Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Katody Matrass]

Fortunately, PMF/TJMK DID put it on the net. So, that cured any defect and will save Amanda from going back to prison.

Oh the irony.

 

[HumanityBlues]

I wonder if there is truth to this closing statement RE Massei vs Hellman: I am assuming this is in effect more TJMK bravado and hyperbole, and nothing to be concerned about? ( and yes, thanks to Londonjohn, I no longer am impressed by "our Italian lawyers", but am wondering if there is anything to the piece):

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

Word of advice. Peter Quennell is a complete idiot and buffoon. He would be wise to stop making predictions.

Now he's blabbing on about the political influence in this case. Maybe he shouldn't have put up so many articles on how independent Italy's judiciary is.

But hey, they got great geniuses like Nancy Grace and Ann Coulter in their corners, so who am I to judge?

 

[Kaosium]

By the way, Machiavelli, how are you doing on that cite for the section of the criminal code (or any other legislation) which indicates that the verdict from a completed trial can be used as probative evidence in a different trial of a different defendant(s)?

Since you made explicit reference to the existence of such a written codification or law, it shouldn't be very hard for you to proved proof. And you don't ever write things that aren't true or accurate, do you? So can we see the written proof, old chap?

Did you see that quote from Hellmann about the 'truth created during the trial may be different than the truth of what really happened?'

I still wonder if that's the whole impetus behind Maresca and Mignini's talk about the Supreme Court and the parade of prisoners. They created a 'truth' as a result of Rudy's trial that there were multiple attackers, as a result the Supreme Court will pretend that Rudy and unknown others were involved and that's how their decision will be rendered in their Motivations, but it never really mattered for Raffaele and Amanda. The story of Alessi will just be a place-filler for those others, something to be put into the Motivations, just like Amanda's 'I was there' bit was put into Rudy's Motivations but it had no meaning whatsoever for Raffaele and Amanda.

 

[Swimfish]

I don't reject it outright, but I don't believe it. The reason is that I've seen coverage of the first process. What I've seen did not look like a fragile girl frightened by police but like a self-confident woman who wasn't too bothered by the situation she was in.

You really, truly need to read the article. I'm sorry that I can't link to it for you. If you put the words "Economist False Confession" into a Google search it will be the first hit you get.

Having read the article you will understand that the AK you saw in the "first process" is exactly the kind of person who is most likely to provide a false confession under custodial duress. Being naive does not mean weak or inatriculate, it means you are unknowing through inexperience.

Read the article, educate yourself. If not for a better understanding of this case, then to better understand how you may likely react if placed in a similar situation. Based on your postings so far you appear to have a strong belief in authority figures and in the correct workings of official justice.

Frankly, I think you would be easy pickings for an unethical interrogator well versed in these techniques. Silence is golden.

 

[komponisto]

I wonder if there is truth to this closing statement RE Massei vs Hellman: I am assuming this is in effect more TJMK bravado and hyperbole, and nothing to be concerned about? ( and yes, thanks to Londonjohn, I no longer am impressed by "our Italian lawyers", but am wondering if there is anything to the piece):

This is such a serious mistake that our Italian lawyers believe that the Supreme Court or even the President of the Republic of Italy if he is petitioned could throw out the entire Hellman proceedings, verdict and sentence.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

You might as well be reading the blog of someone who thinks their French lawyers tell them they're Napoleon.

The idea that the President of the Italian Republic -- even if he theoretically had the power -- would consider intervening to overturn this decision almost goes beyond mere deluded ignorance and into outright mental derangement.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Fortunately, PMF/TJMK DID put it on the net. So, that cured any defect and will save Amanda from going back to prison.

Oh the irony.

That they did! Ironic, indeed.

 

[CDHost]

I wonder if there is truth to this closing statement RE Massei vs Hellman: I am assuming this is in effect more TJMK bravado and hyperbole, and nothing to be concerned about? ( and yes, thanks to Londonjohn, I no longer am impressed by "our Italian lawyers", but am wondering if there is anything to the piece):

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

Here is my understanding

1) The president of Italy has the ability to pardon. So he could throw out the Supreme court's ruling in the context of pardoning Amanda Knox. So it is true but written in a way to be highly misleading.

2) An appeal's courts job is to deal with procedural errors. Errors in not having distributed Massei, are things that would addressable by Hellman. Neither side raised them, and I'm hard pressed to see where a 3rd party could. So I'd say water under the bridge.

3) Massei is not a brilliant piece of legal reasoning. It is truly terrible. The best thing in the world for Amanda would be to have people carefully read Massei. Quite literally he draws conclusions from his ability to read Meredith's mind, determine what she was thinking about, and thus what actions she would or would not take at 8:50 PM November 1st. Please everyone read Massei!

But most importantly, the case is over, at least against Amanda. The Italians have decided to wind the case down. It always made sense they would.

 

[smkovalinksy]

You might as well be reading the blog of someone who thinks their French lawyers tell them they're Napoleon.

The idea that the President of the Italian Republic -- even if he theoretically had the power -- would consider intervening to overturn this decision almost goes beyond mere deluded ignorance and into outright mental derangement.

Yes, and I find it highly doubtful that Hellman is "sweating" (they wish!): I think his motivation report will roundly condemn the deductive reasoning and illogic of the Massei.

 

[Poppy1016]

As I have stated before, I believe that some of those claiming to believe in guilt, are merely practicing debating by taking the opposite view of nearly every item posted in regards to innocence. Those posters have no real desire to find the truth, but merely the opportunity to debbate. They are quite good at debating, but do not care about truth. Their arguments are beginning to sound desperate and outrageous, therefore it is obvious to me what they are doing. They could not possibly believe the many wild claims they make because they seem very intelligent. MOO.

Oops

 

[smkovalinksy]

Here is my understanding

1) The president of Italy has the ability to pardon. So he could throw out the Supreme court's ruling in the context of pardoning Amanda Knox. So it is true but written in a way to be highly misleading.

2) An appeal's courts job is to deal with procedural errors. Errors in not having distributed Massei, are things that would be to Hellman. Neither side raised them, and I'm hard pressed to see where a 3rd party could.

3) Massei is not a brilliant piece of legal reasoning. It is truly terrible. The best thing in the world for Amanda would be to have people carefully read Massei. Quite literally he draws conclusions from his ability to read Meredith's mind, determine what she was thinking about, and thus what actions she would or would not take at 8:50 PM November 1st. Please everyone read Massei!

But most importantly, the case is over, at least against Amanda. The Italians have decided to wind the case down. It always made sense they would.

Well said. Yes, I agree, it is over, and they are simply sore losers, nothing more.

 

[Malkmus]

I wonder if there is truth to this closing statement RE Massei vs Hellman: I am assuming this is in effect more TJMK bravado and hyperbole, and nothing to be concerned about? ( and yes, thanks to Londonjohn, I no longer am impressed by "our Italian lawyers", but am wondering if there is anything to the piece):

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

I've come to the conclusion that any "sources" whether they be Italian lawyers or Deep Throat himself are complete figments of the PMF/TJMK imaginations as they've been completely wrong about everything, most notably the outcome of the appeals.

 

[komponisto]

Here is my understanding

1) The president of Italy has the ability to pardon. So he could throw out the Supreme court's ruling in the context of pardoning Amanda Knox. So it is true but written in a way to be highly misleading.

Indeed. No modern liberal nation would give its head of state the power to "anti-pardon", or unilaterally overturn an acquittal!

 

[smkovalinksy]

Word of advice. Peter Quennell is a complete idiot and buffoon. He would be wise to stop making predictions.

Now he's blabbing on about the political influence in this case. Maybe he shouldn't have put up so many articles on how independent Italy's judiciary is.

But hey, they got great geniuses like Nancy Grace and Ann Coulter in their corners, so who am I to judge?

Right. When one must stoop to posting a big, garish picture of Nancy Grace on the website as they did the other day, the game is up. Self-deluded , Quennell would appear to be. I think he or one of his, put the chances of acquittal at 1 % - just as they claimed with pompous confidence that the independent review of the DNA would "merely uphold the original findings of the Polizia; this is good for the Prosecution" (yeah, riiiight.) Further, they howled and brayed with extreme gumption that there was soooo much solid evidence against the 2 defendants, that come what may with the knife and the bra clasp, the 2 were cooked. I wish they would feel some modicum of humiliation, but the way of the human ego and heart is crooked, and desperately wicked.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I am sure when the Hellman Motivation report is released, the good Samaritans at pmf and tjmk will translate it, if only to refute it. But this will have the contrary effect of allowing people to see the vastly superior logic of Hellman over Massei.

I am in fact grateful for the wonderful administrative powers and translation talents at the respective sites. But I do feel they helped refute Massei, by allowing us to read it, and come to the sinking and dismaying realization that it is empty and lacking in substance or robust logic.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not good for the soul

You really, truly need to read the article. I'm sorry that I can't link to it for you. If you put the words "Economist False Confession" into a Google search it will be the first hit you get.... SNIP
[the title of the article is]
Silence is golden.

Here is the link. I found this information suprising: "During the test, which was filmed by a hidden camera, ten participants actually did cheat. Bafflingly, though, another eight falsely confessed when accused by the experimenter, despite participants having been told cheats would be fined €50 ($72)." It shows that people falsely confess in laboratory tests even when there are negative consequences.

 

[davefoc]

I knew TJMK would be unable to accept Hellman's ruling, but did not think they would be so blatant and open about the inexorable nature of the Massei Report: That there is a quasi-political undertone to the piece is to me stunning, I thought there would be a period of silence, but I suppose that was as stupid as it was wishful:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

I guess I don't understand this. The idea is that the Helmann court decision would be overturned because the Massei court decision wasn't published on the internet? Even if the supreme court were to consider reversing a case based on this kind of technicality (which seems in the realm of fantasyland reasoning) why would they overturn the Hellmann decision for an error made by Massei? Why was it Hellman's job to publish the Massei decision and even if it was why would this be seen as reversible error in his role as judge?

On a slightly different topic I looked at the the list of 10 unanswered questions and thought most of them had simple answers that even somebody with an informal knowledge (like myself) of the facts would be able to answer. But one issue that seems to pop up periodically in this thread is this issue of mops. What is that all about?

 

[Machiavelli]

Then why didn't Massei use the handwritten note as the basis for his calunnia conviction? Instead, he just used the two statements that were illegally taken during the night.

No statement was illegally taken.
They are all perfectly legal. Every time you say they are illegal you cling to a falsehood. I wonder why people like you decide to follow a line of false beliefs.

The handwritten note is a part of the evidence for the calunnia. As well as her failure to correct her statements for week. Massei cited it entirely. Why do you think the court did not value it?

 

[smkovalinksy]

I guess I don't understand this. The idea is that the Helmann court decision would be overturned because the Massei court decision wasn't published on the internet? Even if the supreme court were to consider reversing a case based on this kind of technicality (which seems in the realm of fantasyland reasoning) why would they overturn the Hellmann decision for an error made by Massei? Why was it Hellman's job to publish the Massei decision and even if it was why would this be seen as reversible error in his role as judge?

On a slightly different topic I looked at the the list of 10 unanswered questions and thought most of them had simple answers that even somebody with an informal knowledge (like myself) of the facts would be able to answer. But one issue that seems to pop up is this issue of mops periodically in this thread. What is that all about?

Of course it was not Hellman's responsibility. The more I look at it , the more absurd it gets. I was never all that clear on the mops either, but I am sure it was addressed and refuted here, roundly.

 

[Machiavelli]

Then why do you continually refuse to prove it?

So you think Amanda and Raffaele committed the murder without Rudy, since Rudy was an unknown stranger to her?

Did Meredith not answer or did Amanda not call Meredith or check if she was there? Make up your mind.

You say this only because your hair takes to cornrows so nicely.

No one is allowed to speculate now?

Except for "(her admission)," that is, what you choose to believe when it is convenient for you.

So you show how you are unable to say anything on these matters. You have obviously no argument in the merits, and you perfectly know.

 

[icerat]

No statement was illegally taken.
They are all perfectly legal. Every time you say they are illegal you cling to a falsehood. I wonder why people like you decide to follow a line of false beliefs.

The handwritten note is a part of the evidence for the calunnia. As well as her failure to correct her statements for week. Massei cited it entirely. Why do you think the court did not value it?

I'm sorry but clearly I'm missing something. There were the two statements signed under interrogation, which she "corrected" with her written statement the very same day.

Which statements was it that she did not correct for a week?

Are you saying her statements withdrawing the claims against Lumumba are evidence she made the claims, thus support calunnia?