vs. 530.2 question.

It is not known, and it does not follow from what the judge said.
It should be figured out from the Motivations due sometime around New Year's Eve.
Click to expand...

It is known. They are free because of the findings of the court that Hellmann read yesterday: they didn't rape; they didn't kill; they didn't steal. The crime scene was not staged. What's unclear about it?
 
Katody Matrass said:
It is known. They are free because of the findings of the court that Hellmann read yesterday: they didn't rape; they didn't kill; they didn't steal. The crime scene was not staged. What's unclear about it?
Click to expand...
You forgot to mention that Hellman included in the list of crimes NOT committed, the simulation and staging of a crime. There is nothing unclear about it, unless one is driven by delusion and desperation.
 
smkovalinksy said:
Either way, it meets basic standards of jurisprudence, and is not likely to ever be seriously called into question.
Click to expand...

What I hear about the appeal one of the directions is to exclude the whole C&V report because it was requested beyond a deadline.
It should have been asked from the GIP (Matteini) immediately when the DNAs were found.
If the Cassazione excludes it then the knife and the bra clasp rides again and there will be no new examination.
 
Last edited:
bolint said:
What I hear about the appeal one of the direction is to exclude the whole C&V report because it was requested beyond a deadline.
It should have been asked from the GIP (Matteini) immediately when the DNAs were found.
If the Cassazione excludes it then the knife and the bra clasp rides again and there will be no new examination.
Click to expand...

Zanetti will draft around the C&V report. The Knife will be rejected because it has no blood and wasn't washed, doesn't match the wounds, and therefore is not the murder weapon. The clasp will be rejected because of the 46 days, multiple profiles, and filmed forensics mistakes that are obvious to anyone.

You don't need C&V to reject the knife and clasp, so an appeal on that ground will not succeed.
 
bolint said:
What I hear about the appeal one of the direction is to exclude the whole C&V report because it was requested beyond a deadline.
It should have been asked from the GIP (Matteini) immediately when the DNAs were found.
If the Cassazione excludes it then the knife and the bra clasp rides again and there will be no new examination.
Click to expand...
I do not think now is the time to bring it up; rather, when the new examination was granted within the early days of the appeal, then was the time to say , "too late."

Instead, the judge ruled that yes, there could be an independent review. This technicality is not going to fly. Never. The C & V report has already come into being.

Should have been prevented in a timely manner. That ship has sailed, and there is no calling it back. Sometimes when the curtain comes down, the show is really over. And it is over.
 
Last edited:
Micromegas said:
Okay. I just wondered why it's "freakish and frankly inexcusable" to harbor suspicion toward someone who would knowingly accuse an innocent man of a heinous crime.

-Mike
Click to expand...

Hi Mike,
Just wanted to explain that Amanda incriminated herself, as well as incriminating Lumumba in the 'confession'.

That she knowingly accused Lumumba is precisely what's in question here. If Amanda's accounts of the interrogation are true then she was giving what Dr Saul Kassin terms a 'internalised false confession'. This is where the 'confessor' believes at the time that the statements are, or could be true.
By the time of the interrogation, they already suspected Patrick, and were questioning her about him specifically (now imagine you're being questioned as a 'witness' and you know you didn't commit the crime, and the police are focussing in on one person. Wouldn't you think they had reason to, that the person probably had something to do with it?)
According to accounts of the interrogation, the 'interpreter' and the police convinced Amanda that her memories of the night of the murder were unreliable and that she had repressed memories due to trauma. (Partly by talking to her about the phenomenon of repressed memories and partly by lying that they had solid evidence placing her at the scene).
They then asked her to imagine what she might have seen / heard if she were in the cottage, and she confabulates the Patrick 'info', with the nightmares she was no-doubt having in the wake of her housemate's brutal murder, and voila, you have a false confession / accusation.
In terms of Amanda's state of mind during the interrogation, it's a matter of record that there were 12 police involved. A senior policeman in another room says he heard her screaming during the interrogation. It was night. They denied her access to a lawyer. It's possible they denied her bathroom breaks. It's all classic coercion. Thus she did not knowingly accuse an innocent man. Really, by definition, she could not have- she was not at the scene and therefore could not know that Patrick wasn't there.

There is no mens rea here, and therefore the slander conviction is unjust.
 
pressured versus voluntary

Micromegas said:
Okay. I just wondered why it's "freakish and frankly inexcusable" to harbor suspicion toward someone who would knowingly accuse an innocent man of a heinous crime.

-Mike
Click to expand...
Micromegas,

I would not have used those terms for at least one reason. But I would not have used the word "knowingly," either. Amanda's false confession/accusation comes up very frequently when people who are pro-guilt explain their views. However, it actually does not make sense for a hypothetically guilty Amanda to name Lumumba, whereas it makes perfectly good sense for an innocent but pressured Amanda to name him. I would also point to kaosium's comments on the subject of Amanda's statements as evidence of her confusion. I may be able to say more this evening, but perhaps others would like to flesh out this discussion earlier.
 
bolint said:
You are mistaken.
I listened to the verdict and the judge did not say it.
That's so simple, a simple fact.
Click to expand...


Hellmann clarified later that the acquittals were under 530.1. He didn't even need to do so though, as he was absolutely explicit in his courtroom verdict announcement that the acquittals for A, B, C and D were on account of the accused persons not committing the crimes, and that the acquittals for E were on account of the crime not having been committed at all. That made it completely obvious to anyone with any knowledge of the Italian penal code that these acquittals were all under 530.1. I'm sorry that you are unable or unwilling to understand this though. Guess some of us don't like being wrong.....

PS: I would have suggested that you ask pro-guilt commentator "Yummi" over on .org for confirmation on this issue: he was actually there last night, and heard Hellmann's clarification. He also appears to be clear on the 530.1 issues in ways that you are not. But I fear that he is now so immersed in increasingly-bizarre conspiracy theories in a desperate attempt to rationalise last night's verdict that he might just yell random phrases like "hidden actors!", "government!" "behind-the-scenes!" or "money changing hands!" at you, while donning a tin foil helmet and heading for the mountains with tinned food and a rifle....
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Hellmann clarified later that the acquittals were under 530.1. He didn't even need to do so though, as he was absolutely explicit in his courtroom verdict announcement that the acquittals for A, B, C and D were on account of the accused persons not committing the crimes, and that the acquittals for E were on account of the crime not having been committed at all. That made it completely obvious to anyone with any knowledge of the Italian penal code that these acquittals were all under 530.1. I'm sorry that you are unable or unwilling to understand this though. Guess some of us don't like being wrong.....
Click to expand...
I think it is counterproductive of certain parties to cling to technicalities in the face of a ruling of an appellate court rendered by a seasoned and esteemed judge. Sometimes it is more dignified to admit that the balloon went up, the monkey died, and the show is over. And it is over. Denial will not change this fact.
 
some things have a simple explanation

Keeper said:
Any comments on this...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15157384

In particular I don't quite understand point 9.
Click to expand...
Here is point 9: "The Italian appeals process offers more guarantees to defendants than any other legal system in the world, whereby only the weakest evidence is treated, not the whole case. Knox's team only had to attack the DNA evidence against her to undermine the whole edifice of the original trial. Italy has one of lowest prison populations in the world because of its lenient appeals process."

The reason that you do not understand it is that it makes precisely no sense. The DNA was the only decent forensic evidence against the pair. IMO, it constituted the strongest, not the weakest piece of evidence. The writer has also forgotten about Curatolo*, the only witness who supposedly broke their alibi. Why the writer thinks that the Italian appeals system only treats the weakest piece of evidence is completely mysterious.
*The writer did discuss Curatolo but not in the context of the appeal.
EDT
The author of Darkness Descending, Graham Johnson wrote in point 3, "The evidence of Rudy Guede against Knox was also confusing." Once I saw that Johnson had written this article, all became clear.
 
Last edited:
Keeper said:
Any comments on this...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15157384

In particular I don't quite understand point 9.
Click to expand...
Really find that piece offensive, especially the "PR campaign" and "favorable political climate" points. Knox and Sollecito were wrongfully accused and convicted; Hellman was objective, fair, and unbiased; and the truth came out. Should happen more often, in courts, and in life in general. It is called justice. Guess journalists are still trying to milk the Knox saga as they cannot think of things to write for their weekly pieces.
 
smkovalinksy said:
I think it is counterproductive of certain parties to cling to technicalities in the face of a ruling of an appellate court rendered by a seasoned and esteemed judge. Sometimes it is more dignified to admit that the balloon went up, the monkey died, and the show is over. And it is over. Denial will not change this fact.
Click to expand...


Not only that: to argue on a point that is demonstrably wrong is bizarre and irrational. Knox and Sollecito were categorically definitely acquitted under section 530.1 of the code. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever of that fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom