Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Kaosium]

I have reviewed some a summary of Micheli's report and I think that he was bit closer to the truth than Massei across the board although Massei makes a reasoned case as well.

Does anybody know who the prosecuter was in the first appeals trial? Was it still Mignini or was it somebody else. I don't get the impression the prosecution even partipcated in that trial at times.

The case was Mignini's from the beginning.

 

[Dan O.]

<Chris answered above>

 

[tsig]

Once again, you reverse the burden of proof. Fortunately this was something that the prosecution DID try to prove at trial, and they failed.
You now wish to say that this failure to prove the "bad relationship is the motive" theory was not tested and found wanting. Some of the British girls testified, Filomena testified and the triers of fact came away saying, "there is nothing here which would count towards a motive."

The prosecutors did not change their allegation of motive. They went to trial with it, after their "sex game gone wrong" motive failed, and after their "ritualistic satanic theory" failed - that one failed so much that after talking about it for a year they did not take it to trial.

At some point you're going to have to admit that all of this was alleged, long ago, and when tested in court it failed. The best Massi could come up with - a theory that not even Mignini advanced - was that the pair made a momentary "choice for evil", which even Massei admitted was against their characters.

Read the Massei report. Based on the Massei report, we actually CAN argue that these two girls were in the midst of a normal friendship, with normal household tensions. None of that was found by ANY court to have cotributed to the murder.

Yet here we have it, 5 1/2 years later, people saying that it does. You'd think this had never been to trial.

You are aware that she was found guilty and that the Hellman report was rejected by the Supreme Court of Italy?

 

[DrTesla]

The case was Mignini's from the beginning.

nope it was Micheli who reviewed it in the pre-trial stage whatever that is called, and recommended it go to trial. his report explains his reasoning behind that.

 

[tsig]

If I was Knox and Raffe, I would be inclined to downplay my drug abuse that night, b/c everybody knows drugs can impact your judgment and when your judgment is impaired, you can do some dumb things that you wouldn't have done otherwise. they chose to actually play up their drug abuse, to account for their rather CONVENIENT memory failures, which they probably thought was being slick, but reality is this crime is so weird that drugs were almost certain to be involved, and by playing up their drug abuse they only really helped hang themselves.

Amanda was drugged up but a perfect little angel, confused enough to accuse an innocent man yet perfectly trustworthy. No matter what there's always an excuse.

 

[DrTesla]

You are aware that she was found guilty and that the Massei report was rejected by the Supreme Court of Italy?

you mean the hellmann verdict/report was rejected. massei was the first trial that found her guilty.

 

[RandyN]

I'm hoping the next appeals trial judge appoints Dr. Stefanoni as the independent DNA expert, so they can finally put this case to bed.

Wanna hear something funny? Biondo who was Stefanonis boss worked as a consultant to the prosecution during the first trial. No conflict of interest there right?

ETA...Stefanoni IS NOT a doctor.

 

[DrTesla]

Amanda was drugged up but a perfect little angel, confused enough to accuse an innocent man yet perfectly trustworthy. No matter what there's always an excuse.

yup I guess you could say she's like Madonna in working the naughty/innocent dichotomy. Maybe that explains my boss Mignini's obsession with her sex life, LOL

 

[DrTesla]

Wanna hear something funny? Biondo who was Stefanonis boss worked as a consultant to the prosecution during the first trial. No conflict of interest there right?

my understanding of this Dr. Stef babe is her reputation is unassailable in Italy. Knox's PR people are lucky this took place in another country b/c attacking this babe would really look dumb in America if people knew something about her.

Knox is lucky this took place in Italy b/c I think late night comedians would make jokes about her all the time if it happened here and the trial was on tv or talked about much more than it was. she is a goldmine for satire.

 

[tsig]

you mean the hellmann verdict/report was rejected. massei was the first trial that found her guilty.

Right you are. It's hard to tell the players without a scorecard.

 

[Kaosium]

circumstantial evidence is something like her 3 am call to her mother the night of the murder, their turning off of their cell phones, the fact the cell phone record doesn't back up her claim she was real worried about Meredith, stuff like that. there is a ton of it in this case, much much more than any other criminal case that I can recall in recent memory.

That's 'cuz they didn't have any real evidence, so they had to go looking for every little thing and try to make it sound 'suspicious,' starting with Mignini and the Police in Perugia. Then the press took off with it, then people in the internet chimed in. That's why there's so much crap to sift through in this case.

It works because it's common for people to think 'where there's smoke there's fire' and the ones that know that blow smoke when they have nothing else.

Incidentally, the bra clasp is circumstantial evidence, so is the 'murder knife.' Just about everything outside an eyewitness account or a recording is technically circumstantial evidence.

 

[Kaosium]

nope it was Micheli who reviewed it in the pre-trial stage whatever that is called, and recommended it go to trial. his report explains his reasoning behind that.

Mignini is the Public Minister and took it before Matteini, the judge on November 8th, 2007. He then 'investigated' it for a year. Michaeli was the judge in Rudy's trial which has absolutely nothing to do with Amanda and Raffaele, though you may be right and he handled some of the pre-trial stages for Mignini.

I don't know why you're bringing up Michaeli so often, you do realize at Rudy's trial it was the best interest of all parties to blame as much as they could on Amanda and Raffaele, right? It doesn't actually mean anything.

Who is telling you Mignini didn't have this case from the beginning? That's an outright lie, and a stupid one at that. Is this coming from TJMK?

 

[DrTesla]

That's 'cuz they didn't have any real evidence, so they had to go looking for every little thing and try to make it sound 'suspicious,' starting with Mignini and the Police in Perugia. Then the press took off with it, then people in the internet chimed in. That's why there's so much crap to sift through in this case.

It works because it's common for people to think 'where there's smoke there's fire' and the ones that know that blow smoke when they have nothing else.

Incidentally, the bra clasp is circumstantial evidence, so is the 'murder knife.' Just about everything outside an eyewitness account or a recording is technically circumstantial evidence.

cirmcumstantial evidence is real evidence. how do you think they convicted people prior to DNA evidence? I don't think they try to make things looks suscpcious, they look that way b/c it is. this argument would have some weight if we were talking one or two things but there is a consistent inconsistency with Knox's story when you try to square it with other information.

was Rudy's DNA in the room circumstantial evidence? Cuz I could have sworn you guys have said over and over there is no doubt Rudy is guilty cuz his DNA was all over the room.

I'd say Raff's DNA on victim's bra clasp and double DNA knife found at his house is REAL evidence as you define it. can't really think of anything that could have been more incriminating in this murder case than those two pieces of evidence. knox and raff are real unlucky if this was just some kind of chance contamination due to theirs and the victim's DNA being in the air and landing right on the bra clasp and the knife at home in the kitchen almost as though that was it's intent. that some magical DNA right there. LOL

 

[Bill Williams]

Once again, you reverse the burden of proof. Fortunately this was something that the prosecution DID try to prove at trial, and they failed.

You now wish to say that this failure to prove the "bad relationship is the motive" theory was not tested and found wanting. Some of the British girls testified, Filomena testified and the triers of fact came away saying, "there is nothing here which would count towards a motive."

The prosecutors did not change their allegation of motive. They went to trial with it, after their "sex game gone wrong" motive failed, and after their "ritualistic satanic theory" failed - that one failed so much that after talking about it for a year they did not take it to trial.

At some point you're going to have to admit that all of this was alleged, long ago, and when tested in court it failed. The best Massi could come up with - a theory that not even Mignini advanced - was that the pair made a momentary "choice for evil", which even Massei admitted was against their characters.

Read the Massei report. Based on the Massei report, we actually CAN argue that these two girls were in the midst of a normal friendship, with normal household tensions. None of that was found by ANY court to have cotributed to the murder.

Yet here we have it, 5 1/2 years later, people saying that it does. You'd think this had never been to trial.

You are aware that she was found guilty and that the Hellman report was rejected by the Supreme Court of Italy?

The Hellmann report, per se, was not rejected. The Hellmann acquittals were quashed, and we have yet to learn the reason why. As a matter of Italian law, the Italina Supreme Court does not rule on facts as found, just the law and procedures used at trial. Truth, that may impact a finding of fact, but that's not was the SC does.

And yes, I am making reference to the Massei motivation's report, not the Hellmann motivations report. Massei's report rejected Mignini's theory that Meredith and Amanda had a bad relationship. This was something that Mignini tried to prove at the first trial, yes the trial that convicted Sollecito and Knox. Mignini called all the British friends to testify, as well as Filomena.

And at the end of the day Judge Massei, not Hellmann, wrote that Meredith's and Amanda's friendship was normal. In short, even the convicting judge rejected most of the theorizing that the prosecution built its case upon. To cover off his finding of guilty, Massei simply invented his own theories, some of which (like the alleged transport of the knife) was not even presented as evidence at court. Massei simply made it up.

 

[DrTesla]

Mignini is the Public Minister and took it before Matteini, the judge on November 8th, 2007. He then 'investigated' it for a year. Michaeli was the judge in Rudy's trial which has absolutely nothing to do with Amanda and Raffaele, though you may be right and he handled some of the pre-trial stages for Mignini.

I don't know why you're bringing up Michaeli so often, you do realize at Rudy's trial it was the best interest of all parties to blame as much as they could on Amanda and Raffaele, right? It doesn't actually mean anything.

Who is telling you Mignini didn't have this case from the beginning? That's an outright lie, and a stupid one at that. Is this coming from TJMK?

mignini had the case when it went to trial, but first a judge has to review the evidence to see if there is any reason for the case to go to trial. Micheli did that and decided there was reason to bring the case to trial. that's why there is a Micheli report on this case. true justice has a summary of the Micheli report, just google it.

given the fact he did the Rudy trial it would make sense to at least have him involved in the pre-trial review for the other two as he should have been exposed to most of the evidence against the other two from the rudy trial.

 

[Kaosium]

mignini had the case when it went to trial, but first a judge has to review the evidence to see if there is any reason for the case to go to trial. Micheli did that and decided there was reason to bring the case to trial. that's why there is a Micheli report on this case. true justice has a summary of the Micheli report, just google it.

Of what possible interest is the Michaeli Report at this point other than to see how far off base Mignini was at that stage of the game and how much evidence he claimed to have that he couldn't produce in court?

 

[DrTesla]

Of what possible interest is the Michaeli Report at this point other than to see how far off base Mignini was at that stage of the game and how much evidence he claimed to have that he couldn't produce in court?

well it's just another judge's take on the same evidence. that' the interest for me, I can't speak for other people.

mignini obviously did a good job b/c he won a 8-0 conviction in a trial that was not ruled unfair. how do you top 8-0? the defense couldn't even get one juror, and you know Knox winked at them, smiled at them, and showed them a bit of cleavage. Italians are notorious horn dogs yet they fought that to find this babe guilty. LOL

 

[Kaosium]

cirmcumstantial evidence is real evidence. how do you think they convicted people prior to DNA evidence?

I was just being a pedantic twit. DNA evidence is technically circumstantial too, it has nothing to do with the quality of it. Bad eyewitness testimony is worse in many cases.

I don't think they try to make things looks suscpcious, they look that way b/c it is. this argument would have some weight if we were talking one or two things but there is a consistent inconsistency with Knox's story when you try to square it with other information.

Actually her story was consistent before and after the night the Bad Little Piggies of Perugia freaked her out. Unless someone goes nitpicking, who can recall every little thing, especially little details?

was Rudy's DNA in the room circumstantial evidence? Cuz I could have sworn you guys have said over and over there is no doubt Rudy is guilty cuz his DNA was all over the room.

That would be considered a higher grade of circumstantial evidence.

I'd say Raff's DNA on victim's bra clasp and double DNA knife found at his house is REAL evidence as you define it. can't really think of anything that could have been more incriminating in this murder case than those two pieces of evidence. knox and raff are real unlucky if this was just some kind of chance contamination due to theirs and the victim's DNA being in the air and landing right on the bra clasp and the knife at home in the kitchen almost as though that was it's intent. that some magical DNA right there. LOL

Here's one for you Dr:

If the bra clasp was such great evidence, how come they videoed it on the floor during the initial forensic investigation and just left it there?

Or did they?

 

[Dan O.]

Rudy didn't go straight out the door

Rudy's bloody shoeprints don't form a track going straight from Meredith's room and out the door.

The clearly identified trail of prints from Rudy's left shoe start in Meredith's room facing away from the door at 5C and 5B each showing multiple impressions. 5A is a clear full print pointed in the direction of the door and 3 is a print with the left shoe outside Meredith's door. The first print in the living room at F shows part of the same structure seen at 5A and 3 though more faded. The next identifiable print from this series is "I" which is at and facing the kitchen table.

In the living room we also have these two prints:

G on the right is in front of the couch and J on the left is at the entry alcove. While these may be from the same shoes, they are a new series with fresh blood. The distance from G to J is just under 2 meters which is about the same stride as from F to I.

 

[tsig]

I was just being a pedantic twit. DNA evidence is technically circumstantial too, it has nothing to do with the quality of it. Bad eyewitness testimony is worse in many cases.



Actually her story was consistent before and after the night the Bad Little Piggies of Perugia freaked her out. Unless someone goes nitpicking, who can recall every little thing, especially little details?

That would be considered a higher grade of circumstantial evidence.



Here's one for you Dr:

If the bra clasp was such great evidence, how come they videoed it on the floor during the initial forensic investigation and just left it there?

Or did they?

You mean little details like where you were and what you were doing the night your roommate was killed?