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

[Bill Williams]

The high court acted farily and correctly. Hellmann-Zanetti was a proven abomination. It was a racist, filthy and inconsistent verdict wrong on so many points of law that the PG even failed to list them all.

Interesting claim. The ISC judgement and the critics of Hellman have never cited even one point of law. Everything is in terms of arguing with Hellman's interpretation of the evidence. On the other hand, the entire history of this case is riddled with breaches of law by the prosecution, and the one conviction against Amanda that does stand - the callunia charge - is itself grossly illegal.

How about identifying the points of law, Machiavelli? You don't have to list them all if there are too many - just the ones that invalidate the Hellman judgement. Since there are supposedly so many of them, it should be an easy task.

This needs to be repeated again and again.

 

[Grinder]

.
I'd also like to see an animated mock-up of how the supposed clean-up was done. It would have to show how Knox and Sollecito brought their portable electron microscope into Meredith's room - all the while levitating the microscope so that it's little feet didn't leave depression marks in the bedroom's cheap floor, or disturb the blood. Those machines are heavy suckers....

They used the Hoover DNA Dial-A-Matic 2001 model.

 

[acbytesla]

...... it simply cannot be overstated the effect this cartoon had on the decision of the Massei court.

Other than perhaps it fostering some final emotional impact....

... if the video is as depicted, this is NOT the version of events described in the Massei motivations report. As far as contributing to understanding the time line and motivations of the alleged perps, the cartoon contributed little if anything, really, even to the court which convicted the pair. The is 0% chance this will be shown in the Nencini court, which is perhaps the trigger for going after Comodi now. (I can just see her with her nose pressed up against the glass on the door to Nencini's courtroom... "But what about my video!??")

Machiavelli, for instance, can bleat all he wants about things.... but a video recreation of the attack on Meredith, based on Massei's reconstruction:

..... would show Knox and Sollecito messing around in Knox's room. Guede going into Meredith's room. Knox and Sollecito being alerted to "something happening" in Meredith's room. When they go and check they see that Guded is molesting Meredith.....

.... and completely inexplicably (and in a relatively short timeframe) make a spontaneous "choice for evil" to join in with Rudy in killing Meredith.

That's pretty much it, acc. to Massei. I do wish people would at least read the Massei report, esp. Machiavelli. Massei writes how iunexplicable it is that two otherwise psychopathological-free, promising students would do this.

I'd also like to see an animated mock-up of how the supposed clean-up was done. It would have to show how Knox and Sollecito brought their portable electron microscope into Meredith's room - all the while levitating the microscope so that it's little feet didn't leave depression marks in the bedroom's cheap floor, or disturb the blood. Those machines are heavy suckers....

Massei's logic is beyond bizarre. Not only would it be bizarre for Amanda and Raffaele to join in the murder, it would be crazy for Rudy to try and molest Meredith with Amanda and Raffaele in the next room!! Rudy may not be a rocket scientist, but he's not that stupid.

You don't try and rape a girl in her apartment with her roommate and her roomate's boyfriend 20 feet away!!!

How could he count on these two, one that he can barely speak to and met two weeks prior and Raffaele whom he has never met that they wouldn't immediately turn on him?

The answer is he couldn't, so this didn't happen.

 

[Bill Williams]

They used the Hoover DNA Dial-A-Matic 2001 model.

Gogerty-Marriott refused to pay for the Hoover. They had to go for the cheaper Electrolux.

 

[Poppy1016]

Interesting claim. The ISC judgement and the critics of Hellman have never cited even one point of law. Everything is in terms of arguing with Hellman's interpretation of the evidence. On the other hand, the entire history of this case is riddled with breaches of law by the prosecution, and the one conviction against Amanda that does stand - the callunia charge - is itself grossly illegal.

How about identifying the points of law, Machiavelli? You don't have to list them all if there are too many - just the ones that invalidate the Hellman judgement. Since there are supposedly so many of them, it should be an easy task.

So Hellman and Zanetti are criminals and filthy racists? Is this what you are stating Mach? If that isn't calunnia, I don't know what is. I only wish they could know your identity and have you charged.

 

[snook1]

So, what do you guys think, is it a good thing that there is a big gap between tomorrow's prosecution's closing arguments and defense's in December? Does it matter at this stage?

 

[Samson]

So, what do you guys think, is it a good thing that there is a big gap between tomorrow's prosecution's closing arguments and defense's in December? Does it matter at this stage?

It seems like another twist of the knife to me, forcing the defendants to endure the festive season with the prosecution's untenable lies ringing in their ears.

 

[LondonJohn]

So, what do you guys think, is it a good thing that there is a big gap between tomorrow's prosecution's closing arguments and defense's in December? Does it matter at this stage?

It shouldn't matter. Deliberations don't start until January in any case, so if the judicial panel is objective and professional, the order of legal arguments in November/December should have little effect.

Frankly, so long as the defence teams make sufficiently-powerful and robust arguments for acquittal - as they should easily be able to do - then the judicial panel will have no ethical option but to acquit.

 

[tsig]

It shouldn't matter. Deliberations don't start until January in any case, so if the judicial panel is objective and professional, the order of legal arguments in November/December should have little effect.

Frankly, so long as the defence teams make sufficiently-powerful and robust arguments for acquittal - as they should easily be able to do - then the judicial panel will have no ethical option but to acquit.

Why didn't the defense make these powerful and robust arguments for acquittal before and save all this trouble?


I'm amazed you expect the court to act in an ethical manner since they are sinks of corruption.

 

[RoseMontague]

Why didn't the defense make these powerful and robust arguments for acquittal before and save all this trouble?

I'm amazed you expect the court to act in an ethical manner since they are sinks of corruption.

I think the additional testing on the knife, which supports the defense case as well as Raffaele's expert report on the computers might make a difference. Even without this, Hellmann did acquit. Unfortunately there is a lot of corruption in the Italian judicial system and it is very political as well so I really have no idea how they will rule this time around. My opinion on the evidence is that it is clear that the accused are innocent regardless. What do you think the evidence in this case shows?

 

[Bill Williams]

Why didn't the defense make these powerful and robust arguments for acquittal before and save all this trouble?

I'm amazed you expect the court to act in an ethical manner since they are sinks of corruption.

I think the additional testing on the knife, which supports the defense case as well as Raffaele's expert report on the computers might make a difference. Even without this, Hellmann did acquit. Unfortunately there is a lot of corruption in the Italian judicial system and it is very political as well so I really have no idea how they will rule this time around. My opinion on the evidence is that it is clear that the accused are innocent regardless. What do you think the evidnce in this case shows?

If Machiavelli is to be believed (!) then this is a war. The trouble with Machiavelli talking about this as a civil war within the Italian judiciary is as Winston Churchill said - the first casualty of war is the truth.

Given that Machiavelli believes the evidence points to guilt, this is a curious add-on for him to make. Wars are to be won..... truth be damned.

That's the way it has appeared with all this talk that Hellmann is a Mason-bought criminal, etc. That Vecchiotti is a criminal.... etc.

 

[RoseMontague]

If Machiavelli is to be believed (!) then this is a war. The trouble with Machiavelli talking about this as a civil war within the Italian judiciary is as Winston Churchill said - the first casualty of war is the truth.

Given that Machiavelli believes the evidence points to guilt, this is a curious add-on for him to make. Wars are to be won..... truth be damned.

That's the way it has appeared with all this talk that Hellmann is a Mason-bought criminal, etc. That Vecchiotti is a criminal.... etc.

Don't forget that big names in the American media channeled the money through the Masons and that anyone part of the campaign for Amanda's innocence is also a racist and a criminal. Not to mention that Amanda used a secret mafia code in her writings to silence Raffaele and there is a large file of evidence that Amanda was sexually attracted to Meredith and that Amanda was a whore and Rudy was her pimp and that Amanda had a cocaine dealer on speed dial and I was there meant she was at the murder scene and we are all just idiots, racists, and just not very nice people. And that is only when we are not sleep deprived and our comments are not out of whack. And this is coming just from the one actively pro-guilt poster on the thread.

These others that just sneak in with a comment suggesting an appeal to authority and implying we are really endorsing a CT of Italian corruption don't really count because they refuse to discuss the actual evidence in the case, something I thought those on this forum made a habit of doing before taking a side on an issue.

 

[Bill Williams]

Don't forget that big names in the American media channeled the money through the Masons and that anyone part of the campaign for Amanda's innocence is also a racist and a criminal. Not to mention that Amanda used a secret mafia code in her writings to silence Raffaele and there is a large file of evidence that Amanda was sexually attracted to Meredith and that Amanda was a whore and Rudy was her pimp and that Amanda had a cocaine dealer on speed dial and I was there meant she was at the murder scene and we are all just idiots, racists, and just not very nice people. And that is only when we are not sleep deprived and our comments are not out of whack. And this is coming just from the one actively pro-guilt poster on the thread.

These others that just sneak in with a comment suggesting an appeal to authority and implying we are really endorsing a CT of Italian corruption don't really count because they refuse to discuss the actual evidence in the case, something I thought those on this forum made a habit of doing before taking a side on an issue.

Ok, ok.... if you put it that way, I concede! Mach is right!

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Why didn't the defense make these powerful and robust arguments for acquittal before and save all this trouble?


I'm amazed you expect the court to act in an ethical manner since they are sinks of corruption.

The arguments of the defense have been heard and rejected, just as the Egyptian gov't rejected the findings of the US NTSB on Flight 990 and for the same reason. To accept the truth is to accept human error in their illustrious system, and they will not do that.

The Italian Supreme Court issued a ruling in which they say the testimony of a homeless drug addict is "corroborated" by his ability to describe what was in news photos, even though he described the night before, rather than the night of, the murder.

This same court has ruled that evidence could not have been contaminated because court documents claim the crime scene was sealed after the murder, even though video shows the place had been trashed.

Nencini's court summarily rejected every request of the defense, including a request to test a semen stain found on the pillow underneath the victim's body. They accepted the requests of the prosecution: a transvestite who they were hoping would testify that he was bribed, but didn't, and a DNA test they were hoping would reveal the victim's DNA, but didn't.

That is the extent of their fact finding. Their charter, as defined by the Supreme Court, is to "osmotically demonstrate" some kind of scenario involving “the forcing of an erotic game pushed by the group, which blew up out of control.”

I have little doubt they will do as they are told. They will put out another vapid report describing a crime that never happened, and credulous loons will rejoice that justice has been done.

But then they will have to extradite Amanda Knox. I say, bring it on. We're ready and waiting.

 

[LondonJohn]

The arguments of the defense have been heard and rejected, just as the Egyptian gov't rejected the findings of the US NTSB on Flight 990 and for the same reason. To accept the truth is to accept human error in their illustrious system, and they will not do that.

The Italian Supreme Court issued a ruling in which they say the testimony of a homeless drug addict is "corroborated" by his ability to describe what was in news photos, even though he described the night before, rather than the night of, the murder.

This same court has ruled that evidence could not have been contaminated because court documents claim the crime scene was sealed after the murder, even though video shows the place had been trashed.

Nencini's court summarily rejected every request of the defense, including a request to test a semen stain found on the pillow underneath the victim's body. They accepted the requests of the prosecution: a transvestite who they were hoping would testify that he was bribed, but didn't, and a DNA test they were hoping would reveal the victim's DNA, but didn't.

That is the extent of their fact finding. Their charter, as defined by the Supreme Court, is to "osmotically demonstrate" some kind of scenario involving “the forcing of an erotic game pushed by the group, which blew up out of control.”

I have little doubt they will do as they are told. They will put out another vapid report describing a crime that never happened, and credulous loons will rejoice that justice has been done.

But then they will have to extradite Amanda Knox. I say, bring it on. We're ready and waiting.

I don't share your view that the current appeal is a foregone conclusion.

I think that the overarching "reasoning" of the SC last time out was based on a fundamental issue related to the dissonance between the findings in Guede's trial process and Hellmann's courts findings. I think that the SC was in effect saying: "Wait a minute, we've got one verdict that says multiple attackers, and we've now got you (Hellmann) saying Knox and Sollecito weren't involved. Let's have a new appeal court look at this properly, and decide once and for all. What's more, you (Hellmann) seem to us to have reached your acquittal verdicts without giving sufficient weight to the prosecution case. So that all needs to be redone as well."

In other words, the way I read it, the SC isn't saying "We think Knox and Sollecito are guilty: now go back and reach that verdict so we can end this thing". I think they are in effect saying "We are in no way confident of rubber-stamping acquittals as things stand. Go back and reach proper verdicts - whether acquittals or convictions."

Now, I think that the SC's reasoning was wrong anyhow, but that's neither here nor there really. What I DO think, though, is that Nencini's court is operating autonomously, and that it will reach what it thinks is the correct verdicts based on the totality of the evidence (or non-evidence).

If the defence closing arguments are as strong as they ought to be, then my view - as I said before - is that the court should have little logical option but to acquit. If it convicts under such circumstances, I'll be prepared to consider the sort of scenario you're outlining. But not unless or until that happens.

Let's see................

 

[acbytesla]

The arguments of the defense have been heard and rejected, just as the Egyptian gov't rejected the findings of the US NTSB on Flight 990 and for the same reason. To accept the truth is to accept human error in their illustrious system, and they will not do that.

The Italian Supreme Court issued a ruling in which they say the testimony of a homeless drug addict is "corroborated" by his ability to describe what was in news photos, even though he described the night before, rather than the night of, the murder.

This same court has ruled that evidence could not have been contaminated because court documents claim the crime scene was sealed after the murder, even though video shows the place had been trashed.

Nencini's court summarily rejected every request of the defense, including a request to test a semen stain found on the pillow underneath the victim's body. They accepted the requests of the prosecution: a transvestite who they were hoping would testify that he was bribed, but didn't, and a DNA test they were hoping would reveal the victim's DNA, but didn't.

That is the extent of their fact finding. Their charter, as defined by the Supreme Court, is to "osmotically demonstrate" some kind of scenario involving “the forcing of an erotic game pushed by the group, which blew up out of control.”

I have little doubt they will do as they are told. They will put out another vapid report describing a crime that never happened, and credulous loons will rejoice that justice has been done.

But then they will have to extradite Amanda Knox. I say, bring it on. We're ready and waiting.

It does seem this way Charlie, but then again the ISC said that sample I was critical. Given that the results were exculpatory, that at least leaves the Florence court an out to do the right thing.

I've got my fingers crossed that they will.

 

[Bill Williams]

The arguments of the defense have been heard and rejected, just as the Egyptian gov't rejected the findings of the US NTSB on Flight 990 and for the same reason. To accept the truth is to accept human error in their illustrious system, and they will not do that.

The Italian Supreme Court issued a ruling in which they say the testimony of a homeless drug addict is "corroborated" by his ability to describe what was in news photos, even though he described the night before, rather than the night of, the murder.

This same court has ruled that evidence could not have been contaminated because court documents claim the crime scene was sealed after the murder, even though video shows the place had been trashed.

Nencini's court summarily rejected every request of the defense, including a request to test a semen stain found on the pillow underneath the victim's body. They accepted the requests of the prosecution: a transvestite who they were hoping would testify that he was bribed, but didn't, and a DNA test they were hoping would reveal the victim's DNA, but didn't.

That is the extent of their fact finding. Their charter, as defined by the Supreme Court, is to "osmotically demonstrate" some kind of scenario involving “the forcing of an erotic game pushed by the group, which blew up out of control.”

I have little doubt they will do as they are told. They will put out another vapid report describing a crime that never happened, and credulous loons will rejoice that justice has been done.

But then they will have to extradite Amanda Knox. I say, bring it on. We're ready and waiting.

Someone had better go get Raffaele then.

 

[kwill]

That is the extent of their fact finding. Their charter, as defined by the Supreme Court, is to "osmotically demonstrate" some kind of scenario involving “the forcing of an erotic game pushed by the group, which blew up out of control.”

I have little doubt they will do as they are told. They will put out another vapid report describing a crime that never happened, and credulous loons will rejoice that justice has been done.

But then they will have to extradite Amanda Knox. I say, bring it on. We're ready and waiting.

And Raffaele? I'm more confident every day that Amanda will weather this thing, but how does the future play out for him?

 

[acbytesla]

And Raffaele? I'm more confident every day that Amanda will weather this thing, but how does the future play out for him?

I'm curious, if he was in Italy at the time that the Florence court rules and if they found both him and Amanda guilty would they immediately arrest him? Or do they wait for the Italian Supreme Court? I would imagine that they would arrest him immediately, but everything is so strange about the Italian judicial system, I don't really know how it would play out. If I am Raffaele, I'd try and be in the US when the ruling is made.

 

[Mary_H]

I don't share your view that the current appeal is a foregone conclusion.

I think that the overarching "reasoning" of the SC last time out was based on a fundamental issue related to the dissonance between the findings in Guede's trial process and Hellmann's courts findings. I think that the SC was in effect saying: "Wait a minute, we've got one verdict that says multiple attackers, and we've now got you (Hellmann) saying Knox and Sollecito weren't involved. Let's have a new appeal court look at this properly, and decide once and for all. What's more, you (Hellmann) seem to us to have reached your acquittal verdicts without giving sufficient weight to the prosecution case. So that all needs to be redone as well."

In other words, the way I read it, the SC isn't saying "We think Knox and Sollecito are guilty: now go back and reach that verdict so we can end this thing". I think they are in effect saying "We are in no way confident of rubber-stamping acquittals as things stand. Go back and reach proper verdicts - whether acquittals or convictions."

Now, I think that the SC's reasoning was wrong anyhow, but that's neither here nor there really. What I DO think, though, is that Nencini's court is operating autonomously, and that it will reach what it thinks is the correct verdicts based on the totality of the evidence (or non-evidence).

If the defence closing arguments are as strong as they ought to be, then my view - as I said before - is that the court should have little logical option but to acquit. If it convicts under such circumstances, I'll be prepared to consider the sort of scenario you're outlining. But not unless or until that happens.

Let's see................

I agree, LJ. It looks like Cassazione told Assizes, "Show us that the crime was committed that way," but my interpretation has been that Cassazione's instructions were, "See if you can show us that the crime was committed that way."