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

[AmyStrange]

-

​

Is this really the quality of your arguments? Sniping?

If you think that because people might remember something slightly differently is lying, than you must do a lot of lying. There is a huge difference between "mis-remembering" and lying. Ever hear two people describe the same event? Sometimes you wonder if it was the same event. People see and remember things differently and differently from day to day.

If Amanda answered every question exactly the same, people like you would say it's clear..they must have "rehearsed" their stories. Nobody remembers things exactly the same.

The phenomenon you are demonstrating is confirmation bias. Feel free to look it up.

-

There's a game we play here in the US (other places probably play it too) called "telephone". I've mostly seen it played at non-alcohol parties where there are a lot of people, and what you do is get everyone in a circle. One person starts off by whispering into the person's ear to their left a short story (usually not more than two or three sentences) and then that person does the same thing until it goes full circle and then either the last person says out loud what he heard or the person who started it tells what they said and vice versa.

I have never heard a story make it around without it being so totally changed it was unrecognizable and most of the times funny as hell.

Even two people who watch the same movie will give you a different review than your own. Bad memories, different interpretations, priorities, prejudices, perspectives, likes, dislikes, and even sometimes the facts get changed around a little.

It's why, in my opinion, eyewitness testimony is almost always unreliable,

d

-

 

[Diocletus]

It seems the date of the inquiry into Judge Nencini's post-conviction comments is now set for Mar 11. Unclear is if this will have any bearing on the decision itself.

http://firenze.repubblica.it/cronaca/2014/02/19/news/meredith_a_marzo_giudice_nencini_davanti_al_csm-79069274/

As well as the potentially prejudicial remarks he made about Raffaele, they are also looking into his remarks about the "boys night out" theory, yet another motive in the ever-changing landscape of this wrongful conviction.

I predict that they will say "caso chiuso" and give Nencini a medal.

 

[Diocletus]

Oh boy!

Your various posts refer. I have no idea what you are on about, really.

As far as I am concerned I was effectively commenting on two defendant’s different approaches in the same trial, most of what you rant about applied to Amanda and yet she testified! Furthermore, I find the different approaches baffling; now if you or anyone else wish to extrapolate more than that, then go for it.

Frankly, I'm baffled as to why you are baffled. Do you believe that co-defendants have to do the exact same things at trial? Why?

 

[anglolawyer]

Yes I saw and heard that as well. I couldn't believe she said what she said instead of saying no mixed blood was demonstrated to exist and in fact the court never agreed with the prosecution's contention. Further I would have described the collection technique and mentioned the lack of a source for Amanda's blood and that in the murder room no DNA of Amanda was found, which would be odd if she were bleeding. I don't believe Amanda's blood was anywhere except on her pillow case and the faucet.

Gino is much smarter than their edit made her look. Accident?

Re: post 10053:

You may have missed that anglolawyer was being facetious.


In fact, others harmed Amanda because of her testimony. She was charged with defamation for claiming that she'd been hit at interrogation.

So you see.... in Italy, there are many hidden perils in lifting one's right to silence and not having any meaning impugned to it.

Except for the Nencini court. If you testify, you get a further charge of defamation. If you don't you are considered guilty for not ratting out the other person.

Sir: what we are witnessing are the very mechanics and roadmap of this wrongful conviction.

Good for you, for being done with it.

No Bill, not this time. I really am mystified not that Raffaele did not give evidence but by the fact that he does not know why not. Of course LJ is right that adverse inferences cannot be drawn from that and if Nencini is doing so that would be great news for Raf's prospects in the ISC or, failing that, the ECHR but I don't get it. People may not know that the client is the boss, not the lawyer (nor the accountant, surveyor, architect, doctor etc etc). Ultimately, it was up to him whether he testified but, being young and all, he may not have understood he could assert himself if he wanted, ultimately to the point of sacking his lawyers and conducting his own defence.

I also stand by what I said that, without a lot of preparation, he would likely have made a lousy witness. He admits his naiëvety in his book and gives a horrifying account of his performance before Matteini. He also came up with the knife prick story. He was under the impression he either had to explain everything or he must be guilty.

anglolawyer,

Sarah Gino can be more effective than that one quote suggested. She is right in the sense that Amanda did bleed in the bathroom (though this is separate from the issue mixed DNA), but she should have made her points more clearly. One wonders what ended up on the cutting room floor. However, the filmmakers (I won't call them documentarians any longer) could have called upon people like Allan Jamieson or Bruce Budowle to counterbalance Dr. Balding's points (which I thought deserved to be challenged). I am most of the way through the documentary, and I still have not heard anything about Conti and Vecchiotti, who were independent.

Oh I agree Chris. I think you can see how nastily she has been edited to make her look supercilious and facile.

 

[acbytesla]

-

There's a game we play here in the US (other places probably play it too) called "telephone". I've mostly seen it played at non-alcohol parties where there are a lot of people, and what you do is get everyone in a circle. One person starts off by whispering into the person's ear to their left a short story (usually not more than two or three sentences) and then that person does the same thing until it goes full circle and then either the last person says out loud what he heard or the person who started it tells what they said and vice versa.

I have never heard a story make it around without it being so totally changed it was unrecognizable and most of the times funny as hell.

Even two people who watch the same movie will give you a different review than your own. Bad memories, different interpretations, priorities, prejudices, perspectives, likes, dislikes, and even sometimes the facts get changed around a little.

It's why, in my opinion, eyewitness testimony is almost always unreliable,

d

-

It's really about memories. Most of ours are only so good and we have to be very careful in putting too much faith in them. Unfortunately for defendants in criminal trials eyewitnesses are far too often effective.

That's why if I was a judge...in the US...not Italy, because I guess according to Mach, they can't do this. But I wouldn't have allowed Quintavalle, Nara or Curatolo to testify. Their testimonies are not only nonsensical, they came way too late to be considered reliable in such a highly publicized case. That doesn't mean that they were deliberately lying, just that their memories were tainted by all the media.

There was an experiment done about an event that a lot of people saw live on tv. Or did they? The event was portrayed quite differently in later replays of the event. What happened is that people insisted that they saw it live but when they were asked to repeat what happened, their recollections resembled more closely the later replays. They clearly remembered the event through the secondary and later reports.

How can you believe Quintavalle for example when his testimony contradicts his earlier testimony as well as that as the other employees or the fact that there wasn't a cash register recording of a purchase for cleaning supplies that early in the morning.

Curatolo has far too many problems to be considered seriously as well. Nara, well, it would be a physical impossibility for her to have heard what she said she heard.

Also, sometimes people lie. Some people like to be the center of attention and they will make up stories so they can be. That doesn't really mean they are bad people..but it also doesn't make it right.

 

[AmyStrange]

TOD this, TOD that, It's all about the FREAKin' TOD!!!

-

Obviously because he was guilty, right?

My guess is that they felt he couldn't really add much to defense except repeating he wasn't there but at his flat with Amanda. I don't think he is very glib and easily gets tripped up. His interview with Mansey is an example.

The point being made is that Nencini making the remark indicates he took into consideration the fact that he didn't testify which isn't proper, period. If a juror here said they decided on that basis the case would most likely be a mistrial.

-

Yeah, I totally agree that there are good sound legal reasons for Amanda to testify and for Raffaele not to testify, and technically (at least here in the US) it's not suppose to be taken into consideration while considering guilt...

BUT, (and I do believe he is innocent) it still came up in the back of my mind, what is he hiding from? Why doesn't he defend himself? It would be so much better if (in my opinion) he actually got up on the stand and started crying and saying over and over he was with Amanda that night and we didn't kill anyone, you have to believe me, crying even more each time he said it and finally collapsing to the ground in exhaustion... but that **** only happens and works in the movies. Real life is not so kind.

Suspicious minds take it even further and conclude it must be because he is lying.

But what's really going on here is a term we use in the US called "Monday Morning Quarterbacking", and what that means generally is that it's so easy to look back on something (hindsight) and say this is what the quarterback should have done instead of what he did do.

It's not fair to the people who are actually in the kitchen dealing with the heat and cooking the meal at the time.

That said, I am really disappointed with the defense. I would have been kicking and screaming from day one about the TOD and made EVERYTHING about that. EVERYTHING out of my mouth would have been TOD this and TOD that, but that's my opinion.

Your mileage may vary,

d

-

 

[platonov]

More ripples

dp

 

[Mary_H]

It just seems pretty straight forward. Amanda testified, Raffaele didn’t.

Again, why wouldn’t Raffaele’s own counsel place him on the stand?

It's a good question, Coulsdon. As we have observed, the defense teams for both defendants did not do what it might have taken to win the case. Whether allowing Raffaele to testify would have helped, I don't know, but I know for a fact that Raffaele wanted to testify. Bongiorno must have some rationalization, whether legal, political or personal. In his book, Raffaele says that Bongiorno's position was, "They want Amanda."

I don't think Raffaele would have had to worry about cross examination. When Amanda testified, they didn't even ask her about the murder, only about the cottage and the interrogations.

anglo says it was Raffaele's case, he should have been calling the shots, but most young people and many older people don't look at lawyers and doctors as professionals they are paying for a service, they look at them as authority figures whose advice they have no choice but to follow.

It's possible that because Raffaele is a soft-spoken person, Bongiorno might have thought he would look weak. Since the prosecution was trying to establish that Amanda had led Raffaele around by the nose and made him do her bidding, Bongiorno might have wanted to avoid displaying his personality in the courtroom.

On the other hand, I think it is also possible that consciously and subconsciously everyone involved in the trials knew Amanda was the money name, and it was more efficient to invest their energy in her than have to spread it around.

 

[acbytesla]

-

Yeah, I totally agree that there are good sound legal reasons for Amanda to testify and for Raffaele not to testify, and technically (at least here in the US) it's not suppose to be taken into consideration while considering guilt...

BUT, (and I do believe he is innocent) it still came up in the back of my mind, what is he hiding from? Why doesn't he defend himself? It would be so much better if (in my opinion) he actually got up on the stand and started crying and saying over and over he was with Amanda that night and we didn't kill anyone, you have to believe me, crying even more each time he said it and finally collapsing to the ground in exhaustion... but that sh t only happens and works in the movies. Real life is not so kind.

Suspicious minds take it even further and conclude it must be because he is lying.

But what's really going on here is a term we use in the US called "Monday Morning Quarterbacking", and what that means generally is that it's so easy to look back on something (hindsight) and say this is what the quarterback should have done instead of what he did do.

It's not fair to the people who are actually in the kitchen dealing with the heat and cooking the meal at the time.

That said, I am really disappointed with the defense. I would have been kicking and screaming from day one about the TOD and made EVERYTHING about that. EVERYTHING out of my mouth would be TOD this and TOD that, but that's my opinion.

Your mileage may vary,

d

-

The truth is that people think they can "read" others. That their good instincts that they had developed over the years will tell them the answers. I think the majority of time they may be right. That said, I'm convinced that even with the sharpest of senses and instinct they are still often wrong about others.

It's fine to make a decision about an employee or a contractor or even a lover based on that instinct, (I'm sure most of us have been wrong a few times with all of these)

It's another to think that instinct should be used to tell if a defendant's nervous manerisms or being fidgety or being confused is a sign of deception or just from being on the stand fighting for their life.

I'd sure hate to think that I helped incarcerate someone based on that.

 

[platonov]

More ripples

I see there has been an upsurge of comment as a result of a TV program.
What was the problem with this production ?

A focus on the victim and her family -- not good.

Mention of the third killer (the black* guy) who also proclaims his innocence - bad.

And coverage of the fact that he accuses the white kids - very bad.

Worse – some of the prosecution case gets aired.

*The guy falsely accused was also shown – I wonder did any of the viewing audience make the leap.

Luckily Gino [ bleeding & spitting !! - how much was she paid ] and an FOA talking head were also given airtime.

Why didn’t the FBI man get the latter gig - conspiracy theories beat the hand-waving / no evidence shtick every time. Had he threatened one of the journos involved or something.

Or are the british public not ready for the successor to David Icke's throne .

 

[NancyS]

It's really about memories. Most of ours are only so good and we have to be very careful in putting too much faith in them. Unfortunately for defendants in criminal trials eyewitnesses are far too often effective.

That's why if I was a judge...in the US...not Italy, because I guess according to Mach, they can't do this. But I wouldn't have allowed Quintavalle, Nara or Curatolo to testify. Their testimonies are not only nonsensical, they came way too late to be considered reliable in such a highly publicized case. That doesn't mean that they were deliberately lying, just that their memories were tainted by all the media.

There was an experiment done about an event that a lot of people saw live on tv. Or did they? The event was portrayed quite differently in later replays of the event. What happened is that people insisted that they saw it live but when they were asked to repeat what happened, their recollections resembled more closely the later replays. They clearly remembered the event through the secondary and later reports.

How can you believe Quintavalle for example when his testimony contradicts his earlier testimony as well as that as the other employees or the fact that there wasn't a cash register recording of a purchase for cleaning supplies that early in the morning.

Curatolo has far too many problems to be considered seriously as well. Nara, well, it would be a physical impossibility for her to have heard what she said she heard.

Also, sometimes people lie. Some people like to be the center of attention and they will make up stories so they can be. That doesn't really mean they are bad people..but it also doesn't make it right.

One of the many baffling things to this case has been people taking these witnesses so seriously.

Is it possible for anyone, regardless of heroin, to remember what Curatolo is supposed to have remembered? He apparently notices from some distance and at night, two people that he has never met - he then somehow recalls a year later that these two people are in fact the two people who have been charged with murder. It's not even that he had to pick them out of a line-up - all he had to do was say that he had seen the two people whose photo had been on the front of every paper for the last year and he couldn't even do that without getting confused about the dates :bangsheadonwall:

 

[AmyStrange]

Suspicious Minds

-

Suspicious minds take it even further and conclude it must be because he is lying.

-

I was just rereading what I wrote, and I'm sure someone must have said this before, but it's interesting that this one little anomaly shows the basic flaw in their reasoning ability.

It's called illogical thinking. Raffaele doesn't testify, it's because he's lying, but Amanda testifying also means she's lying.

It's one weird ass illogical loop of unbelievable stupidity and illogical logic that's dressed up to party like a hypocrite.

It would be more logical to say, Raffaele didn't testify so he must be lying and because Amanda testified, she must be telling the truth,

I can't help but paraphrase Forrest Gump (obviously a combination of guilt and camp, PGP camp et. al.), stupid is as stupid does, and of course, this is all my opinion.

Your mileage WILL vary,

d

-

 

[anglolawyer]

It's a good question, Coulsdon. As we have observed, the defense teams for both defendants did not do what it might have taken to win the case. Whether allowing Raffaele to testify would have helped, I don't know, but I know for a fact that Raffaele wanted to testify. Bongiorno must have some rationalization, whether legal, political or personal. In his book, Raffaele says that Bongiorno's position was, "They want Amanda."

I don't think Raffaele would have had to worry about cross examination. When Amanda testified, they didn't even ask her about the murder, only about the cottage and the interrogations.

anglo says it was Raffaele's case, he should have been calling the shots, but most young people and many older people don't look at lawyers and doctors as professionals they are paying for a service, they look at them as authority figures whose advice they have no choice but to follow.

It's possible that because Raffaele is a soft-spoken person, Bongiorno might have thought he would look weak. Since the prosecution was trying to establish that Amanda had led Raffaele around by the nose and made him do her bidding, Bongiorno might have wanted to avoid displaying his personality in the courtroom.

On the other hand, I think it is also possible that consciously and subconsciously everyone involved in the trials knew Amanda was the money name, and it was more efficient to invest their energy in her than have to spread it around.

My point is slightly different. He should at least know why he was not called by his own side. But I may well be missing something about their system. Why was Bongiorno criticising Mig for not scheduling Raf for cross when she could have done so herself? Their rules must be different.

 

[Planigale]

Cheating eh

Like editing a post halfway through a sentence.
No what I originally said was







The context is quite clear. Its not a list of charges – its a response to Dan O

Nor were AK & RS charged with sexual assault but were [Charge C IIRC] charged with complicity with RG with RG as the material executor in forcing MK to submit to sexual acts etc etc.

I'm quite sure RG (for his part) was in his trial charged with sexually aggravated homicide.

Now if you want to use this distinction of your own invention* to in defending Dan O's original comment/ JAQing off then knock yourself out .

*That as regards the sexual component of the murder RG was undercharged relative to AK & RS – part of The Italian/ black conspiracy against the white race no doubt.

So lets see the evidence for this / the charge against RG - but full quotes please, we don’t want any more misunderstandings or mendacious edits.

The 'broken window complexity' was just a dumb argument – this is dumb & mendacious.

It might be wiser to try one JAQing off post and then retreat into silence as Dan O did.

I asked you to be precise in the question you asked me to provide evidence for. You refused. It is your own lack of precision that has led you into error. You are still trying to change the argument from sexual assault for which RG was not charged to homicide with sexual aggravation a completely different offence.

Are you saying that when you typed sexual assault/murder you meant homicide with sexual aggravation as opposed to sexual assault and murder? I have provided definite evidence that RG was not charged with sexual assault of MK. That is a fact deny it if you want. If you are too lazy to look up the references it does not make me less truthful just you less prepared to be open to the truth. When I say AK and RS were charged with sexual assault that is a fact, denying it only makes you look wilfully ignorant.

I admit I have no way of knowing if MK family are happy that RG was not charged with sexual assault, I have no way of knowing if they are happy that AK and RS were charged. It just seems odd that the charges should differ. If you know why please explain.

I think resorting to bringing in racism in some form of ad hominem attack is purely a recognition that you have lost the logical argument so you have to resort to an emotional one. You know nothing about me or my attitude to other races.

 

[JREF2010]

I don't think whether Amanda was good at waitressing demonstrates anything about her work ethic.

The fact she was working, saved up, and went to college and made it to Italy, and then worked in Italy...says a lot more about work ethic, in general. I would consider this a exemplary work ethic.

Maybe its all relevant, but considering the conversation I had with a prison guard yesterday ...there wasnt any discussion about working and going to college.

But I also understand the Hate Mongers will use anything against her and /or Raffale, so waiting tables is evil somehow, not working is evil, working is evil....if Raffaele smiles hes evil, if he doesnt talk hes evil, if he does talk hes a liar...if she shows up shes a sociopath, if she doesnt show up shes hiding something, if she does show up shes putting a spell on everyone...

 

[platonov]

It's entirely clear to me that the reason why Sollecito was remarking about this issue was solely because Nencini had specifically brought it up in his ill-judged press comments after the verdicts. Nencini essentially implied that he found it hard to find Sollecito's story accurate or reliable on account of the fact that Sollecito had never subjected himself to cross-examination in the courtroom.
Sollecito basically replied - correctly - that nobody had ASKED to cross-examine him. The prosecutors and the courts had the right to ask. Neither party did so. So he was trying to make the point that it was hard to reconcile Nencini's implied criticism with the fact that neither Nencini nor any other judge or prosecutor had ever requested Sollecito to testify and be cross-examined.

And this whole issue speaks once more to the intrinsic structural problem that very clearly exists within the Italian criminal justice system: the uneasy amalgam of inquisitorial and adversarial systems. Under the old inquisitorial system, accused persons were supposed to "put their case", and in the absence of them doing so, the court was essentially entitled to take the prosecutor's case at face value (remember, the prosecutor in this system was supposed - in theory - to have no dog in the fight, to be purely concerned with finding the judicial truth).

But in a properly-functioning adversarial system, the entire onus is on the prosecution (and the court, by extension) to demonstrate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It's therefore entirely possible for a defendant to say not a word during the trial process without harming his/her defence in any way. And it's also entirely possible for the defendant to offer no defence whatsoever, save for claiming to the court that the prosecution has not proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, and be acquitted. There are certain circumstances in which a court can reasonably infer a defendant's silence to be a factor in favour of guilt, but those are narrowly-defined and specific.

In Sollecito's case, therefore, his failure to testify and subject himself to cross-examination should in no way have been taken as a pointer towards guilt. Indeed, it was probably a good option on his (and his lawyers') behalf. It has been shown over and over again that factually-innocent defendants can actually do their defence a great deal of harm by testifying in court and subjecting themselves to cross-examination. It's extremely simplistic and ignorant to suggest that all innocent people should testify in their own trials on the basis that they should have nothing to hide if they are innocent.

More incomprehension I'm afraid.

As I posted at the time

All this foot stamping over watergate etc is all very well but I have a Q

The following is from Nencini's interview

Sollecito’s lawyers had asked you to split the defence.

“We’ll explain the point more in the reasonings, where we will explain why we rejected that request. In any case, Sollecito did not want to be questioned during the trial.”

How come we didnt hear of this at the time.

Comment is very thin on the ground here on this issue.
Any legal strategy is allowed but the Honour Bound / railroaded innocents meme takes a hit if this is true.

Any insights CW

Coulsdon - Have there been pages on this that I have missed.

Or is this another Italian lie !

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Skype

I see there has been an upsurge of comment as a result of a TV program.
What was the problem with this production ?

A focus on the victim and her family -- not good.

Mention of the third killer (the black* guy) who also proclaims his innocence - bad.

And coverage of the fact that he accuses the white kids - very bad.

Worse – some of the prosecution case gets aired.

*The guy falsely accused was also shown – I wonder did any of the viewing audience make the leap.

Luckily Gino [ bleeding & spitting !! - how much was she paid ] and an FOA talking head were also given airtime.

Why didn’t the FBI man get the latter gig - conspiracy theories beat the hand-waving / no evidence shtick every time. Had he threatened one of the journos involved or something.

Or are the british public not ready for the successor to David Icke's throne .

Focus on the family? The only good parts of the documentary were the parts where Lyle and Stephanie were reminiscing about Meredith.

Mention of Rudy Guede? His lawyer got more time than almost anyone, and no one rebutted him. Rudy is still using the risible SODDI defense. It was a very slick, sympathetic portrayal of a murderer, and a very misleading one. Rudy has had more versions of his tale than Elizabeth Taylor had husbands. Yet the only time when he gave a version of events when he was not in custody, he says that Amanda was not there. Even now he has never been cross-examined.

Airing the prosecution's case? OK, but how about giving the defense's case equal time? Or here's a wacky thought: How about giving the independent experts some time?

Presenting the forensics of the case in a factually-correct and unbiased way? Someone asked Gandhi what he thought of Western civilization. He answered, "It would be a good idea." Same answer applies here.

 

[AmyStrange]

What if we're wrong and the GUMPers are right?

-

The truth is that people think they can "read" others. That their good instincts that they had developed over the years will tell them the answers. I think the majority of time they may be right. That said, I'm convinced that even with the sharpest of senses and instinct they are still often wrong about others.
It's fine to make a decision about an employee or a contractor or even a lover based on that instinct, (I'm sure most of us have been wrong a few times with all of these)

It's another to think that instinct should be used to tell if a defendant's nervous manerisms or being fidgety or being confused is a sign of deception or just from being on the stand fighting for their life.

I'd sure hate to think that I helped incarcerate someone based on that.

-

Very well said, but let's look at this from the GUMP (GUilt caMP) side for a minute.

Very rarely do we do this here and we should really do this more often.

Forget for a minute that the TOD evidence is conclusive, which is probably what most GUMPers believe is true anyway. Let's take what you wrote above and apply it to us, the IMPers (Innocence caMP). We think we are a good judge of character and are applying this good judgement in this case and one of the reasons why the TOD evidence is so conclusive, but what if our judgement is the one that's wrong here?

I believe that's the way the GUMPers see it,

d

ETA Hey, maybe somebody out there who believes in Amanda's guilt is even doing research and experiments concentrating on the duodenum and taking all the variables of the Meredith case into consideration and as part of parameters of their experiments, crazier **** has happened
-

Edited for profanity. Do not evade the autocensor.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Rat

 

[CoulsdonUK]

It's a good question, Coulsdon. As we have observed, the defense teams for both defendants did not do what it might have taken to win the case. Whether allowing Raffaele to testify would have helped, I don't know, but I know for a fact that Raffaele wanted to testify. Bongiorno must have some rationalization, whether legal, political or personal. In his book, Raffaele says that Bongiorno's position was, "They want Amanda."

I don't think Raffaele would have had to worry about cross examination. When Amanda testified, they didn't even ask her about the murder, only about the cottage and the interrogations.

anglo says it was Raffaele's case, he should have been calling the shots, but most young people and many older people don't look at lawyers and doctors as professionals they are paying for a service, they look at them as authority figures whose advice they have no choice but to follow.

It's possible that because Raffaele is a soft-spoken person, Bongiorno might have thought he would look weak. Since the prosecution was trying to establish that Amanda had led Raffaele around by the nose and made him do her bidding, Bongiorno might have wanted to avoid displaying his personality in the courtroom.

On the other hand, I think it is also possible that consciously and subconsciously everyone involved in the trials knew Amanda was the money name, and it was more efficient to invest their energy in her than have to spread it around.

The calm voice of reason, thank you for your response Mary and thank you also Anglolawyer.

 

[Desert Fox]

-
Very well said, but let's look at this from the GUMP (GUilt caMP) side for a minute.

Very rarely do we do this here and we should really do this more often.

Forget for a minute that the TOD evidence is conclusive, which is probably what most GUMPers believe is true anyway. Let's take what you wrote above and apply it to us, the IMPers (Innocence caMP). We think we are a good judge of character and are applying this good judgement in this case and one of the reasons why the TOD evidence is so conclusive, but what if our judgement is the one that's wrong here?

I believe that's the way the GUMPers see it,

d

-

My position is almost completely based on the phsyical evidence. They shoudl have left real evidence at the crime scene.