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

[Kaosium]

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

Huh?

Do you recall when and where you had that discussion? I'd like to look at it if I could, to see what he was getting at. He's right about this sort of thing sometimes, or at least in some regard.

 

[anglolawyer]

Huh?

Do you recall when and where you had that discussion? I'd like to look at it if I could, to see what he was getting at. He's right about this sort of thing sometimes, or at least in some regard.

IIP public discussion forum I think. Try searching the Cassazione case reference - 5060

And bear in mind it's not the content that is usable but the fact the false alibi was given. It gets very circular if you think about it too much

 

[Grinder]

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.

Mary being a girl you just don't understand physics. Ryan must have thrown the ball about 500 mph for it to be going 100 mph when it reached the plate.

 

[DrTesla]

Greetings, friends.

I have just reviewed an interesting and long post on True Justice written by Kermit, who as I understand it has posted on here from time to time, in which he talks about Doug Preston, Bryan Fischer, Steve Moore, among others.

First of all let me start with a small yet significant, probably more so to most Americans than anything to do with Knox, quibble with Kermit. He does a comparison to expose the folly of some silly Google search that Preston did that was a specious attempt to prove his point people are out to get Knox. Kermit does this by using Hillary Clinton in a similar search using key words like bitch and slut and pervert. Now it is curious that Hillary would beat out Knox for Google hits when using slut and pervert, nobody can deny this. There is no evidence, that we know of, that Hillary GETS IT ON with her lesbian partner at or near the murder scene after butchering another woman. But at the same time it is suprisinging Knox beats out Hillary for bitch by a wide margin b/c most people understand immediately that bitch is Hillary's core personality....she's your standard uptight militant feminist. One must not fail to remember it was Hillary Clinton to lead the smear campaign against the various and numerous women accusing Bill of sexual harrrasment and in one case, rape. Al these claims were credible yet HIllary demonized these brave women as "nuts and sluts". What, if not a bitch, does this make Hillary? I shall let you make your own conclusions. I, for one, was surprised to learn that only 5 percent in the google search came up with a hit for Hillary + bitch. I would have assumed at least 50 percent, given Republicans and most independents despise this witch who recently lied about the Benghazi terrorist attacks being nothing more than a sponteneous riot over an obscure anti-Islam video nobody has seen, not to mention that Hillary did nothing to aid in the security of this embasy that left 4 Americans dead. to all of this Hillary angrily proclaimed in the Congressional hearing about it, what does it matter?

Now getting back to Kermit's analysis of these pro-Knox bloggers.
One thing stood out, he claims that the accusations against Peter Quennel are false and that the website which made the claims against Quennel have removed those false claims after Quennel had legal documents served to the accuser. Yet, it appears Bruce Fischer's website still has these claims against Quennel. There seems to be a disconnect here and if anybody can explain it, I will appreciate it. Also understand that I tend not to believe the accusations against Quennel, despite being a liberal and this womanizing behavoir is the primary characteristic of the species as demonstrated by Slick Willie and John Edwars who cheated on his wife dying from cancer for goodness sake, and also it's none of my business anyway. Moreover, it doesn't doesn't mean Knox is innocent if it is true.

It is interesting that Doug Preston seems to just borrow from other people his theory of the MOF murder and does not cite that person for it. I also did not know that Spezi and Preston became interested in attacking the MOF occult theory only after one of Spezi's friends, a pharmacist, was arrested in 2004. You'd think Preston would have made it clear that he thought this pharmacist was innocent in his MOF book, and that was the basis for him looking into and developing "his own" theory about the murders. why be sneaky about that?

 

[Grinder]

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.

Well we clearly don't know what the procedure coming will be like. It seems difficult to believe that Curatolo's Hellmann testimony wasn't recorded in an advance country like Italy. Would/could they actually decide the case without knowing that he said he was high every night including the night in question?

Would the judges actually not be aware of the C&V conclusion? Obviously, the papers will write about what happened in the Hellmann court and we know the jurors aren't sequestered.

I wonder in the calumnia isn't reconsidered and this is a trial de nova will that mean that the original ruling of the SC will preclude bringing in her statements?

Since Massei seems to have disregarded the SC on the confession/accusation could the Florentine court disregard their directions? Could the SC have sent the case to a region more friendly to Mignini?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

full court press

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.

It seems to me that there will be a huge effort to rehabilitate the DNA evidence of this case.

 

[Grinder]

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.

They will have at a minimum all the testimony of the defense experts from the Massei trial. One of the repeated themes is that Hellmann made the mistake of hiring independent experts instead of making the decision based on what was on the record.

The fact that information was held back from the defense in the first trial and for a time from the independent experts will be a problem for the system if that is just ignored.

 

[Bill Williams]

Greetings, friends.

I have just reviewed an interesting and long post on True Justice written by Kermit, who as I understand it has posted on here from time to time, in which he talks about Doug Preston, Bryan Fischer, Steve Moore, among others.

<......... sinister deletia ........>

Moreover, it doesn't doesn't mean Knox is innocent if it is true.
It is interesting that Doug Preston seems to just borrow from other people his theory of the MOF murder and does not cite that person for it. I also did not know that Spezi and Preston became interested in attacking the MOF occult theory only after one of Spezi's friends, a pharmacist, was arrested in 2004. You'd think Preston would have made it clear that he thought this pharmacist was innocent in his MOF book, and that was the basis for him looking into and developing "his own" theory about the murders. why be sneaky about that?

So.... rather than assessing innocence or guilt on Kermit's analysis of what Bruce Fisher said about Peter Quennell.... (Gad, you need a scorecard to keep track of this....)

Why not look at the veracity of the DNA, or the status of the superwitnesses? After all, another one of the guilters claims to have the very bleach receipt from the alleged purchase of bleach at Quintaville's store... the Florentine court would be interested in that, rather than what Fisher does or doesn't say about Kermit's analysis of what..... I'm exhausted.

And if T.O.D. is perhaps as early as 9:30 pm, then doesn't a heroin addict's alleged sighting of two college students later on actually give them an alibi?

For the lurkers out there... all this sex talk has been the primary tool of misdirection here. So far, the thing I have seen from remaining guilters is a rehashing of the 2008 case against the two students, as if there had never been trials since.

One even complained, "It's not the prosecution which is on trial here." Which is shorthand for all the prosecution claims should be believed as is; and implies there did not need to have been a trial. Sheesh, even the convicting trial found..... here I go again..... no motive, no mixed blood, no bad relationship between Knox and Kercher, no prior relationship between Guede and Knox, no psychopathology in the two students, there is no forensic presence of Knox in Merdiths room, there is ...

.... yet what we get is a continual rehashing of the prosecution as if the original "satanic rite" theory is true: the motive that didn't even make it to trial because even one of the Mignini-friendly authors said that Comodi threatened to quit if Mignini mentioned it in front of a judge.

Even then the prosecution cycled through two more motives (sex game gone wrong, and revenge attack against Meredith) until even Massei, the convicting judge, ruled that there was no motive, except for his alleged inexplicable "choice for evil", where even he implies this was totally against their character, and can't even put Amanda in the room forensically.

Yet some here continue to character assassinate. That is interesting.

 

[anglolawyer]

They will have at a minimum all the testimony of the defense experts from the Massei trial. One of the repeated themes is that Hellmann made the mistake of hiring independent experts instead of making the decision based on what was on the record.

The fact that information was held back from the defense in the first trial and for a time from the independent experts will be a problem for the system if that is just ignored.

The withholding is continuing. Disclosure of the EDFs should be pressed with vigour.

It's amazing that Massei shrugged and just allowed the knife and bra clasp evidence after meticulously recording the devastating critique by the defence experts.

 

[Bill Williams]

The withholding is continuing. Disclosure of the EDFs should be pressed with vigour.

It's amazing that Massei shrugged and just allowed the knife and bra clasp evidence after meticulously recording the devastating critique by the defence experts.

Unless I am mistaken, Massei's rationale about accepting Stefanoni's work was twofold. One was that she would not lie, and besides, her boss vouched for her work.

Besides, she had said that her lab had never had an example of contamination. For me, that brag alone is reason to doubt her work.... no lab would say that. Rather than saying, "prove contamination," a reputable lab would open their procedures to the world (total transparency) and dare someone to find something wrong in their procedures, and actually cooperate in giving everything to their detractors to defend their reputations.

Unless I am not following this, Stefanoni still has not given up the raw EDFs. Truly I do not know what that means at a technical level, but as a complete layperson to this, when I hear that a scientist does not want their work opened to peer review, I go........

...... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

But no worries. Stefanoni's boss stands by her work. While locking the filing cabinet and saying, "oh look, squirrel!"

 

[Kaosium]

It is interesting that Doug Preston seems to just borrow from other people his theory of the MOF murder and does not cite that person for it. I also did not know that Spezi and Preston became interested in attacking the MOF occult theory only after one of Spezi's friends, a pharmacist, was arrested in 2004. You'd think Preston would have made it clear that he thought this pharmacist was innocent in his MOF book, and that was the basis for him looking into and developing "his own" theory about the murders. why be sneaky about that?

You can pretty much throw out anything they had to say about Bruce Fisher, Steve Moore, Preston Spezi etc. Garden variety kookery without much regard for accuracy. They had Bruce Fisher as a cameraman in Seattle, then a furrier in New York (I thought that was hilarious considering at one point virtually all their avatars were rabbits or cats) then some finance something, and I guess it's 'mall clerk' now? They spread around the ether that Steve Moore handled financial crimes in Guam (I think--some island in the Pacific at any rate)--wrong Steve Moore, the FBI had more than one. The one interested in the Knox/Sollecito case worked violent crimes and anti-terrorism.

You're never going to figure it out relying on them for information, then again I suppose it doesn't matter if you do.

 

[Kaosium]

They will have at a minimum all the testimony of the defense experts from the Massei trial. One of the repeated themes is that Hellmann made the mistake of hiring independent experts instead of making the decision based on what was on the record.

The fact that information was held back from the defense in the first trial and for a time from the independent experts will be a problem for the system if that is just ignored.

One way for the new judge to handle that: demand the prosecution release everything--or else.

 

[GWCarver]

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?

To answer part of your question, I read somewhere yesterday (I'll look it up if necessary) that the majority rules in an Italian jury. If the results are tied 4-4, the presiding judge gets another vote to break the tie.

IMO, though, having judges on the jury completely corrupts the idea of having a jury in the first place, which is to give the accused the option of allowing his peers to decide if he or she is guilty, rather than the government.

 

[Supernaut]

To answer part of your question, I read somewhere yesterday (I'll look it up if necessary) that the majority rules in an Italian jury. If the results are tied 4-4, the presiding judge gets another vote to break the tie.

IMO, though, having judges on the jury completely corrupts the idea of having a jury in the first place, which is to give the accused the option of allowing his peers to decide if he or she is guilty, rather than the government.

Quite - it's meant to appear as quasi-democratic, but in reality the "lay jurors" are effectively instructed what their verdict will be.

 

[JREF2010]

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.

I read the IIP translation of C&V and Stefanoni was present, in addition to other prosecution members. No one had any complaints of what C&V did, as far as documentation or procedure.

So it would be hard to understand the court ignoring this additional information form Hellmans court.

But the way this case and trial has gone on....they might convict them because Nara heard people running on the driveway, she pinpointed to the cottage driveway. Which Amanda wrote in her book was pretty much covered in grass. I would laugh at the insanity, but the SC held Naras testimony very highly in Rudys case.

 

[yimyammer]

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.

What kind of bull **** law makes a DNA review illegal? Why go to the trouble to make a law like that? This is confounding to me if true.

 

[Grinder]

What kind of bull **** law makes a DNA review illegal? Why go to the trouble to make a law like that? This is confounding to me if true.

Without supporting the concept, the central point is that the court, not experts, must make the decisions. Hellmann should just reviewed the first trial evidence and made his own decision.

I repeat that the question is with this court will they be able to ignore what they know already? Will they look at the first trial testimony and come to Hellmann's conclusion by just using the evidence in that trial (with a wink to C&V)?

Unless we completely misunderstand the system, a trial de novo must allow for more than just a review. Will the defense be able to bring evidence about Curatolo and heroin use for example?

 

[Dan O.]

Here we have the known bloody footsteps of Rudy walking down the hall.

On that bottom print, the shoe does overlap the edge of the pink bag. There is a bit of a wrinkle on that edge but it is not certain that the bag was in that position when Rudy walked through.

 

[anglolawyer]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=7881[/qimg]
Here we have the known bloody footsteps of Rudy walking down the hall.

On that bottom print, the shoe does overlap the edge of the pink bag. There is a bit of a wrinkle on that edge but it is not certain that the bag was in that position when Rudy walked through.

That picture always makes me think he did not chase her down the hall because one of them might have been likely to have knocked over the flimsy drying apparatus.

 

[Grinder]

That picture always makes me think he did not chase her down the hall because one of them might have been likely to have knocked over the flimsy drying apparatus.

And the drying rack makes me think that anybody in the house could have handled her bra if it was there at some time. It would be easy to knock it off and pick it up without remembering the event, sort of like deleting a text message