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

[GWCarver]

Don't worry, we'll be on it!

Thank you so much. Google translate often poses more questions than it provides answers.

 

[RandyN]

WTF? How the hell can you use an anonymous scream to date the murder?

One uses Italian logic...

This lady goes to bed at X. She takes pills that make her get up to pee at Y. So even though she claims to have heard a life altering scream ...she never bothered to look at a clock or to peek out the window...in fact she didn't bother to wake her daughter who heard nothing...and yet somehow...using Italian logic they can fix this time and they can prove it is the correct TOD...all while ignoring several points of circumstantial and scientific evidence that proves the TOD is somewhere between 9:05 and 9:30 PM.

A few facts are an empty duodenum, a fully clothed MK at the beginning of the attack, a cctv of MK that puts her arrival home at 9:04 PM, a failed call to her mother which is never retried, unattended laundry...etc... somehow the stupid Italians want us to ignore all that and pay attention to the peeing lady who cant begin to guess at the time she though she heard a scream.

But remember the head of the ISC is also a 911 truther so that may help to put their decision in proper perspective.

 

[anglolawyer]

I don't have a problem with the judges stretching to put a narrative together as that is a very difficult task and I doubt they ever get a contested case 100% right.

The issue I have is that the evidence is not definitive. The luminol prints don't match Amanda and they didn't test positive for blood and they therefore weren't dated so what value do they have as evidence?

The bathmat print is not a match so what value does it have?

There is evidence but not not solid evidence.

That's all otiose. You aren't being osmotic enough.

 

[anglolawyer]

Don't worry, we'll be on it!

Kompo - basically you rock.

 

[anglolawyer]

One uses Italian logic...

This lady goes to bed at X. She takes pills that make her get up to pee at Y. So even though she claims to have heard a life altering scream ...she never bothered to look at a clock or to peek out the window...in fact she didn't bother to wake her daughter who heard nothing...and yet somehow...using Italian logic they can fix this time and they can prove it is the correct TOD...all while ignoring several points of circumstantial and scientific evidence that proves the TOD is somewhere between 9:05 and 9:30 PM.

A few facts are an empty duodenum, a fully clothed MK at the beginning of the attack, a cctv of MK that puts her arrival home at 9:04 PM, a failed call to her mother which is never retried, unattended laundry...etc... somehow the stupid Italians want us to ignore all that and pay attention to the peeing lady who cant begin to guess at the time she though she heard a scream.

But remember the head of the ISC is also a 911 truther so that may help to put their decision in proper perspective.

What about the other one, Monachia? What's wrong with her? They can say she corroborates the first one.

 

[MDDVS]

One uses Italian logic...

This lady goes to bed at X. She takes pills that make her get up to pee at Y. So even though she claims to have heard a life altering scream ...she never bothered to look at a clock or to peek out the window...in fact she didn't bother to wake her daughter who heard nothing...and yet somehow...using Italian logic they can fix this time and they can prove it is the correct TOD...all while ignoring several points of circumstantial and scientific evidence that proves the TOD is somewhere between 9:05 and 9:30 PM.

A few facts are an empty duodenum, a fully clothed MK at the beginning of the attack, a cctv of MK that puts her arrival home at 9:04 PM, a failed call to her mother which is never retried, unattended laundry...etc... somehow the stupid Italians want us to ignore all that and pay attention to the peeing lady who cant begin to guess at the time she though she heard a scream.

But remember the head of the ISC is also a 911 truther so that may help to put their decision in proper perspective.

I already knew all the evidence pointing to the time of death. I'm just baffled how they can ignore all of it and replace it with a scream that remains to be proven came from Meredith. We don't know who screamed (if anybody at all) but they're assuming as fact it came from Meredith.

I just can't see how can you do this kind of reasoning unless you're mentally challenged. But I'm open to explanations.

 

[MDDVS]

What about the other one, Monachia? What's wrong with her? They can say she corroborates the first one.

I'd say it's irrelevant. Whoever she heard screaming couldn't have been Meredith, or she heard it much earlier.

All the other evidence says the time of death was much earlier. An anonymous scream is very weak circunstancial evidence.

 

[stilicho]

Apparently, the Supreme Court's reasoning is out...

Indeed. I expect Knox will be petitioning the authorities to allow her to serve out her time at Walla Walla.

As Humanity Blues once said: "It's over."

Only, this time, it is. Buh-bye Amanda.

 

[RandyN]

Yep.

It also feels like a Kafka novel.

Those poor kids. This is torture.

The Kafka novels are more realistic than this case. This case surpasses any pulp fiction story...only actual people are trying to pull it off in front of the whole world.

I contend that any ruling that involves some sort of reconciliation with Guedes trial and findings is enough to invalidate any thing the stupid Italians want to make up. No matter what finding any court now decides it will never happen that Knox will be extradited.

RS is another story. He has to live among this corruption and illogical wickedness. I have no doubt that the Florence court will never find enough evidence to convict and yet that didn't even slow down Massei...so its hard to count on finding another honest judge in Italy. The honest ones have quit in disgust...or have been forced to retire for not towing the party line...

 

[RandyN]

What about the other one, Monachia? What's wrong with her? They can say she corroborates the first one.

She hears two people arguing in Italian...so that would be RS and who or is it whom? Also someone who is guessing about the time IIRC. So two kooks confirming each other kinda sorta is now evidence of anything?

 

[Antony]

Supreme Court decision on the evidence, or on process?

Weird. Everything I've read about the Italian legal process is that the Supreme Court can decide only on points of law, not on facts. Yet from the various (albeit google-translated) reports I've seen, it seems that the decision was because the Supremes disagreed with Hellman's interpretation of the evidence.

How is this even possible?

 

[GWCarver]

Weird. Everything I've read about the Italian legal process is that the Supreme Court can decide only on points of law, not on facts. Yet from the various (albeit google-translated) reports I've seen, it seems that the decision was because the Supremes disagreed with Hellman's interpretation of the evidence.

How is this even possible?

Well, ABC says this:

"The Supreme Court judges are not judging the merit or worth of the testimony or evidence, but rather the process that the Appeals Court used to reach its verdict."

And this:

"They also suggested the Appeals Court was wrong to dismiss the testimony of a key witness as unreliable simply because he was a homeless person who frequented a public square. The man claimed he saw Knox and Sollecito with Guede near the park the night of the murder, which took place the day after Halloween."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/amanda-kno...heory-sex-game/story?id=19427055#.UcCn2JxTCFC

 

[bri1]

My next task is to reread the Hellmann report. But, here's what I don't get:
"Galati preface wrote:
'With the enactment of C.P.P. Article 192, our legislature has set forth the rules for assessing evidence in a criminal trial. Circumstantial evidence is dealt with in the second paragraph of the Article, which specifies that “The existence of a fact cannot be inferred [desunta] from circumstantial evidence unless the latter is serious, precise, and consistent [gravi, precisi, e concordanti].'


serious = that is to say resistant to objection and therefore convincing
precise = not susceptible to differing interpretation that is at least as likely and
consistent = [concordanti] which is to say not in contrast with itself and with other evidence that is certain"

Hellmann was right to focus on the DNA, and in particular the knife and bra clasp. Without these two items, there is no piece of circumstantial evidence that survives CPP article 192, and therefore no evidence at all. Maybe he didn't state this as clearly as he could have in the motivations report?

So, to any PGP, can you suggest one piece of evidence that survives the test, and can be considered serious, precise and consistent?

I'd suggest that:
Scream / Nara: not precise or serious or consistent (with scientific ToD or internally- Nara claimed to see media reports on the murder the following day, putting the scream on 2nd November, not 1st Nov)
Toto: not consistent (disco buses, halloween mask) not serious.
Koko: Not anything. Definitely not consistent.
Mixed DNA: not precise (due to collection techniques used) not serious (due to fact that clean does not mean clean(!))
Footprint: Not precise (literally and figuratively), not serious.
Behavioural stuff: Not precise, not serious, not consistent
Guede: Not precise, not serious

 

[Antony]

Indeed. I expect Knox will be petitioning the authorities to allow her to serve out her time at Walla Walla.

As Humanity Blues once said: "It's over."

Only, this time, it is. Buh-bye Amanda.

It's too soon to gloat. The evidence remains the same, and in all likelihood the new trial will reach the same conclusion as Hellman - and ideally order an inquiry into all the grossly irregular conduct of the original investigation.

 

[MDDVS]

Well, ABC says this:

"The Supreme Court judges are not judging the merit or worth of the testimony or evidence, but rather the process that the Appeals Court used to reach its verdict."

And this:

"They also suggested the Appeals Court was wrong to dismiss the testimony of a key witness as unreliable simply because he was a homeless person who frequented a public square. The man claimed he saw Knox and Sollecito with Guede near the park the night of the murder, which took place the day after Halloween."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/amanda-kno...heory-sex-game/story?id=19427055#.UcCn2JxTCFC

What laws did the appeals court break by doing that?

If we ignore that was not the actual reason to dismiss said testimony, that is.

 

[Antony]

Well, ABC says this:

"The Supreme Court judges are not judging the merit or worth of the testimony or evidence, but rather the process that the Appeals Court used to reach its verdict."

And this:

"They also suggested the Appeals Court was wrong to dismiss the testimony of a key witness as unreliable simply because he was a homeless person who frequented a public square. The man claimed he saw Knox and Sollecito with Guede near the park the night of the murder, which took place the day after Halloween."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/amanda-kno...heory-sex-game/story?id=19427055#.UcCn2JxTCFC

Well, exactly. The ABC report states (in concert with every other commentator), that the Supreme Court does not "judge the merit or worth of the testimony or evidence" - then goes on to describe them doing exactly that.

 

[GWCarver]

What laws did the appeals court break by doing that?

The idea is to compare and contrast the two statements. I didn't mean to imply the appeals court broke any laws. I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.

The second statement is not accurate. It was simply made up by the great court of Italy.

 

[LashL]

What does this mean? How can they overturn Raf leaving the country, especially if he already has left?

No idea, but that Oggi link indicates that Raffaele had been living and working in Lugano, Switzerland and that his permission to stay in Switzerland was revoked this morning, apparently as a result of the S.C. decision.

 

[JREF2010]

I recall the same chaos when Hellman refused the majority of the Defense Appeal list.
This seems similar.

Theres still the knife with no blood dna and not cleaned.
Theres still the proven, sloppy forensic work and computer idiot-"experts".
We still have a heroin junkies foggy memory and a little old lady who saw nothing.

I suspect the SC judges didnt follow this case much at all. Send it back....re-trials and appeals over and over and over...

 

[MDDVS]

The idea is to compare and contrast the two statements. I didn't mean to imply the appeals court broke any laws. I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.

The second statement is not accurate. It was simply made up by the great court of Italy.

What I mean is: what law in process code did the appeals court break in the process they used to establish the credibility of the testimony.

From what I understand (maybe I'm wrong), the supreme court can only can decide only on point so of law.