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

[Machiavelli]

Good point! (You have made this point before.) Judges are in charge and are ultimately responsible for what is allowed to occur in the courtrooms.

Something which should further point to the inadequacy of judge Pratillo Hellmann (who had no experience as a criminal judge, btw).

 

[js202]

A liar has a right to be a liar. But he is a liar.
When a bunch of people lie, they are liars. If their lie consists in concealing a piece of truth by just denying or being silent about it, for that social behaviour in Italian we have the word omerta'. Which is everything you need to know about a community.
Their credibility is zero.

It is said that, because they are steeped in it, Eskimos have some 50 words for snow.

Perhaps the same can be said about lying and dissembling in Italy. Certainly its "justice system" is unconscionably byzantine and corrupt. Without question, it seems that Mignini, Maresca and the ISC have taken solemn oaths of omertà.

 

[Diocletus]

The defence didn't attend the test. They didn't access the laboratory for months.

That doesn't matter. They can still have the machine data. Anyway, you're wrong. Potenza attended the testing.

Such information was not specifically requested not even during the trial. A judge decided Stefanoni provided sufficient material and ordered she should not give anything else.

They requested the lab data. She hid it. I'm sure that the judge didn't expect her to hide it.

Moreover, you never offer the source for those claims.

So check it yourself. Go to the egram production and assemble all of the egrams from plate "365bis". You will see that she produced only 4 (757, 761, 770 and 771) out of the 16 egrams that were created at the same time that she created the egram for 36b. The rest, including the control(s) for that plate, are hidden away.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Actually Maresca asked repeatedly the judge to send away the public. In fact Pratillo Hellmann was sloppy, indifferent, appeared reluctant to send away the public. He made them step out the door. But several people could see.

You should blame Pratillo Hellmann not Maresca.

-

No, I blame Maresca because HE was the one who projected the image not Hellman. He could have just handed out photos to the Judge, Jurors, prosecution, and defense, but he didn't, and Meredith's parents still pay this man. It's disgusting and disrespectful to the victim and anyone who thinks it isn't is wrong.

What's the point of sending away the public, then there would be no need to project the image. Photos would have been fine.

d

ETA: I'm not saying Hellman was not wrong for allowing it, but Maresca is the one who actually did it. It had no evidentiary value only prejudicial
-

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the very definition of incompetence

A judge decided Stefanoni provided sufficient material and ordered she should not give anything else.

Any judge who would allow a lab tech like Stefanoni to decide what was sufficient would be incompetent and biased. It is the near universal norm that electronic data files are released to the defense during any normal discovery. They are far more useful than attending the testing, which is nearly useless.

 

[LondonJohn]

Something which should further point to the inadequacy of judge Pratillo Hellmann (who had no experience as a criminal judge, btw).

And if this is correct, then in itself it is a pretty damning indictment of the people above Hellmann who selected him for the role, is it not? I am hardly surprised that you cannot see that whichever way you cut it, it only speaks to the incompetence, malpractice and lack of fitness for purpose that appears to be endemic within the Italian criminal justice system.


(Hint: If Italian senior justice officials selected a 10-year-old schoolboy to preside over a high-profile criminal appeal on murder charges, would you blame the 10-year-old or those who selected him?)

 

[Bill Williams]

Actually Maresca asked repeatedly the judge to send away the public. In fact Pratillo Hellmann was sloppy, indifferent, appeared reluctant to send away the public. He made them step out the door. But several people could see.

You should blame Pratillo Hellmann not Maresca.

-


-

No, I blame Maresca because HE was the one who projected the image not Hellman. He could have just handed out photos to the Judge, Jurors, prosecution, and defense, but he didn't, and Meredith's parents still pay this man. It's disgusting and disrespectful to the victim and anyone who thinks it isn't is wrong.

What's the point of sending away the public, then there would be no need to project the image. Photos would have been fine.

d

ETA: I'm not saying Hellman was not wrong for allowing it, but Maresca is the one who actually did it. It had no evidentiary value only prejudicial
-

I wish I had a dollar for everytime a sin of the prosecution was pointed out, a guilter said the blame was really the defence's or a judge like Hellmann's.

My favourite was when a guilter claimed it was the defence which delayed the collection of the bra-clasp on Nov 2, 2007, to the middle of December. I'll just leave that for folk to ponder over.... suffice it to say that if guilters had a comprehensive timeline on how this crime was supposed to have been committed, they would spot the conundrum right away.

No wonder they seldom try.

 

[Bill Williams]

A judge decided Stefanoni provided sufficient material and ordered she should not give anything else.

Any judge who would allow a lab tech like Stefanoni to decide what was sufficient would be incompetent and biased. It is the near universal norm that electronic data files are released to the defense during any normal discovery. They are far more useful than attending the testing, which is nearly useless.

Once again, guilters blame others for mistakes made by principles.... in this case, a guilter believes that this explanation makes Stefanoni's omissions somehow legal.

In any other court in any other democratic country, the witness would be held in contempt, and ANYTHING that judge decided would be overturned at appeal.

But for a guilter, this makes it all right.

 

[Bill Williams]

There was no "30. Nov." hearing. The only hearing took place on Jan. 15. before judge Francesca Firrao. Who is a preliminary judge. No judge heared the Giuttari-Mignini case before.



Your source is providing you with false information. Mignini and Giuttari do not stand convicted of anything. They were not even indicted of anything as they came at the hearing.

The Florentine conviction was not "set aside", it was annulled.
It does not exist.
It was illegitimate. It was annulled in 2011 by a Florence Appeals court. Because the conviction had been handed by people who were found to be not impartial, since they belonged to the same office, the were implicated with and related to the same people who claiming to be offended parties.

There is no conviction.
There is now formally an indictment on this charge, which was unavoidable by the law, given that the prelliminary judge couldn't decide on the merits of it because of its complexity. But the next judge will be likely forced to drop it, because the law prevents him from looking into an investigation that has been already expired.

(..)



If you make such a claim, it's you the one who should provide a demonstration.

Once again, we will see what we will see. What is interesting at this point is that your account is at odds with Andrea Vogt's reporting. I think the Guilter PR Supertanker is not on the same page here.

 

[LondonJohn]

Of course. And instead the 'correct' one, the 'non-exaggerated' form, is the one that a bunch of very credible people invent now; it's the one they decide to concoct and make up after years when they are caught cheating...

So are you saying that in your view, the explanation of events that Knox apparently gave on her blog was a concoction (i.e. a lie)? If so, upon what information do you base that belief?

But my dear, nobody is under any sort of obligation to tell anything truth ever, except in some very peculiar legal circumstances. You have the right to lie about everything all the time, everybody has; there is no law against that; defendants even have a right to lie in court.

But the enjoyment of such right doesn't contribute by zero to one's credibility. A liar has a right to be a liar. But he is a liar.
When a bunch of people lie, they are liars. If their lie consists in concealing a piece of truth by just denying or being silent about it, for that social behaviour in Italian we have the word omerta'. Which is everything you need to know about a community.
Their credibility is zero.

Firstly, that is unacceptable as an appellation, so please don't address me in those terms again.

My point was not related to an absolute obligation. It referred to an ethical or societal obligation. In other words, why do you think that Knox (or anyone else who knew the truth) had any obligation to say to anyone (whether the courts or people like you) that not only was the "rape prank" accusation false, but also "here's really what happened"?

Why does it speak ill of Knox's "credibility" that she did not expand upon something that had already been morphed into something completely different and far, far more sinister? And who "lied"? Denying that the "rape prank" (ski masks, bursting in on housemates, threatening violence, etc) took place is not a lie, if what really happened is along the lines of what Knox described in her blog. And I repeat: why would/should Knox (or anyone else) have any sort of ethical obligation to correct grossly inaccurate events that are attributed to her? The apparent simple fact is that the "rape prank" did not happen. Therefore, a denial that it happened would be......... the truth - and a totally morally/ethically correct position to take.

I go back again to my counterexample which you unhelpfully snipped out of your reply. If someone accused you of sleeping with his wife, would you have any ethical obligation to reply: "No I didn't, but instead I must confess that I did kiss her very briefly once when we were both drunk". Or would you only have the ethical obligation to say "I have never slept with your wife"?

 

[RoseMontague]

And if this is correct, then in itself it is a pretty damning indictment of the people above Hellmann who selected him for the role, is it not? I am hardly surprised that you cannot see that whichever way you cut it, it only speaks to the incompetence, malpractice and lack of fitness for purpose that appears to be endemic within the Italian criminal justice system.


(Hint: If Italian senior justice officials selected a 10-year-old schoolboy to preside over a high-profile criminal appeal on murder charges, would you blame the 10-year-old or those who selected him?)

IIRC the explanation I have seen is that it was political. Some powerful politicians probably made some senior judges some offers they could not refuse to get Hellmann in there who was somehow bribed by money from certain media people in America and funneled through the Masons to Hellmann so he could buy more cars or something like that. So there are many layers to this conspiracy but when the justice system decides they are guilty on no credible evidence all is fine in the minds of the pro-guilt crowd. So what does this theory say about the Italian system of justice?

 

[AmyStrange]

I wish I had a dollar for everytime a sin of the prosecution was pointed out, a guilter said the blame was really the defence's or a judge like Hellmann's.

My favourite was when a guilter claimed it was the defence which delayed the collection of the bra-clasp on Nov 2, 2007, to the middle of December. I'll just leave that for folk to ponder over.... suffice it to say that if guilters had a comprehensive timeline on how this crime was supposed to have been committed, they would spot the conundrum right away.

No wonder they seldom try.

-

I lost track after $1,000.00.

But, it's not like the defense, Amanda and Raffaele didn't make mistakes either... it would just be nice if the PGP camp, once in a while, would admit mistakes were made by the prosecution and themselves,

d

-

 

[Antony]

I find the idea that the police allowed Patrick to talk to the press at all very unlikely. I can't find the date of the article right now, but it was fairly shortly after Patrick was released. There is no way they were just letting him go about his business, blabbing about what had happened to him in police custody.

There is so much we don't know in order to be able to corroborate this. Everyone says Patrick retracted the allegations on TV, but did anyone actually see the TV show? Patrick sued the cops for false arrest -- what do the trial documents say? Did he also allege mistreatment, which most certainly happened? If not, why not, when he allegedly had said it to The Mail?

The prosecution had to put its stamp of approval on everything in those days. They either gave the story to the writer or let her keep it because it benefitted their case against Amanda. If Patrick said it, he made an agreement with the police to take it back in exchange for coming over to their side of the case. But I don't think he was interviewed at all.

It may seem extraordinary, but the fact is the DM published the article using Patrick's name. It would be more extraordinary for them to have made it up, and for neither Patrick nor the Perugia police to have taken legal action against them.

There are plenty of more extraordinary things that happened in the case than the police "allowing" Patrick to talk to the DM. I would guess they were just so up their own backsides that it didn't occur to anyone until it was too late, to take Patrick aside and let him know that he would be well-advised to keep quiet about what happened. It wouldn't be the only piece of incompetence on their part.

 

[Dougm]

Re: Machiavelli's statement that Maresca requested that Hellmann clear the courtroom before the graphic photos of Meredith were shown, and that Hellmann was lazy and did not take action:

That conflicts with both the media reports and what I have been told by people I know that were present. I have been told that the people attending the trial were caught completely by surprise, much to their horror and consternation. The stories in the media also reported that this was done without warning. Maybe all these people are confused or lying?

 

[Machiavelli]

So are you saying that in your view, the explanation of events that Knox apparently gave on her blog was a concoction (i.e. a lie)? If so, upon what information do you base that belief?

Actually, your depiction of it with added crayon-coloured details and rationalizations was a concoction, as well those depictions made by the pro-Knox supporters.
Amanda Knox disn't give an 'explanation' at all, if you want to use ths term 'explanation' with some consequence - Amanda Knox made a half admssion in vague terms.
She is a defendant. She has a right to lie, to be silent or to be evasie or fuzzy. Not to be hold as innocent for that. But Knox already had no credibility and if she is not innocent it would be normal for her to conceal the truth.

Firstly, that is unacceptable as an appellation, so please don't address me in those terms again.

You are correct, the appellation was unacceptable. But your point was surreal. Your talking about 'obligation' is a surreal reply, we are talking about credibility.

My point was not related to an absolute obligation. It referred to an ethical or societal obligation. In other words, why do you think that Knox (or anyone else who knew the truth) had any obligation to say to anyone (whether the courts or people like you) that not only was the "rape prank" accusation false, but also "here's really what happened"?

It depends if they want to be believed or not if they want to come across as credible or not. What you call 'obligation' is actually a requirement in relation to the innocentisti calling Joh's report a "lie". If you remain silent when someone reports about a prank with people wearing ski masks, or about a rape prank, then you have no ethical obligation.
But if you start complaining about "lies" and point your finger against alleged "liars" about some information, you need to have a story of transparency with regard to that information.
Which the Knox-supporters don't have.

The anonymous reports about an April fool prank oranized by Knox against her roomates which included weraing ski masks and a rape threat, is information much more honest and closer to the truth than the innocentisti's denial.
Any other consideration is unnecessary. The pro-Knox group have qualified themselves for their omerta', their utter hypocrisy, their deceitful intent, their credibility and their moral profile does not deserve further comment.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
That conflicts with both the media reports and what I have been told by people I know that were present. I have been told that the people attending the trial were caught completely by surprise, much to their horror and consternation. The stories in the media also reported that this was done without warning. Maybe all these people are confused or lying?

Maybe they are lying without being confused, like the CNN reporter who described the crowd befor the Perugia courtroom as a group of citizens complaining against the police. Or like those who denied everything about the April's fool prank.
I was there in the courtroom, it was Hellmann's courtroom, and moreover all what happened was recorded in the transcripts.

 

[LondonJohn]

Actually, your depiction of it with added crayon-coloured details and rationalizations was a concoction, as well those depictions made by the pro-Knox supporters.
Amanda Knox disn't give an 'explanation' at all, if you want to use ths term 'explanation' with some consequence - Amanda Knox made a half admssion in vague terms.
She is a defendant. She has a right to lie, to be silent or to be evasie or fuzzy. Not to be hold as innocent for that. But Knox already had no credibility and if she is not innocent it would be normal for her to conceal the truth.



You are correct, the appellation was unacceptable. But your point was surreal. Your talking about 'obligation' is a surreal reply, we are talking about credibility.



It depends if they want to be believed or not if they want to come across as credible or not. What you call 'obligation' is actually a requirement in relation to the innocentisti calling Joh's report a "lie". If you remain silent when someone reports about a prank with people wearing ski masks, or about a rape prank, then you have no ethical obligation.
But if you start complaining about "lies" and point your finger against alleged "liars" about some information, you need to have a story of transparency with regard to that information.
Which the Knox-supporters don't have.

The anonymous reports about an April fool prank oranized by Knox against her roomates which included weraing ski masks and a rape threat, is information much more honest and closer to the truth than the innocentisti's denial.
Any other consideration is unnecessary. The pro-Knox group have qualified themselves for their omerta', their utter hypocrisy, their deceitful intent, their credibility and their moral profile does not deserve further comment.

Wow. Your..... argument..... is getting more and more bizarre and disconnected from reality. Plus you didn't really address the questions in my post properly, but that's your prerogative of course.

I have to say that all these outbursts are at least entertaining, despite being both false and unsupported. I guess that's something.........

 

[Bill Williams]

But if you start complaining about "lies" and point your finger against alleged "liars" about some information, you need to have a story of transparency with regard to that information.
Which the Knox-supporters don't have.

The anonymous reports about an April fool prank oranized by Knox against her roomates which included weraing ski masks and a rape threat, is information much more honest and closer to the truth than the innocentisti's denial.
Any other consideration is unnecessary. The pro-Knox group have qualified themselves for their omerta', their utter hypocrisy, their deceitful intent, their credibility and their moral profile does not deserve further comment.

What on earth are you talking about? This was an April Fools prank... a joke, quickly resolved, quickly forgotten by all concerned.

This is making a mountain out of a mole hill. The only reason anyone is talking about this in 2014 is because for years, literally years, guilters/haters branded this as a rape prank. It was branded a rape prank on the misreading of a single bit of info from Amanda Knox. No one need to, "lie with silence". The whole original myth built by guilters/haters was simply silly to begin with....

..... and the proof? When it's revealed that it was an April Fools prank, a joke with neither criminal intent nor consequence, the guilters/haters reverse themselves and blame Amanda supporters for being silent!!!! Sheesh.

Is was the guilters/haters who originally tried to make their own false reporting into the Rosetta Stone of understanding a potential psychopathology lurking deep within Amanda Knox - and then when the false reporting is confirmed as.... er, false!, then the very reporters who'd been spreading the lie blame Amanda supporters for.....

Never mind.... This is the ultimate in dietrology. Not to mention confirmation bias.

Sheesh.

Dare I repeat, that even the convicting judge describes no psychopathology in either Amanda Knox OR Raffaele Sollecito. Have you not read the Massei motivations report?

 

[andreajo]

The pro-Knox group have qualified themselves for their omerta', their utter hypocrisy, their deceitful intent, their credibility and their moral profile does not deserve further comment.

Can you be more specific about this group of people? What are your criteria for belonging to the 'pro-Knox' group?

 

[Machiavelli]

And if this is correct, then in itself it is a pretty damning indictment of the people above Hellmann who selected him for the role, is it not? I am hardly surprised that you cannot see that whichever way you cut it, it only speaks to the incompetence, malpractice and lack of fitness for purpose that appears to be endemic within the Italian criminal justice system.

(Hint: If Italian senior justice officials selected a 10-year-old schoolboy to preside over a high-profile criminal appeal on murder charges, would you blame the 10-year-old or those who selected him?)

The problem with this theory is that 1. Amanda Knox is under trial, not "the Italian system", and : 2. anyway no one is in moral or ethical position to be a "judge" of the Italian justice system, this is especially for a country that has a system like the USA has.

Hellmann was chosen by one specific person, which is a person I have very well in mind.
Anyway, Claudio Pratillo Hellmann is not a 10 year old boy and he's equally responsible.