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

[Mary_H]

The Fastest Pitcher in Baseball History
"Fans, researchers, historians and even the players argue all the time about who was the fastest pitcher of all-time. The most widely quoted response is Nolan Ryan, whose fastball was "officially" clocked by the Guinness Book of World Records at 100.9 miles per hour in a game played on August 20, 1974, versus the Detroit Tigers. A record that's still included in the book."
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/fastest-pitcher-in-baseball.shtml

Pitcher Perfect
"Why can't anyone throw a baseball faster than 100 mph?"
http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2005/04/pitcher_perfect.html

 

[Kaosium]

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

Nothing you've ever advanced as evidence comes without reasonable doubt that Amanda and Raffaele were involved. Thinking there may well be evidence of another person involved doesn't implicate them inherently. The residue of a smear campaign and a misunderstanding of the nature of 'lies' and their relevance isn't proof of involvement either.

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.

Are you being facetious?

 

[RandyN]

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.

I happen to agree completely with Coulsdon in the highlighted section.

I also agree with the underlined portion.

I totally disagree with the bolded portion.

I dont think anything was ever wrong with Hellmanns ruling procedurally...in fact it was not just Hellmann but another professional judge and 8 jurors. The SC has some real explaining to do. The prosecutor argued facts to the SC...and they allowed it. Its clear they will do what ever they please and codes and mistakes have nothing all to do with it.

Pretending that they will come up with some meek and easily fixed procedural error is foolish. They intend to rerun an appeal starting with the end of the first trial. And they will ignore the improper and missing DNA material and go with Stefanonis piece of paper.

BTW the bra clasp was stored in a plastic test tube (also improper) and not a plastic bag. In any case the metal rusted and destroyed any chance at a retest. Once more the Italians will simply ignore this and go with Stefanonis piece of paper.

They will certainly get rid of C and V report. It was a main point of Mignini that a DNA review was illegal. Galati parroted that point.

I think they will certainly be found guilty this time and the SC will uphold that decision. The Italians are crooked and corrupt...they dont care how foolish they look nor are they interested in truth or justice.

This case will be settled in the ECOHR. Knox will never be extradited ...the case is just to crazy and lacks everything a real court would use to decide the matter...evidence, witnesses, motive, alibi and no prior history of anything.

Italy intends to convict innocent persons and I'm quite certain they fully understand that...It is clear Italy intends to persist in this lie in order to save face and hide the shame and criminal action committed by the Perugia police and prosecutor.

Hellmann said it...I wonder who they will allow to take the blame for convicting clearly innocent persons.

RS is screwed ...he needs to get out now!

One ray of hope is the case Hellmann sat on in 2000. He, as part of a 3 judge panel overturned a murder conviction that had gone thru all phases including being confirmed by the SC. You see in Italy it not over until they say its over...figuring out who "they" are is the problem.

Finally as for the socks guess...if its not Ergon...in SW disguise of course, then it is someone who reads from the exact play book. I posted an outside shot taken by Ergon in his wacky visit to Italy for the SC decision. That was yesterday. Today the nutters post and comment about the exact picture and subject going so far as using the rather odd term parapet which I slipped in as a confirmer. The bait was Ergons own photo and I hooked him with parapet.

But maybe our mechanical engineer is simply a newbie who follows the nutter play book. The rock thing ignores the fact that a large rock is necessary because the result had to break the glass and also smash thru the inner shutter...I would use a large rock for that and not a baseball sized one...the mass is critical. The rock pile is right there at hand on the bank ...a rock garden if you will...

Finally Id like to apologize to Frank for the Tamale thing...its clear that in her case you were the abused one. I was wrong about that... She is clearly crazy.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>...I would use a large rock for that and not a baseball sized one...the mass is critical. The rock pile is right there at hand on the bank ...a rock garden if you will...<snip>

Just to clarify my post at the top of the page -- it was meant to agree with and support Matthew, who was in hysterics over the claim that the rock had to be thrown at 100 mph. As the citations show, it is highly unlikely that Rudy could throw a rock anywhere near 100 mph.

 

[acbytesla]

I've been thinking about this for a while. And I haven't seen much written about this as how it pertains to the Italian justice system. I'm really curious about people's perspective on this question and not just how it pertains to the Kercher murder case.

My question is about juries in the US, UK and Italy. For a murder trial in the US. The jury must be unanimous to convict someone for murder. And the jury will remain impaneled until they all agree or until the judge believe that further deliberation would be fruitless and declares that the jury is "hung" in which case there may or may not be a retrial. If there is for example a "single" not guilty vote to 11 guilty votes for example, there is likely to be another trial, but not if the majority might be more inclined to vote for acquittal.

It is my understanding that in Italy, the jury consists of 6 lay people and two professional judges. I really have to wonder about that dynamic. I tend to believe that a professional judge would command a great deal of respect and therefore a great deal of influence on the other jurors. Maybe too much influence? And what happens in Italy if one of the lay jurors tells the professional judges that they are full of crap? Do they have hung juries in Italy? Do the professional judges dismiss jurors who don't fall into line?

 

[anglolawyer]

I've been thinking about this for a while. And I haven't seen much written about this as how it pertains to the Italian justice system. I'm really curious about people's perspective on this question and not just how it pertains to the Kercher murder case.

My question is about juries in the US, UK and Italy. For a murder trial in the US. The jury must be unanimous to convict someone for murder. And the jury will remain impaneled until they all agree or until the judge believe that further deliberation would be fruitless and declares that the jury is "hung" in which case there may or may not be a retrial. If there is for example a "single" not guilty vote to 11 guilty votes for example, there is likely to be another trial, but not if the majority might be more inclined to vote for acquittal.

It is my understanding that in Italy, the jury consists of 6 lay people and two professional judges. I really have to wonder about that dynamic. I tend to believe that a professional judge would command a great deal of respect and therefore a great deal of influence on the other jurors. Maybe too much influence? And what happens in Italy if one of the lay jurors tells the professional judges that they are full of crap? Do they have hung juries in Italy? Do the professional judges dismiss jurors who don't fall into line?

I dunno about Italy but I can tell you we accept majority verdicts in E & W. 10-2 is acceptable but the jury is not told this until they have spent a certain minimum time trying to achieve unanimity. I agree with you that the dynamic of two judges and six lay people must be interesting. I bet that in the vast majority of cases the judges wield enormous influence. It must get interesting when the two judges disagree with each other.

 

[acbytesla]

The Fastest Pitcher in Baseball History
"Fans, researchers, historians and even the players argue all the time about who was the fastest pitcher of all-time. The most widely quoted response is Nolan Ryan, whose fastball was "officially" clocked by the Guinness Book of World Records at 100.9 miles per hour in a game played on August 20, 1974, versus the Detroit Tigers. A record that's still included in the book."
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/fastest-pitcher-in-baseball.shtml

You clearly have forgotten the famous Sidd Finch of the New York Mets organization. Sidd never pitched in the major leagues because of control problems, but Sidd's fastball was clocked at an amazing 168 mph!
*Sports Illustrated, March 1985

 

[anglolawyer]

The Fastest Pitcher in Baseball History
"Fans, researchers, historians and even the players argue all the time about who was the fastest pitcher of all-time. The most widely quoted response is Nolan Ryan, whose fastball was "officially" clocked by the Guinness Book of World Records at 100.9 miles per hour in a game played on August 20, 1974, versus the Detroit Tigers. A record that's still included in the book."
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/fastest-pitcher-in-baseball.shtml


You clearly have forgotten the famous Sidd Finch of the New York Mets organization. Sidd never pitched in the major leagues because of control problems, but Sidd's fastball was clocked at an amazing 168 mph!
*Sports Illustrated, March 1985

Since the crime went down in Europe we should use a game closer to home: cricket.

'The main aim of fast bowling is to bowl the hard cricket ball at high speed and to induce it to bounce off the pitch in an erratic fashion or move sideways through the air, factors which make it difficult for the batsman to hit the ball cleanly. A typical fast delivery has a speed in the range of 136 to 150 km/h (85 to 95 mph).'

So there we have it. Not 100 mph and a cricket ball is delivered after a run up, albeit with a straight arm. Throwing is not allowed. Bowlers who throw are called 'chuckers' and must be removed from the attack, sent to the pavilion even. As a semi-pro sportsman, Guede is likely to have been fully aware of this and will have taken care not to break the rules.

 

[acbytesla]

I dunno about Italy but I can tell you we accept majority verdicts in E & W. 10-2 is acceptable but the jury is not told this until they have spent a certain minimum time trying to achieve unanimity. I agree with you that the dynamic of two judges and six lay people must be interesting. I bet that in the vast majority of cases the judges wield enormous influence. It must get interesting when the two judges disagree with each other.

Is E&W, England and Wales? And is 10-2 acceptable in capitol cases like murder? In the US not all juries at 12 people. The number is not spelled out in the US Constitution and neither is the need for unanimity. I know for example that unanimity is not required in civil cases...but I also know that these requirements vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

I'm really curious about the dynamics of the Italian system. It just seems like a substantial deference to the judges would be there and that the judges would have a natural built in bias for the state's case. (but maybe not). I'd love to read critical reviews of that system by those involved... (translated to my mother tongue of course)

 

[anglolawyer]

Is E&W, England and Wales? And is 10-2 acceptable in capitol cases like murder? In the US not all juries at 12 people. The number is not spelled out in the US Constitution and neither is the need for unanimity. I know for example that unanimity is not required in civil cases...but I also know that these requirements vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

I'm really curious about the dynamics of the Italian system. It just seems like a substantial deference to the judges would be there and that the judges would have a natural built in bias for the state's case. (but maybe not). I'd love to read critical reviews of that system by those involved... (translated to my mother tongue of course)

Yes E & W = England and Wales. It's only because Rolfe would be onto me like a shot that I don't refer to the UK. Scotland is probably a more alien jurisdiction than Washington, actually. I have had a dispute with a Scottish solicitor once about a point of Scots' law, which he sought to resolve by sending a brief to a Scottish barrister who agreed with my interpretation but that is the furthest extent of my involvement with the law of the soon-to-be cast adrift northern heathen. And yes, we will accept 10-2 in a murder case.

I agree with your suggested dynamic for what goes on behind the scenes in Italy but I'm sure things will vary from court to court.

In E & W the closest we get to something like this is the lay bench of (usually three) magistrates advised by a legally qualified clerk. They deal with less serious offences and depend on the clerk for legal advice, but the decision is theirs alone. If anything they tend to be more pro-prosecution than the clerk who is required to stay neutral but, again, such generalisations are not universally applicable.

 

[acbytesla]

I keep wondering what evidence the Prosecution has left? Would they really request another independent DNA examination of the knife?

And how does anyone deal with the bra clasp as evidence today considering it is now worthless? It will be interesting to read the SC motivation. Are they going to set aside Conti and Vechiotti?

You have to wonder about the practicality of a third trial when the first two have exactly opposite conclusions.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't claim to be a "professional" expert in relation to this case. I'm just a dude (a hero, a gladiator, according to the Silent Majority who lurks here, I suspect) with an opinion on a murder case that tickles my funny bone because of Knox's callow and sexed up nature and other aspects like the fact Rudy's turd in the toilet points to the fact he was at the cottage socially before the murder rather than he break in. this may be the first murder mystery where crap in the toilet points to the guilt of the accused. EVERYTHING in this case points right at our herorine Knox, she can't catch a break out there. LOL

There is nothing silent or a majority about you. But you do remind me of that parable. "Best to keep silent, lest people think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

 

[anglolawyer]

I keep wondering what evidence the Prosecution has left? Would they really request another independent DNA examination of the knife?

And how does anyone deal with the bra clasp as evidence today considering it is now worthless? It will be interesting to read the SC motivation. Are they going to set aside Conti and Vechiotti?

You have to wonder about the practicality of a third trial when the first two have exactly opposite conclusions.

They have the confessions, admissible for the purpose of showing a false alibi was given if not for their content, the calunnia conviction, the knife and clasp (DNA doesn't fly) Toto, (no longer available for cross luckily for the ILE) the SC motivation in Guede's case that he did not act alone, the lies and strange behaviour, the disrespecttful books. That's a slam dunk in Italy.

 

[Kaosium]

They have the confessions, admissible for the purpose of showing a false alibi was given if not for their content,

I don't think so, Raffaele's statement was never used by anyone, anywhere after the hearing with Matteini on the 8th. Amanda's was never allowed against her, but as proof of what she signed regarding Patrick, for the calunnia charge, which ought to be done by now. Isn't that what the SC said, they confirmed the conviction but wanted another (separate?) motivations for it? You were paying better attention than I at the time, what's the scoop on that?

 

[Mary_H]

You clearly have forgotten the famous Sidd Finch of the New York Mets organization. Sidd never pitched in the major leagues because of control problems, but Sidd's fastball was clocked at an amazing 168 mph!
*Sports Illustrated, March 1985

Oh, you're so right, acbytesla, I had completely "forgotten" about Sidd. He was lurking somewhere in the back of my vast storehouse of baseball knowledge.

 

[acbytesla]

They have the confessions, admissible for the purpose of showing a false alibi was given if not for their content, the calunnia conviction, the knife and clasp (DNA doesn't fly) Toto, (no longer available for cross luckily for the ILE) the SC motivation in Guede's case that he did not act alone, the lies and strange behaviour, the disrespecttful books. That's a slam dunk in Italy.

How do they have the knife and the clasp? There is no DNA on the knife. And the Bra Clasp was stored improperly and is worthless as well. Granted, this in Italy or "down the rabbit hole". But still, from my perspective, (granted the Italians aren't consulting me on this case) The Florentine court will have to either accept Stefanoni's results or C&V's results since there is NOTHING left to test with either the clasp or the knife.

 

[anglolawyer]

I don't think so, Raffaele's statement was never used by anyone, anywhere after the hearing with Matteini on the 8th. Amanda's was never allowed against her, but as proof of what she signed regarding Patrick, for the calunnia charge, which ought to be done by now. Isn't that what the SC said, they confirmed the conviction but wanted another (separate?) motivations for it? You were paying better attention than I at the time, what's the scoop on that?

There is some SC decision, briefly referenced in Massei, to the effect that the fact that a false alibi is given, regardless of content, is itself an item of circumstantial evidence. Here it is:

[QUOTE="Massei PDF p.358-359]Amanda Knox and Sollecito Raffaele therefore did not spend the evening and the night of 1 November in the house on Corso Garibaldi uninterruptedly and without going out until 10.30 am the next morning. The declarations made on this point by Amanda Knox and which would have constituted, if they had been true, an alibi for both, were shown to be false, and were aimed therefore at avoiding an investigation into the truth and are therefore considered to be evidence against [them] (e.g. Cass. 15.12.2005 No. 5060).[/QUOTE]

 

[anglolawyer]

How do they have the knife and the clasp? There is no DNA on the knife. And the Bra Clasp was stored improperly and is worthless as well. Granted, this in Italy or "down the rabbit hole". But still, from my perspective, (granted the Italians aren't consulting me on this case) The Florentine court will have to either accept Stefanoni's results or C&V's results since there is NOTHING left to test with either the clasp or the knife.

Dunno. I am being pessimistic.

 

[Kaosium]

There is some SC decision, briefly referenced in Massei, to the effect that the fact that a false alibi is given, regardless of content, is itself an item of circumstantial evidence. Here it is:

I'm pretty sure that's referring to the spontaneous declarations made by Amanda in court, as the context for that is Quintavalle, not either of her Statements. It's possible it refers to the note, as that was deemed admissible for both charges if I recall correctly.

 

[anglolawyer]

I'm pretty sure that's referring to the spontaneous declarations made by Amanda in court, as the context for that is Quintavalle, not either of her Statements. It's possible it refers to the note, as that was deemed admissible for both charges if I recall correctly.

Well, I am not sure that's what the relevant Cassazione decision is about. I had a lengthy discussion about this with Machiavelli who was cock-a-hoop that this decision could be used to make the 'confessions' work against them