• 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.
LondonJohn said:
And the rationalisation continues over at the trainwreck that is .org. This time, one of their "finest legal minds" has weighed in with a blinkered and ignorant attempt to suggest that Hellmann ruled that Knox/Sollecito were acquitted of the main charges - including murder - on grounds of reasonable doubt. Now, this "fine legal mind" has obviously either not even seen the reading of the verdict, or he has decided to ignore what was said, or he has not bothered to find out an English translation of what was said.

So, to help him (and any other biased or ignorant souls out there, regardless of their claimed legal training), here is a translation of what Hellmann actually said in the courtroom on October 3rd (my bolding):

So while Hellmann indeed ruled that the acquittals on charge E (the staging) were because there was no staging (i.e. in the court's view the break-in was real), he explicitly stated that the acquittals on charges A, B, C and D (the murder, the sexual elements of the murder, the thefts and the transportation of the knife) were on the grounds that the accused had not committed the acts ("per non avere commesso il fatto"). This is not reasonable doubt. This is to say that there was NO EVIDENCE AT ALL pointing towards the guilt of Knox and Sollecito on these charges.

I really do wonder about the so-called legal credentials of some of these characters sometimes. If they really are who they claim to be, I certainly hope that nobody I know ever has any of these people representing them in any legal matters.
Click to expand...


Do you remember that - besides stating that it is not possible to know if it is a 530.1 (innocence) or a 530.2 (insufficient proof) based on the formula - I told you that all 530.2 acquittals have the formula "per non avere commesso" il fatto, or "perchè il fatto non sussiste"?

I mean all acquittals for insufficient proof have one of these 2 formulas.
Did you record this information?
 
bolint said:
In that case, however, you have to explain why they claim to be at Raffaele's place.
They can't have two different alibis. :)
Clearly, either Curatolo or the pair are lying. It can't be a mistake or confusion.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and since there is an eyewitness to place them (OK, places Amanda.. we assume Raffaele as well) in Raffaele's place at 20:43, and there is activity on Raffaele's computer at 21:10 and 21:26, I tend to believe it is Curatolo who is not reliable. The point, however, was that Curatolo's testimony did not harm the defense relative to proving they were not involved in the murder. If Curatolo was reliable, and we accepted his testimony, then Amanda and Raffaele would be guilty of lying about their alibi, but would none-the-less have an alibi. The 'guilters' wanted to use his testimony to disprove their alibi of being at Raffaele's, but then dismiss the fact that his testimony would provided them with an alternate alibi.
 
LondonJohn said:
I seriously think that this character going under the moniker "The 411" needs psychiatric help. I'm not being flippant.
Click to expand...

It's difficult to see what motivates them - indeed that was the case long before the Hellmann acquittals. Ironically, though, it's what makes this case as compelling as it is.
 
smkovalinksy said:
Where is the proof of these assertions? How can they speak without evidence, without respect for the appellate judge and jurists? Who gave them license to be armchair diagnosticians???:jaw-dropp:mad:
Click to expand...

What do you expect? They've got nothing else left so they're going for personal attacks.

Just let them talk, we'll have a laugh and guests who come around that "special forum" will see with their own eyes what kind of crowd hangs around there...

-
Osterwelle
 
HumanityBlues said:
You make it so easy. Marcia Clark was on CNN the day of and after the verdict saying that Amanda was innocent and the police had no case.

Over.
Click to expand...

I have reported your slightly off topic post! Marcia Clark was clearly part of the OJ case and had nothing to do with Knox!
 
RWVBWL said:
Machiavelli,
I have a hard time believing the testimony of Marco Quintavalle.
Especially after re-reading the postings above from Mr. Sfarzo.
Do you wish to reply in rebuttal?
RW
Click to expand...

No. I do not write in rebuttals to Frank Sfarzo's reports. The problem, to me, is that I consider Franks Sfarzo a liar. He is also actually delusional somtimes, and always unprofessional. But to me he is also an obvious liar, because he falsely reported about other people on occasionas that I did witness and I know about. I never take in account Frank's reports.
 
Machiavelli said:
Do you remember that - besides stating that it is not possible to know if it is a 530.1 (innocence) or a 530.2 (insufficient proof) based on the formula - I told you that all 530.2 acquittals have the formula "per non avere commesso" il fatto, or "perchè il fatto non sussiste"?

I mean all acquittals for insufficient proof have one of these 2 formulas.
Did you record this information?
Click to expand...

I think Hellmann made it clear (from lastampa.it):
lastampa.it said:
Nel nostro caso non abbiamo richiamato il secondo comma dell’articolo 530 del Codice (la vecchia insufficienza di prove, ndr).
Click to expand...
In our case we have not invoked the second subparagraph of article 530 of the code (the old lack of evidence, ED).

So what are you trying to point out here? That the Italian legal system doesn't even provide proper formulas for their judges? ;)

-
Osterwelle
 
smkovalinksy said:
Right. In this case, their "specialness" consists of being hard-headed, blind to new information, obsessive, fanatical, delusional, condescending, petty, and downright pernicious.
Click to expand...

Physician, heal thyself...

I do think it is slightly curious to hear people here bemoan armchair psychology while indulging themselves.
 
Machiavelli said:
No. I do not write in rebuttals to Frank Sfarzo's reports. The problem, to me, is that I consider Franks Sfarzo a liar. He is also actually delusional somtimes, and always unprofessional. But to me he is also an obvious liar, because he falsely reported about other people on occasionas that I did witness and I know about. I never take in account Frank's reports.
Click to expand...
You should apply the same standard to the police and prosecution of Perugia... :rolleyes:

-
Osterwelle
 
Frank has been saying the same things about the Italian justice system as that Italian Judge Dr. Mori was saying in the article quoted today. Frank seems to have gotten things right again. I believe he is both reliable and an enjoyable read.
 
PDiGirolamo said:
I have noticed you have a double standard. Things are okay when they support your position but the exact same things are not okay when they do not support your position.

In the above post of yours you are stating a witness did not lie when he contradicted himself because "maybe he was actually not sure or not thinking..." but when the acquitted kids vacillate about anything it is proof they are murdering liars.
Click to expand...

No.
No double standard.
First I am not stating he did not lie: I am stating that maybe he did not lie.
Second, the defendants are not kids.
Third, Curatolo's witness report is consistent, intrinsically possible, and not changing.
Fourth, the defendants did not "vacillate" about "anything": the fact that they lied, rather as opposed of Curatolo's case, is proven. And they lied about things where there is no possibility they were mistaking. There is proof they have lied. Their reports are: 1) inconsistent and contradictory: each story/version is inconsistent, unacceptable, contaning things that are both nonsense, impossible and intrinsically not credible;
2) their reports changed dramatically, contradicting themselves, more than once
3) their inconsistent reports are on multiple events: also Knox's account about the interrogation is inconsistent and changing
4) their account contradict each other, and they are both not lying (not just one of them)
5) details in their accounts are proven false by further witnesses/evidence
6) we are not talking about recognizing someone that they spot sitting in a city park: they are lying about where they were, and what they were doing the night before. We are talking about someone entering Knox's hous and killing her friend in the next room while she was at home covering her ears. Getting this wrongly is not "vacillate" about just "anything".
7) the two "kids" are suspected for murder. If the one who lies is also a suspect, a person under accusation, a lie has peculiar implications: this is not just a double standard, it is a logical process. A guilty suspect can have a very strong motive for lying. Thus the lying while being a suspect does not have the same meaning as if it was a witness unrelated to the crime, moreover on which you may just hypothesize a possibility of lying.
 
Moss said:
Physician, heal thyself...

I do think it is slightly curious to hear people here bemoan armchair psychology while indulging themselves.
Click to expand...
Nice try, but it does not apply:
I am not applying any psychological diagnostic labels, such as appear on pmf as applied to Knox: Sociopath, narcissist, etc. I am simply saying they are obtuse fanatics. If they want to say Knox is a jerk, that is different. And this proverb I would take up against them, "Physician, heal thyself.":rolleyes:
 
Osterwelle said:
I think Hellmann made it clear (from lastampa.it):

In our case we have not invoked the second subparagraph of article 530 of the code (the old lack of evidence, ED).

So what are you trying to point out here? That the Italian legal system doesn't even provide proper formulas for their judges? ;)

-
Osterwelle
Click to expand...

Hellmann made nothing clear. He stated the opposite as well: that maybe they committed the crime, that the evidence was contradictory, insufficient (but there was), that there was no certainity, and that the prosecution is not to be "criticized".

I am not trying to say anything. I stated something that is true, which maybe you do't get..
Which is: all 530.2 acquittals have a formula which is either "per non avere commesso il fatto" or "perché il fatto non sussiste".

Thus, Hellmann's acquittal can well be an acquittal for insufficient proof (530.2). I don't know for certain if it is so, and specifically I don't know for which defendant and on which charges, but I know that on any of the 9 charges this could well be. I think it will probably be so.
 
RoseMontague said:
Frank has been saying the same things about the Italian justice system as that Italian Judge Dr. Mori was saying in the article quoted today. Frank seems to have gotten things right again. I believe he is both reliable and an enjoyable read.
Click to expand...

Yes. And the fact the article is published by "Il Giornale" itself says everything you need to know about its meaning and information value.
Moreover, the article just says nothing, the stereotype of problem addressed is so generic it could serve any possible theory on a case and its oppisite (it provides an explainnation for why Vecchiotti was appointed). Mori states also false information about the Meredith case, he obviously doesn't know any detail.
 
Mignini stated on one occasion they forgot to tape the 5:45AM statement because of the rush to go arrest Patrick then in a later interview changed that to not taping it due to budget constraints. I don't see how it is possible that both statements are true.
 
RoseMontague said:
Mignini stated on one occasion they forgot to tape the 5:45AM statement because of the rush to go arrest Patrick then in a later interview changed that to not taping it due to budget constraints. I don't see how it is possible that both statements are true.
Click to expand...

But this is not true. He was clearly talking about the spontaneous statement, and the police interrogation, these are two things. The rush to go to arrest patrick obviously refers to his decision to not record the 05:54 statement, as he was busy about many other things. But on the 01:45 statement he is talking about a default police practice, where he was not present, and no one was busy about arresting patrick who was still unknown (I also explained how this default praxis had an influence also on the 05:54, when added to the other reason, lack of focus on setting a recording since he was displaced from his office and busy with other things, and so I explained how the two reasons obviously can both be true).
 
Last edited:
RoseMontague said:
Frank has been saying the same things about the Italian justice system as that Italian Judge Dr. Mori was saying in the article quoted today. Frank seems to have gotten things right again. I believe he is both reliable and an enjoyable read.
Click to expand...

Have you noticed every time you know who is on the ropes he pretends he's some sort of insider, but somehow can't give any verifiable/tangible evidence of this. Who is the liar now? hmmmmm

Over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom