Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli, first, it is not up to the defense to prove innocence. It is equally effective to disprove theory or evidence provided as an indication of guilt. Proving, or at least strongly indicating illegal or improper behavior by the prosecution is most telling of all.

...

No way. To defend from evidence, you have to disprove pieces of evidence. Not just show "improper" behaviour (improper in your opinion).

 

[Diocletus]

Who indicts the Italian Justice system? Those buffoons who indicted Omar Khadr?

The press.

 

[Machiavelli]

"Without any element"? There's plenty of reason to find that she is a biased witness and therefore to disregard her testimony. She's an agent of the cops, she was present in the room and therefore culpable in any misconduct, she didn't do her job right, and she has sued Knox for money.

She is biased.

Either you have elements of evidence to state she is *lying*, providing a false story, or you are compelled to accept her testimony.
A witness does not need to be proven unbiased or impartial to a judge (especially must not appear unbiased to you). A witness must just be credible. It's a different concept. It just means the witness takes his/her responsility for what says under oath, and there is no element ro rise an objection. Donnino is fully credible. It is not possible to bring some evidence that she is lying. It is not possible to prove that she has an interest in lying strong enough to motivate a decision of releasing an entirely false testimony. It is not possible for a judge to motivate a dismissal of her testimony.

 

[Diocletus]

Either you have elements of evidence to state she is *lying*, providing a false story, or you are compelled to accept her testimony.
A witness does not need to be proven unbiased or impartial to a judge (especially must not appear unbiased to you). A witness must just be credible. It's a different concept. It just means the witness takes his/her responsility for what says under oath, and there is no element ro rise an objection. Donnino is fully credible. It is not possible to bring some evidence that she is lying. It is not possible to prove that she has an interest in lying strong enough to motivate a decision of releasing an entirely false testimony. It is not possible for a judge to motivate a dismissal of her testimony.

That's BS. A judge or jury can fully discount the testimony of a biased witness, if they so choose.

 

[Machiavelli]

The press.

Maybe those journalists who falsely stated that Mignini accused defendants of organizing a satanic ritual? Or those who hosted Knox's parents every week as their source of information? Or Oggi magazine, who claimed the defendants of the Erba masacre were innocent?

Or Bruno Vespa, who hosts judge Simonetta Matone and the Italian talk shows interviewing Patrick Lumumba?

 

[Diocletus]

Should they take body temperature immediately altering the scene befor forensic analysis?

"Fornensic analysis" . . . is that what they call that in Italy? I thought it was just *****-ing up the crime scene. Maybe it was a good thing they delayed getting the body temp to allow themselves time to do the "forensic analysis." It was funnier for the jury.

 

[Machiavelli]

From the appeal:
....
Massei either has no clue or is being very disingenuous with this one. Quint did not ask his employee that day if they also saw AK, it was a year later at the time of his TV interview.

This is what you believe. Because you decide to buy entirely just the appeal version and you believe the appeal is not disingenuous (while it is on several points). But the two employees report not only about "questo racconto", they also report about a dialogue, about question that was made in real time that morning by Quintavalle "did you see that girl?".

 

[Diocletus]

Maybe those journalists who falsely stated that Mignini accused defendants of organizing a satanic ritual? Or those who hosted Knox's parents every week as their source of information? Or Oggi magazine, who claimed the defendants of the Erba masacre were innocent?

Or Bruno Vespa, who hosts judge Simonetta Matone and the Italian talk shows interviewing Patrick Lumumba?

I guess it will be someone who: a) was not complicit in the entire debacle in the first place, and b) is not scared of Mignini.

I don't know if you have anyone left in Italy that can do this. If not, then all I can say is that I'm sorry for your country.

 

[Machiavelli]

It's not Hellmann's job to test it--it's the cops' job

.

Oh no: the defence submitted their requset to test the semen stain directly to Hellmann's court. And the court answered no. So now you have to ask Hellmann, before asking others.

And your old "I know but I can't tell you" trick is just a childish evasion.

On the contrary, it is the question that is childish. And your evading of the question why Hellmann refused to test it, should be considered a childish evasion.

Here's what we all understand: the semen stain is exculpatory evidence and it wasn't tested because the cops and prosecutors are incompetents and liars.

The semen stain* (* read: alleged semen stain) cannot be exculpatory to anyone, this is plain obvious.

 

[Diocletus]

.

Oh no: the defence submitted their requset to test the semen stain directly to Hellmann's court. And the court answered no. So now you have to ask Hellmann, before asking others.

The cops have the lab and they obviously should have tested it. What's Hellman supposed to do? Ask Comodi to do a scratch 'n sniff?

 

[RoseMontague]

This is what you believe. Because you decide to buy entirely just the appeal version and you believe the appeal is not disingenuous (while it is on several points). But the two employees report not only about "questo racconto", they also report about a dialogue, about question that was made in real time that morning by Quintavalle "did you see that girl?".

Which is just further proof that he didn't see that girl, because he told the inspector he didn't see her. He did not tell them that day that he had seen Amanda Knox. Quintaville's story from that morning was that he was not even asked about AK, despite the inspectors testimony that he showed him pictures:

"When the police came and spoke with Marco Quintavalle, they didn't speak with you the first time. What did Marco Quintavelle say about this interview? Of what did they speak?", replied, "Nothing, he told us that they asked him if he knew Amanda and Raffaele. Since we had already seen a bit on TV, so we commented" (transcript from the hearing on 26.06.2009, p.54). And again, to the question of the defence, "So they had arrived. What did he say?", "That he knew them", Chiriboga replied precisely, "Yes, ah, they wanted to know if he knew them? Him, yes, he said he knew them, but I said I didn't, also my colleague said that..." (transcript hearing 26.06.2009, p.55), and to the further question, "Quintavalle replied that he knew Amanda and Raffaele, yes?" the witness replied "Yes" (transcript of the hearing 26.06.2009, p.56). Therefore, we do not see how it is possible for the motivations to affirm that Quintavalle did not report to have seen Amanda Knox the morning of 2 November only because he was not asked" (pp 75 and 76 of the motivations).

Quintavalle is just making stuff up, for money.

 

[Machiavelli]

That's BS. A judge or jury can fully discount the testimony of a biased witness, if they so choose.

Well, I deem this to be BS. As a judge you may not dismiss testimonies of people you don't like, out of any factual ground and without taking in account implications.

 

[Diocletus]

Well, I deem this to be BS. As a judge you may not dismiss testimonies of people you don't like, out of any factual ground and without taking in account implications.

The "factual ground" you are looking for is called "bias". Based on your logic, Massei could not have rejected the testimony of the defense experts. But he did. And one reason he would give you is that they are paid witnesses, and therefore susceptible to bias.

I don't think you understand very well how to assess the value of witness testimony.

 

[pilot padron]

Sometimes silence is the preferred option

Frank has a new entry, and it is a powerful, if difficult, read.

Meredith, rest in peace.

With all due respect, your 'charitable' evaluation of Sfarzo's Anniversary blog entry requires a complete suspension of disbelief.

On the Anniversary of a horrific senseless murder to write that abominable abortion of disgusting disrespectful drivel could only come from a personality such as Sfarzo.

Yes, Dr, it sure is 'difficult'.

I am certain that if it was your daughter Sfarzo was stupidly mocking and demeaning on the Anniversary of her death, you might find it even more 'difficult' than your argument implies.

Your concluding sincere personal wish for the deceased would have been much better served by just remaining silent and ignoring the likes of Sfarzo and his sick parody attempt.

This just the latest example that Sfarzo's iconic standing and endless quoting and heralding from the majority of innocence arguers could not be more undeserved.

 

[Machiavelli]

Then are you assuming he was mistaken then? One thing that doesn't lie is science. It is one of the facts of this case that Meredith started eating somewhere between 6:00 and 6:30, thus the odds that Meredith hadn't been stabbed by 11:30 when Curatolo's testimony indicated Raffaele and Amanda left are negligible. 9:00 is unusual already, we know about when she ate and there was nothing in her duodenum.

So if Toto saw them during that time then Amanda and Raffaele couldn't have killed Meredith, it's that simple.
...

This is a change of topic. We were talking about Antonio Curatolo: he has never changed his story and his account was corroborated by withesses who testified there were disco buses running that night, and that that day it had rained, and that the day before there has ben a market in Piazza Grimana.

If Curatolo's testimony is truthful, this is evidence they are implicated in the murder because they are lying on their alibies.

About further evidence about the time of death, Nara and Antonella both heared a woman's scream (not an argument and a yelling) located after 22.30.
The telephone records also locate the phone still far from Lana's garden (likely at the cottage) after 22.00. Itself, this datum is not very compatible with an aggression at 9:00, because requires the burglar to remain in the house for an hour after the murder. But also, the phone cell 0064 was lost by the device only at 24:00, not earlier, since at this time - not earlier - for the first time the phone automatically pings at the cell compatible with Lana's garden.

The rest of the scientific argument is easilly dismissed both on the ground of its intrinsic uncertainity, and on uncertainity of its implications: the defendants simply have no alibi after 8:40.

 

[Diocletus]

With all due respect, your 'charitable' evaluation of Sfarzo's Anniversary blog entry requires a complete suspension of disbelief.

On the Anniversary of a horrific senseless murder to write that abominable abortion of disgusting disrespectful drivel could only come from a personality such as Sfarzo.

Yes, Dr, it sure is 'difficult'.

I am certain that if it was your daughter Sfarzo was stupidly mocking and demeaning on the Anniversary of her death, you might find it even more 'difficult' than your argument implies.

Your concluding sincere personal wish for the deceased would have been much better served by just remaining silent and ignoring the likes of Sfarzo and his sick parody attempt.

This just the latest example that Sfarzo's iconic standing and endless quoting and heralding from the majority of innocence arguers could not be more undeserved.

Funny thing is, though, it turns out he was right. Hellmann said so.

 

[Grinder]

This is a change of topic. We were talking about Antonio Curatolo: he has never changed his story and his account was corroborated by withesses who testified there were disco buses running that night, and that that day it had rained, and that the day before there has ben a market in Piazza Grimana.

He told a different story when first interviewed by the police. His current story wasn't made until months after the crime and after being interviewed by a local paper IIRC. It has been said he was paid by the paper. This is his third tour as a witness in a murder trial. He is an acknowledged heroin user and dealer. Even if he thinks he is telling the truth there is no way of knowing because of the time and the drug use.

If Curatolo's testimony is truthful, this is evidence they are implicated in the murder because they are lying on their alibies.

He may think it is truthful but really he has no idea.

 

[RoseMontague]

Either you have elements of evidence to state she is *lying*, providing a false story, or you are compelled to accept her testimony.
A witness does not need to be proven unbiased or impartial to a judge (especially must not appear unbiased to you). A witness must just be credible. It's a different concept. It just means the witness takes his/her responsility for what says under oath, and there is no element ro rise an objection. Donnino is fully credible. It is not possible to bring some evidence that she is lying. It is not possible to prove that she has an interest in lying strong enough to motivate a decision of releasing an entirely false testimony. It is not possible for a judge to motivate a dismissal of her testimony.

She testified she saw her job as a mediator. A mediator tries to arrive at a compromise. When you compromise the truth you have a falsehood. She succeeded in creating a fantasy.

 

[RoseMontague]

This is a change of topic. We were talking about Antonio Curatolo: he has never changed his story and his account was corroborated by withesses who testified there were disco buses running that night, and that that day it had rained, and that the day before there has ben a market in Piazza Grimana.

If Curatolo's testimony is truthful, this is evidence they are implicated in the murder because they are lying on their alibies.

About further evidence about the time of death, Nara and Antonella both heared a woman's scream (not an argument and a yelling) located after 22.30.
The telephone records also locate the phone still far from Lana's garden (likely at the cottage) after 22.00. Itself, this datum is not very compatible with an aggression at 9:00, because requires the burglar to remain in the house for an hour after the murder. But also, the phone cell 0064 was lost by the device only at 24:00, not earlier, since at this time - not earlier - for the first time the phone automatically pings at the cell compatible with Lana's garden.

The rest of the scientific argument is easilly dismissed both on the ground of its intrinsic uncertainity, and on uncertainity of its implications: the defendants simply have no alibi after 8:40.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Diocletus]

This is a change of topic. We were talking about Antonio Curatolo: he has never changed his story and his account was corroborated by withesses who testified there were disco buses running that night, and that that day it had rained, and that the day before there has ben a market in Piazza Grimana.

If Curatolo's testimony is truthful, this is evidence they are implicated in the murder because they are lying on their alibies.

He was high. Do you understand how this affects his credibility?

You think any judge, even one as stupid as the nitwit Massei, is going to convict someone of murder based on the testimony of a witness who was high on heroin?