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

[Bruce Fischer]

well I don't know about slow toss. I still think you will need some zip on it to have it moving on at a good clip after it travels 15 feet.

I appreciate the picture though.


I read in Massie the glass is thin, which kind of surprised me b/c this house is located in a shady neighborhood with a lot of drug addicts and unsavory characters. It seems like the panes would be fairly thick and ift not thick then hard and resistance to easy breakage. However, we cannot just assume that a thin pane glass is easily shattered. It would be nice if we could establish the impact velocity required to apply the min. shear force required to shatter this glass.

The evidence at the crime scene provides clear proof that the rock had absolutely no trouble breaking the glass.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry------2.html

 

[DrTesla]

Infamous? You cut me deep, Tesla.

hah what's up brother.

why do you want my address ? That weirded me out and I suffer from paranoia.

I only posted on there b/c I thought it would be funny to spar with PMF's Chosen One and to give you heads up that they were talking about you b/c it would weird me out if this group of people was talking about me on the internet and I was unaware of it.

It's a gathering of a lot of the major players on here tonight. Bruce Fischer, Matt Jones, Mach. Reminds me of one of those scenes in the Godfather were all the mob families met up to work out their differences. those never turned out well.

Really we need to hold some kind of Beer Summit to put the hate amongst the Friends and Guilters to bed. I propose that I be the mediator at this theoretical Beer Summit.

 

[anglolawyer]

"Police believe the teenage girl, who is also suspected of a series of break-ins in the Paris area, is responsible for a burglary 700km away in Toulouse after investigators matched her DNA with fecal matter taken from used toilet paper found in the garden at the home of a victim.

After allegedly breaking into the house in Saint-Alban, south-western France, in September 2012, the girl was unable to restrain herself, and appears to have answered the call of nature at the bottom of the garden, leaving behind her toilet paper, a police source told Le Parisien." link.

And from the BBC reporting on New South Wales comes the story of using DNA from a hair: "He said the burglar had used the toilet before leaving."

Not New South Wales, Chris, just South Wales (about 12,000 miles apart) . But that is interesting because the hair we have been speculating about may indeed have come from Guede's droppings. I still don't know whether they have a DNA database in Italy nor whether Guede was in it but it must have been a high priority to test the 'specimen' since its incongruity obviously connected it to the crime. Maybe one of the specialists on the news reporting could say when the reports that the cops were looking for a fourth suspect first appeared because the failure to get a match with Lumumba may account for them.

 

[PhantomWolf]

well I don't know about slow toss. I still think you will need some zip on it to have it moving on at a good clip after it travels 15 feet.

You keep saying this. The rock will have pretty much the exact horizontal velocity it had when it left the thrower's hand. It has to according to the laws of physics (in particular, Newton's 1st law of motion.) Thrown objects don't slow down unless another force acts on them, asnd rocks aren't light enough to be seriously affected by air resistance over such a short distance.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Infamous? You cut me deep, Tesla.

Are you the same Matt Jones that labeled me "grammar king?" I thought that was pretty funny.

 

[anglolawyer]

To Bill, Grinder and Carver

I wish I could help out with the questions on Italian law but in all honesty I think I know more about mechanical engineering. I do know that we are witnessing bears no resemblance to a fair trial process. I recently made a bullet point list at IIP of failings and rattled off upwards of 10 or so without thinking much about it. They were:

* lack of representation at the interrogations

* denial of access to a lawyer before the hearing on 08 Nov 2007

* covert monitoring of privileged consultations with lawyers

* prejudicial non-disclosure

* running Lumumba's civil claim alongside the criminal trial (thereby allowing the court to see and hear otherwise inadmissible material)

* Trying Guede separately from A & R

* not affording complete privilege to statements and evidence given in court, thereby inhibiting a full defence

* judicial bias and/or incompetence and/or perversity (Massei)

* lack of finality

* the playing of the €182,000 cartoon to the court

* prolonged exposure of the popular judges to false and misleading reports, a problem exacerbated by the extended and perfunctory course of the proceedings and the release into the public domain of highly prejudicial and/or misleading material (too numerous to particularise fully but take the bathroom photo as a for instance)

I am sure one could add to this lot and that the SC motivation will be useful in this regard.

 

[Bill Williams]

To Bill, Grinder and Carver

I wish I could help out with the questions on Italian law but in all honesty I think I know more about mechanical engineering. I do know that we are witnessing bears no resemblance to a fair trial process. I recently made a bullet point list at IIP of failings and rattled off upwards of 10 or so without thinking much about it. They were:

* lack of representation at the interrogations

* denial of access to a lawyer before the hearing on 08 Nov 2007

* covert monitoring of privileged consultations with lawyers

* prejudicial non-disclosure

* running Lumumba's civil claim alongside the criminal trial (thereby allowing the court to see and hear otherwise inadmissible material)

* Trying Guede separately from A & R

* not affording complete privilege to statements and evidence given in court, thereby inhibiting a full defence

* judicial bias and/or incompetence and/or perversity (Massei)

* lack of finality

* the playing of the €182,000 cartoon to the court

* prolonged exposure of the popular judges to false and misleading reports, a problem exacerbated by the extended and perfunctory course of the proceedings and the release into the public domain of highly prejudicial and/or misleading material (too numerous to particularise fully but take the bathroom photo as a for instance)

I am sure one could add to this lot and that the SC motivation will be useful in this regard.

Other than these items listed, though, you have to admit it was a fair process.....

 

[Bill Williams]

well I don't know about slow toss. I still think you will need some zip on it to have it moving on at a good clip after it travels 15 feet.

You keep saying this. The rock will have pretty much the exact horizontal velocity it had when it left the thrower's hand. It has to according to the laws of physics (in particular, Newton's 1st law of motion.) Thrown objects don't slow down unless another force acts on them, asnd rocks aren't light enough to be seriously affected by air resistance over such a short distance.

Seriously, in a hell bent effort to vilify Amanda Knox by demonstrating the impossibility of the break-in, one guilter brought aerodynamics into this thesis.

Not only did the rock need to travel 100 mph to do any damage on the glass, but at that speed the aerodynamic-forces on the rock would cause it to either heat or lose momentum because of air friction.

I am not making that up. It is amazing the lengths people will go to to prove a non-existent case against two innocents.

 

[anglolawyer]

Other than these items listed, though, you have to admit it was a fair process.....

According to Machiavelli Hellman was bought. Mach knows both the amount and the source of the funds. So we can add that too:

* corruptible judges.

 

[MattJones]

Are you the same Matt Jones that labeled me "grammar king?" I thought that was pretty funny.

Guilty as charged.

 

[yimyammer]

* not affording complete privilege to statements and evidence given in court, thereby inhibiting a full defence

Would you mind explaining what you mean by this?

 

[Bill Williams]

Other than these items listed, though, you have to admit it was a fair process.....

According to Machiavelli Hellman was bought. Mach knows both the amount and the source of the funds. So we can add that too:

* corruptible judges.

What impresses me about Machiavelli is that he has an answer for all those points you make, AL. He does it by meddling with definitions.... Hellmann is corruptible, so reasons Machiavelli, because the only people who would rule against Mignini are by definition corrupt. And Masons.

He startled many by admiting that presumption of innocence doesn't belong to RS and AK, because presumption of innocence is only a procedural rule to begin with. That one sure sounded good, but he didn't explain why if something is "only" a procedural rule, it still isn't a rule that should guide a court proceeding.

He also said that a comprehensive narrative of a crime is not necessary to prove guilt to begin with. Like many on that side of the fence we only need take the prosecution's word for it that they assembled this evidence in good faith, and would not be prosecuting people they know to be innocent. (So why have a trial?)

Strangely, that echoed Judge Massei's own reasoning in accepting Patrizia Stefanoni's DNA analysis on the bra-clasp and kitchen knife. Massei reasoned that Stefanoni is an expert and and expert wouldn't lie, or knowingly put forth mistaken results. On what basis, Massei reasoned, would one wish to doubt Stefanoni's work?

Sounds good to me. So other than all these points, and the points Machiavelli educates us about, why would you doubt the veracity of the process so far?

 

[anglolawyer]

Would you mind explaining what you mean by this?

Well, in England and Wales and I bet in most states in the US too, statements made in court that might otherwise attract adverse legal consequences are privileged. That means those consequences don't apply. So I can defame from the witness box without incurring a civil claim. My lawyer can ask questions and make submissions likewise without being sued. Public policy reasons lie behind this privilege: namely the desirability that no one should be deterred from advancing a legal case or giving evidence by the prospect of incurring civil or criminal liability (perjury excepted of course).

In Italy, this privilege is either absent or incomplete. Amanda was sued for defamation by the 12 cops after saying she was hit on the head. She said this in court. Her defence was inhibited or liable to be inhibited. Everything is upside down there. Lying in court is permitted for defendants but telling the truth attacts a writ. She might want to allege wholesale corruption in her defence but she cannot do so without incurring additional risk. This has a chilling effect on her defence.

 

[yimyammer]

Well, in England and Wales and I bet in most states in the US too, statements made in court that might otherwise attract adverse legal consequences are privileged. That means those consequences don't apply. So I can defame from the witness box without incurring a civil claim. My lawyer can ask questions and make submissions likewise without being sued. Public policy reasons lie behind this privilege: namely the desirability that no one should be deterred from advancing a legal case or giving evidence by the prospect of incurring civil or criminal liability (perjury excepted of course).

In Italy, this privilege is either absent or incomplete. Amanda was sued for defamation by the 12 cops after saying she was hit on the head. She said this in court. Her defence was inhibited or liable to be inhibited. Everything is upside down there. Lying in court is permitted for defendants but telling the truth attacts a writ. She might want to allege wholesale corruption in her defence but she cannot do so without incurring additional risk. This has a chilling effect on her defence.

Gotcha, that's what I was alluding to in an earlier post I made when I was discussing the libel and slander laws and how I felt these laws may cause more harm than they do help, especially when used as a tool to manipulate the outcome of a completely different proceeding

 

[DrTesla]

Seriously, in a hell bent effort to vilify Amanda Knox by demonstrating the impossibility of the break-in, one guilter brought aerodynamics into this thesis.

Not only did the rock need to travel 100 mph to do any damage on the glass, but at that speed the aerodynamic-forces on the rock would cause it to either heat or lose momentum because of air friction.

I am not making that up. It is amazing the lengths people will go to to prove a non-existent case against two innocents.

one could argue both prosecution and defense use various tricks and slight of hand to get a conviction or an acquittal. It probably balances it out in the end. In fact, Raffe and Knox are paying their defense lawyers with an expection they are willing to play dirty b/c the law can be archaic and constraining at times and you need to have a little flexibility if you want beat a lawyer like Mignini who everbody here concedes is a bit Dirty Harry. he made knox cry on the stand, numerous times, can any of us name a murder trial where the accused cried b/c the prosecution played unfair mind games? Keep in mind that Mignini is used to prosecuting mafia types so going after Knox and Raffe is like shooting baby seal in a barrel.

Some say Raffe's lawyer bribed those two guys in prison to testify they did the crime with Rudy. Have you ever seen me attack the defense lawyers? I don't even know their names, yet Mignini is the main focus on here by Friends.

I think all lawyers have proven that they deserve our respect because they went through a rigorous course of study at law school and they all want to do what is right.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Guilty as charged.

Welcome to JREF. just stopped by for a brief visit. wanted to say hi. enjoy it. its a good forum. as i was saying. not here often. talk later.

 

[Kaosium]

Funny how that works, and I agree, but, when they were found innocent after the appeal, I'm pretty sure I heard (read) a lot of PIP saying she was now innocent and free.

She and Raffaele will always be innocent, it is possible to come to that determination, those that can't may be able to allow there's at least substantial doubt in which case they should be free.

Regardless, she was found guilty after first instance, we are set to go to appeal (second instance) and being found guilty after 1st instance is way bad for those two than had they been found innocent.

You'd think so, right? Not always, Machiavelli has noted a number of famous ones that were found not guilty in the Trial of the First Instance and then convicted at appeal. For less known cases, one of Amanda's cellmates at Capanne was one of them.

 

[Bill Williams]

one could argue both prosecution and defense use various tricks and slight of hand to get a conviction or an acquittal. It probably balances it out in the end. In fact, Raffe and Knox are paying their defense lawyers with an expection they are willing to play dirty b/c the law can be archaic and constraining at times and you need to have a little flexibility if you want beat a lawyer like Mignini who everbody here concedes is a bit Dirty Harry. he made knox cry on the stand, numerous times, can any of us name a murder trial where the accused cried b/c the prosecution played unfair mind games? Keep in mind that Mignini is used to prosecuting mafia types so going after Knox and Raffe is like shooting baby seal in a barrel.

Some say Raffe's lawyer bribed those two guys in prison to testify they did the crime with Rudy. Have you ever seen me attack the defense lawyers? I don't even know their names, yet Mignini is the main focus on here by Friends.

I think all lawyers have proven that they deserve our respect because they went through a rigorous course of study at law school and they all want to do what is right.

All of this I heartily agree with, in general. Yet I'd be interested in what you make of AngloLawyer's list of verifiable violations of what I would call "natural justice", even as they may or may not be operable in Italy.

For instance, I have read that the reason why Knox was denied a lawyer up to the moment of her first hearing was Mignini's invoking of procedures reserved for Mafia prosecutions.

I believe that lawyers deserve respect as well. It's because of that that they do not fear being held to high standards or shrink away from having those standards publicly tested.

Did you read anglolawyer's explanation of the lack of the right, of not affording complete privilege to statements and evidence given in court, thereby inhibiting a full defence?

 

[Kaosium]

Well the first thing the prosecution will do is try to get the independent report thrown out. If there is going to be another review of DNA evidence then it will simply be a re-run of the first trial, defence bring in their experts and prosecution do the same.

I do not believe any of Hellmann’s findings will survive in the next trial after all the Supreme Court have effectively annulled the verdict of his court, therefore, the starting point in a legal context of this trial will be the verdict of the first trial.

I have always found it difficult to reconcile the extent of the level of discussion of evidence here and elsewhere with what actually happened in court and I have a feeling much of what is being debated here will not be raised in court. My guess is the next trial will be about Italian criminal procedure codes and ensuring whatever mistakes Hellmann made do not reoccur.

Another interesting point for me is will Raffaele and Amanda use the same defence team.

As I understand it, the Massei Report is where they'll start, the verdict itself is immaterial. When you read Massei, you must realize his findings are not set in stone, when he summarizes the prosecution and defense arguments and then goes on and says 'the court holds' that part was required by his verdict, the fact that so many times what the Massei Court held was contrary to logic, science and common sense is what revealed his verdict as dubious. For example while denying the mixed blood he still tries to attribute the 'mixed traces' to a scenario where Amanda is washing up after the murder, it's still nonsense as swabbing that way through Amanda's sink and bidet they were bound to get Amanda's DNA on the swabs when collecting Meredith's blood from when Rudy washed up. His own Report includes the information that the prosecution conceded that there's no time stamp on any of that DNA, it could have happened at any time, notably the two months previous when she'd been using the sink.

Let's just put it this way, the Massei Report contains the seeds of its own destruction, and that's actually how it goes in the Italian System and you can see how that works through all the verdicts that are modified or completely annulled through the appeals trial. This is not like the English or American system where all findings of facts from the lower court (generally) hold, there can be an entirely different interpretation of those facts at the appeals level, as you saw with Hellmann. Think of how many pages Massei spent on the DNA work, about as many trees were slaughtered in that endeavor as the entirety of Rudy Guede's Micheli Motivations Report with all that DNA evidence and the rest of it beside. That's because the evidence against Rudy is straightforward, Micheli doesn't have to spend 400+ pages of 'possibilities' and dubious conjecture to try to connect it to the crime.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

She and Raffaele will always be innocent, it is possible to come to that determination, those that can't may be able to allow there's at least substantial doubt in which case they should be free..

I'm sorry, to me she is involved to some degree, it's just the extent of that degree I feel is debateable.

You'd think so, right? Not always, Machiavelli has noted a number of famous ones that were found not guilty in the Trial of the First Instance and then convicted at appeal. For less known cases, one of Amanda's cellmates at Capanne was one of them.

Really, wouldn't that piss you off, while I'm sure that is true, it maybe says something good about the Italian justice system we here so many bad things about, especially here. Two of the things I really don't like, the fast track trial and the blazing speed of their trials.