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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grinder said:
Right. You just guessed. Funny.

Actually, I made a very few comments a long time ago on other threads.
Click to expand...

OK, looks like I was almost right. (You didn't really expect me to trawl through every one of your thousands of posts to see what they were all about, did you? That would be the action of a lunatic.)
 
Grinder said:
PGP don't want to undo Curatolo and Nara et al. I've told them from the beginning that they would be better off dropping all the eye and ear witnesses.
.
Click to expand...

I agree. The speculation required of hearing and not seeing is too weak.

I think the cell phone logs trumped Nara as far as logic goes, and Merediths cell phone connecting to a different tower at 10:13pm, differing from the tower it connected through during the days before the murder would get my vote.

Off topic I think Migninni was more the loud madman exhibitionist in court, than the following prosecutors and he sold his insanity theorys better by ranting with passion.
 
Samson said:
It seems the relevance of Madison Paxton has now been covered. What is troubling about this case is that relevance of different issues seems to vary so widely according to the belief of the author.
Here is Edward McCall on time of death from PMF yesterday.
Since he is praised widely for his wiki endeavour, it is important to discuss his observations.

"Cornwell is not familiar with the evidence given the quote they used. The only evidence discussed is Cornerll making some claims about a focus on digestion as a way to establish time of death. Time of death is not important to the investigation nor was digestion used to establish it. The defense did hope to bring up digestion but it was a very minor part even for the defense. The only reason I know about digestion is that the brother of that unstable lawyer is obsessed with it. Early on he kept tweeting at me about digestion and demanding that I debate him on the topic. It would appear that Cornwell is confusing FOAKer positions with the positions taken by the prosecution."

Time of death has been widely discussed on this forum, and is of course extremely relevant to the time line required by the one convicting judge, Massei.
How do you see this subject, or do you agree with McCall it is not important to the investigation (irrelevant)?
Click to expand...

I was exasperated by Cornwell's comments for the same reason I have found Nina Burleigh exasperating. Cornwell sees that the official story makes no sense, is unsupported by credible evidence, and the authorities are clinging to it for reasons of pride and self-interest. She is right. But she has the details wrong. She argues that something could have delayed Meredith's digestion, as though that would be a point to the defense. In fact, the digestive evidence points strongly to an early TOD, consistent with Guede killing Meredith just after 9 pm because she walked in on a burglary. It is sound evidence, the best available in this case, but it's not conclusive. The prosecution was able to introduce an element of doubt, which was enough for Massei to reject it entirely.
 
Rolfe said:
Seems pretty damn conclusive to me. All that was introduced was obfuscation.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

I agree. The facts of this particular case allow for a meaningful and objective interpretation. Unfortunately this kind of evidence has become a football in other trials where the facts aren't nearly as clear or useful. One can cite those cases and obfuscate very convincingly, leaving the impression that digestive evidence is meaningless in every case.
 
Samson said:
It seems the relevance of Madison Paxton has now been covered. What is troubling about this case is that relevance of different issues seems to vary so widely according to the belief of the author.
Here is Edward McCall on time of death from PMF yesterday.
Since he is praised widely for his wiki endeavour, it is important to discuss his observations.

"Cornwell is not familiar with the evidence given the quote they used. The only evidence discussed is Cornerll making some claims about a focus on digestion as a way to establish time of death. Time of death is not important to the investigation nor was digestion used to establish it. The defense did hope to bring up digestion but it was a very minor part even for the defense. The only reason I know about digestion is that the brother of that unstable lawyer is obsessed with it. Early on he kept tweeting at me about digestion and demanding that I debate him on the topic. It would appear that Cornwell is confusing FOAKer positions with the positions taken by the prosecution."

Time of death has been widely discussed on this forum, and is of course extremely relevant to the time line required by the one convicting judge, Massei.
How do you see this subject, or do you agree with McCall it is not important to the investigation (irrelevant)?
Click to expand...
I must admit I don’t really understand this tendency of quoting posts from other discussion sites, why not post a response on the site in question?

I remain curious to see how much of the minutiae discussed here will even been raised, then to read how the defence and prosecution present their arguments. Indeed, I wonder how the Caribinieri RIS evidence has gone down with the lay jury; did they understand what was presented?

To what extent will the professional judge’s guide (influence) the lay jury, do they objectively concede points of law made by defence or prosecution, will they really be explaining the science TOD, don’t think so somehow, and this for me is the interesting aspect of the appeal.
 
CoulsdonUK said:
I remain curious to see how much of the minutiae discussed here will even been raised, then to read how the defence and prosecution present their arguments. Indeed, I wonder how the Caribinieri RIS evidence has gone down with the lay jury; did they understand what was presented?

To what extent will the professional judge’s guide (influence) the lay jury, do they objectively concede points of law made by defence or prosecution, will they really be explaining the science TOD, don’t think so somehow, and this for me is the interesting aspect of the appeal.
Click to expand...

Those are good questions and since none of us are in the jury room it remains to be seen. I find this whole process in Florence to be more than just a bit bizarre. It doesn't seem like the Florence court has had more than a few hours of open session and has revealed exactly three points.

One, a seriously confused man has said that his brother killed Meredith and Amanda and Raffaele were not there.

Two, that 36I does not have Meredith's DNA is in it.

Three, that multiple tests are required for any credibility in LCN testing.

The first two are meaningless. The third however shows that Stefanoni's test methodology and results are questionable at least when considering 36B.

I don't get how how a lay jury and a professional judge can make a judgement based on the transcripts and documentation and so little else. Do they make copies of everything and instruct all the members of the jury to read it? And do they all do their homework? I have to wonder as does Coulsdon. Do they understand it? And what role does the professional judge have? What kind of dynamic does that create? Obviously, many of the lay people are likely to defer to him. But if they are confident independent people of their own mind, can they tell the judge to shut up and ignore him? Of can he oust them from the jury for not acquiescing to his authority?
 
CoulsdonUK said:
I remain curious to see how much of the minutiae discussed here will even been raised, then to read how the defence and prosecution present their arguments. Indeed, I wonder how the Caribinieri RIS evidence has gone down with the lay jury; did they understand what was presented?
Click to expand...
What's curious to me is that Madison Paxton can be someone called to testify at a trial, and yet she's assumed to have had no bearing on this case!

With that said, I, too, wonder what the lay-jurors are going to do with the Carabinieri report. For us here way up in the cheap seats, the RIS Carabinieri report should put to rest the issue of that knife, the one that has been at the centre of this case for the last six years.

To me, it's a complete scandal that a court in a civilized country would have such a piece of bogus evident before it for six years. But your mileage will vary.

The upshot is that the lay-jurors have pretty much been told by an inarguably objective source that this knife had nothing to do with the murder. Whereas we can argue like cats and dogs about what Stefanoni said she found as 36b.....

...... in a court of law that speck of presumed-DNA cannot be held to belong to Meredith Kercher. One would have thought that the lack of Meredith's blood would have sealed that decision.... as it would have in a court in England or America.....

But even for a court in Italy.... non-blood-DNA where 36b was not analysed properly.... well, that is now before the lay jurors.

In a sense, this is why Italy is now on trial. It's why trials are public things. Those of us up here in the cheap seats actually do get a chance to voice our opinions.....

.... you may have noticed!
 
CoulsdonUK said:
I must admit I don’t really understand this tendency of quoting posts from other discussion sites, why not post a response on the site in question?

I remain curious to see how much of the minutiae discussed here will even been raised, then to read how the defence and prosecution present their arguments. Indeed, I wonder how the Caribinieri RIS evidence has gone down with the lay jury; did they understand what was presented?

To what extent will the professional judge’s guide (influence) the lay jury, do they objectively concede points of law made by defence or prosecution, will they really be explaining the science TOD, don’t think so somehow, and this for me is the interesting aspect of the appeal.
Click to expand...
The reason I don't attempt to post on PMF org is that it resembles a club, where those who describe a set of facts (I regard pre 10pm tod as a fact) that would acquit seem to get away with it by pretending to be new to the case, but are soon outed as "trolls" whatever they are, and the moderators soon banish. This is antithetical to the process at JREF. It never occurred to me to respond to McCall on PMF, though I did to him on Bondbabe007's pseudo crime narrative recently, and his perpetual demand was to require elapsed time between police interview commencing, and AK saying Patrick dunnit. Anyone who failed to answer this was ignored. Huh? This is someone developing an encyclopaedia. Brittanica would be turning in their grave.
 
Wow, Machiavelli. I do think you blew a blood vessel on this one.... but take one point, as a case in point:

Machiavelli said:
So why is it strange to consider normal that she would pick up Guede and bring him at home for sex that night?
Click to expand...

Because at court the issue is not "strange" the issue is, "did it happen"?

For mercy's sake, Machiavelli, even Judge Massei, the convicting judge, does not posit this. Why do you?
 
Mignini's American cousin. Is this in store for the Italian prosecutor??

District Judge Kelly Moore found Former prosecutor Ken Anderson in criminal contempt of court Nov. 8 2013 for telling Morton’s trial judge in a 1987 pretrial hearing that he had no evidence favorable to Morton. Morton spent almost 25 years in prison after he was falsely convicted of the murder of his wife. Prosecutor Anderson was sentenced to a whole ten days!!!

Anderson entered the Willamson County jail on November 10th. But interestingly, Anderson who later became a district judge was released today after only 5 days.
 
Bill Williams said:
What's curious to me is that Madison Paxton can be someone called to testify at a trial, and yet she's assumed to have had no bearing on this case!
Click to expand...
Okay I assume she testified in the first level trial? I don’t even recall her testimony, so I guess I might be suffering from selective amnesia or her testimony wasn’t memorable and as such had no bearing on the outcome.
<Snip>
Bill Williams said:
In a sense, this is why Italy is now on trial.
Click to expand...
I really do not believe the Italian judiciary are particularly bothered what the rest of the world thinks.
 
LondonJohn said:
Shut up: my financial situation is now so dire (owing to the lack of income from Marriott) that I've had to go global in my search for work. For the past few weeks I've been masterminding the PR strategy for Toronto Mayor Rob Ford.
Click to expand...

LOL sounds like another "well paying gig".

I though the type of drugs he uses caused the body to decline... but now I think he has a severe addiction to that drug that causes the munchies...or perhaps that is how he keeps his wrestling form.

Anyway those sob's on the West coast are shorting me too so anything I can do in assistance to Rob would be greatly appreciated...come on throw me a bone.
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
Wow, Machiavelli. I do think you blew a blood vessel on this one.... but take one point, as a case in point:

Because at court the issue is not "strange" the issue is, "did it happen"?
Click to expand...

"Did it happen" is a question about guilt, only about some specific events which are sexual violence and murder.

But about the s.c. scenario, that is all circumstances surrounding the events, the only question that may be necessary to ask if it's possible or plausible.

Anyway the point is responding your lie, your allegation, which you know is false, about me "implying Guede was Knox's pimp"....
What I claim is that - given that we have already proof beyond doubt that all three are guilty and were in the house - it is perfectly normal to reasonably assume that Guede and Amanda were at home to have some drug-fuelled sex together that night.
 
CoulsdonUK said:
I really do not believe the Italian judiciary are particularly bothered what the rest of the world thinks.
Click to expand...

This could very well be true.

Politically, though, a conviction for AK and RS would expose to the rest of the world the state of Italy's system.... because a conviction would be perhaps in 2015 when the ISC eventually signed off on one. Eight years of the most famous case to ever come out of the country - that's what I call masochistic....

At the very least, they'd be open to the same sort of criticism as the US Supreme Court who by a 5-4 decision in 2000 handed the presidency to George W. Bush. (Arguably Bush would have narrowly won Florida anyway, but the point is that the US Supreme Court still has the stain on it's record of interfering in a political process.... read Bugliosi's book on that one!)

Gloria Allred, my least favourite US attorney, was on Piers Morgan's CNN program, and basically slagged Italy for it's legal system... she advised people not to do business there because of her own experience.

But, true, it is for Italians to experience their system and it is for Italians to discern if any correction needs to take place. In the meantime, neither you nor I are going to risk millions of business dollars there in this sort of legal climate - where "evidence" is literally invented on the hunch of a prosecutor, rogue or not....
 
Last edited:
Charlie Wilkes said:
I was exasperated by Cornwell's comments for the same reason I have found Nina Burleigh exasperating. Cornwell sees that the official story makes no sense, is unsupported by credible evidence, and the authorities are clinging to it for reasons of pride and self-interest. She is right. But she has the details wrong. She argues that something could have delayed Meredith's digestion, as though that would be a point to the defense. In fact, the digestive evidence points strongly to an early TOD, consistent with Guede killing Meredith just after 9 pm because she walked in on a burglary. It is sound evidence, the best available in this case, but it's not conclusive. The prosecution was able to introduce an element of doubt, which was enough for Massei to reject it entirely.
Click to expand...


I noticed all this as well.

She's just another ditto-head, albeit a benign one, and her "analysis" doesn't really help.
 
Machiavelli said:
"Did it happen" is a question about guilt, only about some specific events which are sexual violence and murder.

But about the s.c. scenario, that is all circumstances surrounding the events, the only question that may be necessary to ask if it's possible or plausible.

Anyway the point is responding your lie, your allegation, which you know is false, about me "implying Guede was Knox's pimp"....
What I claim is that - given that we have already proof beyond doubt that all three are guilty and were in the house - it is perfectly normal to reasonably assume that Guede and Amanda were at home to have some drug-fuelled sex together that night.
Click to expand...

Wow. I thought the trial was still underway? Has Nencini written the motivations' report? Truly, I thought I was following this closely... I missed it!

Or is the fix in, as per my own conspiracy theory of why the ISC sent it back for trial?

Why are they even bothering with a trial?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom