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

[anglolawyer]

OK what the prosecutor (Comodi this time) did was present the jurors with a proposition. No one ever bothered to ID this blob because it worked better that it was a mystery. The prosecution claimed it was blood even though they had zero evidence to prove that. The defense was put in the position to come up with something else and they presented experts who listed all the possible triggers for luminol...fruit juice is just one...so is rust and hundreds of other substances...but this is how Comodi summed up her position.

She looked at the jurors and asked blood or turnip juice? You decide.

For my money the defense should have roared in objection because she never proved it was blood and I dont think the defense had a duty to prove what it was. But with these kind of tricks the prosecution created its whole case...smoke and mirrors. Nothing else.

But the lousy defense failed to discredit or even mention these lacks of real evidence. They allowed unchallenged Totos version that he saw the two from 9 until midnight but they failed to mine the gold from that ridiculous claim. Well Mr Toto and Mr Pignini if they are in the plaza from 9 until midnight how exactly were they involved in the murder of Miss Kercher? No one ever asked that simple relevant question. Instead they became burdened and therefore lost that point by useless talk of dates ...was it Halloween or Nov 1st and were there buses. Why not go with the witness? Ok Toto you saw them from 9 until midnight...very good. So Mignini how did they....???
Dumb stupid case allowed to continue in spite of overwhelming evidence of NOTHING!

They seem to play by strange rules in which no one can ever be called for flat out lying.

 

[RandyN]

Ok.... is there anyone in this thread arguing that Knox was involved?

Yes but they all appear to be in retreat at the moment.

The facts remain that the Italian judicial system adds daily to the illogical conclusions made all the way up to the Supreme Court level. And that no one including main stream media seems bothered at all about that.

What Tesla and Rose speak about is just one tiny example of the corrupt unfair tactics used to gain a false conviction. Immoral and criminal. And the part they leave out is that if not for Sara Gino... defense expert, the prosecution and police "scientist" would never have disclosed the additional TMB testing. and yes it was well into the halfway mark in the trial...that makes it immoral, criminal and downright evil. And sadly it is just one tiny example of hundreds of just such questionable behaviors from the so called judicial side.

Hundreds of suspicious illogical claims and odd occurrences... single non repeatable LTN DNA testing, 4 (yes its 4 and not 3) ruined computers along with the data they stored...1 RS, 1 AK, 1 MK, and 1 Filomena...that's four suspiciously ruined computers, missing interrogation recordings, missing calls to required defense lawyers, no evidence....these guys admit on tape that they solved the case with intuition, and insanity on and on and on...and now some incredibly stupid judges on some illegitimate SC of Italy go beyond the pale.

There are cases that have been returned to trial after a SC confirmation. I suggest RS family and lawyers speak to Hellmann about his impanelment on a 3 judges bench in just such a murder case in year 2000. This should be public record even in Italy.

 

[codyjuneau]

.
Here is one that I did not know about.

According to this article, the prosecution 'lost' the video of the search that resulted in the bra clasp being found.

Then they 'found' it, but did not tell the defense.

However trial judge Giancarlo Massei agreed to a defence request to delay her evidence after prosecutors revealed that a video of a search which had initially been assumed 'lost' had now been found.

Defence lawyers for Sollecito said that they had not been made aware the video, which shows the 18 December search in more detail and lasts almost 90 minutes had been found and asked for time to view it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/5298060/Raffaele-Sollecito-fixes-computer-equipment-in-Meredith-Kercher-murder-trial.html

They sure are good at forgetting, losing, destroying, divining, misrepresenting, and hiding things, in Perugia. But of course there is never a need for independent experts because the police ones are ... infallible.
.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

What has always prevented guilters from posting too much is that the evidence really doesn't support the position.

But guilters seem to believe Sollecito and Knox are guilty. Judge Massei in Dec 2009 even convicted them of these crimes, but then 90 days later issued a motivations report that, to be frank, does not support a conviction. (I could go into that at leangth if you want.)

Now the ISC, acc. to Cheli, has issued a reversal of Hellmann's decision, where they flat out get wrong what Hellmann said in his motivatioins report. One of the issues the ISC says, for instance, is that Knox confessed about Lumumba to her mother without telling the authorities. The morning Nov 6 memorial flatly contradicts that. But closer to Hallmann, Cheli says that it is "doubtful that the court of second instance really decided that this memorial was inculpatory evidence in the conviction for calumny," when the ISC says that this is what Hellmann assumed.

For me, this is why guilters don't post much... unless they camouflage their arguments with words like "osmotic", it is actually quite easy to point out - in plain reading of the various motivations issued about this - where they are simply plain wrong.

It seems some folks are confused with the concept of internet discussions sites discussing a case and offering admittedly well informed but obviously partisan points of views, if one goes on a pro-innocent site one gets a group of people with a collective view of their interpretation of the case and of course the opposite is true of pro-guilt sites. However, there is a world of difference between a discussion and a court case, I have no doubt that most people posting here wouldn’t last 5 minutes in court attempting to present the evidence as they do here and this explains to me at least the gulf between pro-innocence view and how defence teams have functioned in court.

It was an interesting article and the author is honest by stating upfront he is pro-innocence, a quote.

The author has no legal training, except for what he taught himself while following this and other cases, so the approach will be based primarily on logic and on the fundamental principles of law, on which any person of good will may inform himself quite easily.

Moreover, in order to sweep away any misunderstanding or ambiguity, it is hereby clearly stated that the author is firmly pro-innocence in this case, and yet I will try to be as much as possible objective and neutral, presenting logical arguments that are the most widely shared as possible.

It is recognized, however, that complete objectivity is in general extremely difficult and probably impossible for someone who is definitely lined up on one side in a debate of this kind.


End quoute.

As I have stated before I am not ready for justice being administered via internet discussion sites, sure people should discuss their point of view and if they wish to research the whatever evidence is available but this is by no means a court of law.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>However, there is a world of difference between a discussion and a court case, I have no doubt that most people posting here wouldn’t last 5 minutes in court attempting to present the evidence as they do here and this explains to me at least the gulf between pro-innocence view and how defence teams have functioned in court.<snip>

Fortunately, it is up to the prosecution to present the evidence, and it is up to them to prove that it signifies guilt. It is up to the defense to rebut. 3 1/2 years, five threads and well over 75,000 posts later, some pretty good rebutting has been done.

By the way, what do you see as a gulf?

 

[Bill Williams]

As I have stated before I am not ready for justice being administered via internet discussion sites, sure people should discuss their point of view and if they wish to research the whatever evidence is available but this is by no means a court of law.

Who ever said it was. Only Italy can give the Kercher the answers they deserve - only Italy can render judicial justice.

But, c'mon, CoulsdonUK.... can't you read? When someone who doesn't even have legal training puts two sentences side by side, one for the ISC motivations report and one from the Hellman motivations report..... and Hellmann patently did not say what is claimed by the isc....

Don't you at least go, "hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?"

Luca Cheli is not anonymous here... Luca Cheli lays out his credentials for all to read.... he does a plain reading through documents....

If the legal system doesn't produce things that we folks way up in the cheap seats can read, understand, and judge.... what good is it?

Are you wanting to remove all lay people from the legal system - juries for instance?

For me CoulsdonUK, the worst interpretation of your words would be if you're totally sincere. I don't want to live in a country where only some sort of intellectual elite gets to both produce and own the interpretation of legal documents.

But I don't know why you think that justice will or even can be administered via internet discussion - which is a different thing, really, to wanting to shut down that very same discussion.

I have never understood this point you hammer away at. If kids on the playground are discussing misconduct of a teacher in authority over them, do you shut them down too? ("I don't see why kids on the playground should be trying to administer justice.....")

("I don't see why we should listen to people who dump our tea in Boston Harbor.")

 

[Bill Williams]

Ok.... is there anyone in this thread arguing that Knox was involved?

Yes, she was involved. Read her book, you will see exactly how she was involved.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Actually DNA does fly, and it can stick to gloves as well

However, there is a world of difference between a discussion and a court case, I have no doubt that most people posting here wouldn’t last 5 minutes in court attempting to present the evidence as they do here and this explains to me at least the gulf between pro-innocence view and how defence teams have functioned in court.

(highlighting mine)
This made me smile. If one reads the article, one sees that in a neutral setting, the ISC would not last five minutes in front of Luca Cheli. Nothing in your comment even attempts to engage any of the arguments that he made. The serious factual errors he pointed out cannot really be disputed.

Let me expand upon a point that Bill Williams just made. Not just the court, but the prosecution's expert witnesses made claims that are simply untrue. Alberto Intini said, "DNA does not fly around like pollen." Then why do people wear face masks, and why are there 1-way traffic rules in well-run labs? Why do well-designed PCR labs have positive pressure rooms for some kinds of experiments and negative pressure for others? Why do pipet tips have aerosol barriers?

On the issue of handling evidence, the FP are no better. On p. 203 Massei wrote that Stefanoni "specified" that gloves were changed "every time an object was touched that was particularly soaked with blood, and when it was obvious that the gloves would be soiled;" Orchid Cellmark's guidelines read, "Use clean latex gloves for collecting each item of evidence. It is recommended the gloves be changed between the collection of each item of evidence."

Why would anyone listen to people who are demonstrably incompetent when deciding the fates of two people for up to thirty years?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Fortunately, it is up to the prosecution to present the evidence, and it is up to them to prove that it signifies guilt. It is up to the defense to rebut. 3 1/2 years, five threads and well over 75,000 posts later, some pretty good rebutting has been done.

By the way, what do you see as a gulf?

Yes and I am sure the discussion will continue, I believe there is an ongoing discussion whether the moon landings were real or fake.

The gulf for me can be explained as the difference between the experienced Italian defence lawyers and mostly none Italian posters.

 

[Antony]

It seems some folks are confused with the concept of internet discussions sites discussing a case and offering admittedly well informed but obviously partisan points of views, if one goes on a pro-innocent site one gets a group of people with a collective view of their interpretation of the case and of course the opposite is true of pro-guilt sites. However, there is a world of difference between a discussion and a court case, I have no doubt that most people posting here wouldn’t last 5 minutes in court attempting to present the evidence as they do here and this explains to me at least the gulf between pro-innocence view and how defence teams have functioned in court.

It was an interesting article and the author is honest by stating upfront he is pro-innocence, a quote.

The author has no legal training, except for what he taught himself while following this and other cases, so the approach will be based primarily on logic and on the fundamental principles of law, on which any person of good will may inform himself quite easily.

Moreover, in order to sweep away any misunderstanding or ambiguity, it is hereby clearly stated that the author is firmly pro-innocence in this case, and yet I will try to be as much as possible objective and neutral, presenting logical arguments that are the most widely shared as possible.

It is recognized, however, that complete objectivity is in general extremely difficult and probably impossible for someone who is definitely lined up on one side in a debate of this kind.


End quoute.

As I have stated before I am not ready for justice being administered via internet discussion sites, sure people should discuss their point of view and if they wish to research the whatever evidence is available but this is by no means a court of law.

Coulsdon, you seem to be suggesting that we little people should just leave justice to the professionals and not comment on any of their decisions. Do you believe in the principle: "justice must be seen to be done"?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

remind me again who it is that sits on juries

Coulsdon, you seem to be suggesting that we little people should just leave justice to the professionals and not comment on any of their decisions. Do you believe in the principle: "justice must be seen to be done"?

Indeed. And who, if not lay citizenry, should sit in juries.

 

[Bill Williams]

(highlighting mine)
This made me smile. If one reads the article, one sees that in a neutral setting, the ISC would not last five minutes in front of Luca Cheli. Nothing in your comment even attempts to engage any of the arguments that he made. The serious factual errors he pointed out cannot really be disputed.

Let me expand upon a point that Bill Williams just made. Not just the court, but the prosecution's expert witnesses made claims that are simply untrue. Alberto Intini said, "DNA does not fly around like pollen." Then why do people wear face masks, and why are there 1-way traffic rules in well-run labs? Why do well-designed PCR labs have positive pressure rooms for some kinds of experiments and negative pressure for others? Why do pipet tips have aerosol barriers?

On the issue of handling evidence, the FP are no better. On p. 203 Massei wrote that Stefanoni "specified" that gloves were changed "every time an object was touched that was particularly soaked with blood, and when it was obvious that the gloves would be soiled;" Orchid Cellmark's guidelines read, "Use clean latex gloves for collecting each item of evidence. It is recommended the gloves be changed between the collection of each item of evidence."

Why would anyone listen to people who are demonstrably incompetent when deciding the fates of two people for up to thirty years?

What I hope CoulsdonUK is NOT saying is that if an Italian court says it's true, then it must be true. It reminds me of the Indiana legislature circa 1900 who tried to legislate the value of Pi (3.14159....) to be more consistent with the Bible. (Cf. I Kings 7:23)

CoulsdonUK is in essence arguing that if the State of Indiana wants Pi to be exactly 3.000000, who are we to argue?

The point is mainly that the people writ large need to have confidence in their judiciary. When a motivations report is written which has plain-reading mistakes in it, why do we need lawyers to point this out?

The ISC says that the testimony of the shopkeeper needs to be listened to, but then why not those other employees who said the opposite?

Can CoulsdonUK answer this? Why is the ISC choosing between facts as found at trial anyway?

You see - the thing which keep people from rioting in the streets is the sense that there IS justice. When a plain reading of a motivations report underminds that trust... CoulsdonUK seems to want us simply to go home and draw our drapes.

And...... once again, it is an apeeal to authority, rather than an assessment of the evidence.

Would I last 5 minutes in a Florence courtroom with my bleatings? No I wouldn't. I'd last 2. It seems that they allow a lot of shouting in those courtrooms, as well as wild theories to go unchallenged.

Has CoulsdonUK ever read the articles on how this judicial atmosphere in Italy is one of the many reasons their economy is not strong? It's simply unsafe to do business there if a relatively minor business-incident will keep you tied up in court for years........

One day, I'm sure, CouldsonUK will wake up and smell the coffee that sometimes the emperor has no clothes, no matter what we're told.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

My stardust melody

Yes and I am sure the discussion will continue, I believe there is an ongoing discussion whether the moon landings were real or fake.

The gulf for me can be explained as the difference between the experienced Italian defence lawyers and mostly none Italian posters.

Luca Cheli is fluent in the Italian language. I suppose that the experience of a few defamation charges might be enough to convince the lawyers that they need to say things in between the lines: "'We aren't saying who it was, but you can imagine,' said Sollecito's attorney, Luca Maori during a break in the trial, noting that Sollecito left his computer at home and went into police headquarters 21:40 p.m. on November 5 for questioning, leaving the keys to his house with police. He has been in jail ever since."

 

[Mary_H]

Yes and I am sure the discussion will continue, I believe there is an ongoing discussion whether the moon landings were real or fake.

The gulf for me can be explained as the difference between the experienced Italian defence lawyers and mostly none Italian posters.

That's basically the same thing you said before. But what, specifically, do you see as the difference? Just the fact that they are in court and we are on the internet? Or do you actually see a definable, describable gulf between their arguments and ours?

After your first post, I assumed you were saying our arguments were superior to the defense lawyers', and I was going to explain that lawyers have a more difficult job because of their cultural proximity to the court. Good thing I checked!

 

[CoulsdonUK]

A general response; as ever I merely pointed out the obvious which this is not a court of law but a discussion site, is this in dispute?

I also acknowledged that there are some well-informed posters (I do not include myself in that group) and there have provided interesting points to discuss, there is nothing wrong with an ongoing discussion but this is not a replacement for a court of law, even an Italian court.

I think Mr Cheli said it better than I ever could and this applies to anyone with an interest in this case.

It is recognized, however, that complete objectivity is in general extremely difficult and probably impossible for someone who is definitely lined up on one side in a debate of this kind.

I could be wrong but I do not get the impression that the Italian judiciary take much notice of foreign public opinion, if there were to be any influence in this case then the relevant constituents would be the Italian population, in particular those living in and around Florence.

 

[cuki777]

cuki pbs #41

A general response; as ever I merely pointed out the obvious which this is not a court of law but a discussion site, is this in dispute?

I also acknowledged that there are some well-informed posters (I do not include myself in that group) and there have provided interesting points to discuss, there is nothing wrong with an ongoing discussion but this is not a replacement for a court of law, even an Italian court.

I think Mr Cheli said it better than I ever could and this applies to anyone with an interest in this case.



I could be wrong but I do not get the impression that the Italian judiciary take much notice of foreign public opinion, if there were to be any influence in this case then the relevant constituents would be the Italian population, in particular those living in and around Florence.

"the court's verdict "is the result of the truth that was created in the proceedings. But the real truth may be different. They may be responsible, but the evidence is not there."

 

[cuki777]

cuki pbs #44

"the court's verdict "is the result of the truth that was created in the proceedings. But the real truth may be different. They may be responsible, but the evidence is not there."

Roman proverb: "The court may set you free but the things we do in life echo for all eternity"

 

[codyjuneau]

Imagine

.
I suspect that when a bomb threat phone call occurs, the police are trained to contact the bomb squad, who immediately trace the number of the phone that made the call. The police claim it was a boy's prank call, but were never required to prove it. Imagine if it was actually Meredith's Italian phone with Filomena's SIM card, registered to the cottage, that made that phone call. Imagine. It might explain why a half hour later there was a car in the cottage's driveway and another across from the driveway. Maybe a lot of other things also.

Maybe one day, we will see the official telephone record for that bomb threat phone call.
.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a different translation of this passage may have been posted elsewhere

"the court's verdict "is the result of the truth that was created in the proceedings. But the real truth may be different. They may be responsible, but the evidence is not there."

I suggest you contact JREFF member komponisto for a better translation.

 

[Bill Williams]

A general response; as ever I merely pointed out the obvious which this is not a court of law but a discussion site, is this in dispute?

I also acknowledged that there are some well-informed posters (I do not include myself in that group) and there have provided interesting points to discuss, there is nothing wrong with an ongoing discussion but this is not a replacement for a court of law, even an Italian court.

I think Mr Cheli said it better than I ever could and this applies to anyone with an interest in this case.



I could be wrong but I do not get the impression that the Italian judiciary take much notice of foreign public opinion, if there were to be any influence in this case then the relevant constituents would be the Italian population, in particular those living in and around Florence.

I will test out something with you, CoulsdonUK.

You seem to be confusing two things. Having an opinion, and being objective.

My read of your posts, and I could very well be wrong, is that you seem to believe that because someone holds an opinion, then they cannot be objective.

You have NOT taken the more extreme view that is often seen here, that having an opinion makes one biased, not just unobjective.

I just wanted to check that out with you, before sinking teeth into issues more directly involved with this case.