Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

I remember this; the verdict was second degree, not first degree murder if I remember correctly. The impression I had was the the judge disagreed with the verdict, and sentenced Woodward to a jail term that coincided with the amount of time she had been in jail for the trial.

This was also a case that appeared to be heavily influenced by media coverage in the run-up to the trial: for example, the parents were allowed to go on television and declare "there is no doubt Louise Woodward murdered our son" - so any claims that the Perugia media circus "couldn't happen in the US" need to be viewed in that context.

The other interesting thing about the trial is that the judge decided to announce his decision on the sentencing on the internet - the first time this method was used.

Yes, if I recall correctly the appeal judge reduced the conviction from 2nd degree murder to involuntary manslaughter, since he believed the prosecution had failed to prove intent to kill. Therefore Woodward was still held criminally responsible for the death of the child. I remember the fanfares and media circus on her return to the UK, and felt it was grotesquely inappropriate, since she remained convicted of a serious crime.

 

[Alt+F4]

As others have speculated it might be part of a legal strategy to get the court to order the semen stain tested, the intention being to prove that the semen is in fact Rudy's.

Whatever that stain is, I can't imagine how introducing the statements of a mobster and a baby murdering shovel killer will somehow get the stain tested.

Or both even, or both of them plus Oprah Winfrey, Vladimir Putin and Carrot Top. Why not? If absence of evidence is no longer evidence of anything then the sky's the limit. We can claim anyone did it, unless they have an ironclad alibi... heck, as we've just seen, we can still claim they did it even if they do have an ironclad alibi.

Well the defense isn't trying to introduce evidence that Oprah Winfrey, Vladmir Putin or Carrot Top are the killers. They are very specific as to who's statments they want to introduce in the appeal: Mario Alessi and Luciano Aviello. It's that nonsense that the defense decided to go with.

As for and "ironclad alibi", neither have one. Amanda's alibi has nothing to back it up at all and Raffaele's was not submitted at the original trial, we will have to see how it holds up on appeal.

 

[katy_did]

I remember this; the verdict was second degree, not first degree murder if I remember correctly. The impression I had was the the judge disagreed with the verdict, and sentenced Woodward to a jail term that coincided with the amount of time she had been in jail for the trial.

This was also a case that appeared to be heavily influenced by media coverage in the run-up to the trial: for example, the parents were allowed to go on television and declare "there is no doubt Louise Woodward murdered our son" - so any claims that the Perugia media circus "couldn't happen in the US" need to be viewed in that context.

The other interesting thing about the trial is that the judge decided to announce his decision on the sentencing on the internet - the first time this method was used.

Yes, I had the same impression about the judge (I remember the case quite well, as the girl involved was just a little older than me at the time). IIRC he had pointed the jury towards an acquittal in his closing words to them before they began deliberating. I still remember his words after the verdict about wanting to "bring the case to a compassionate conclusion" - a brave decision and I think the right one, given that there still seemed to be some doubt in the prosecution case.

The media coverage of the case was very influential, as you say; quite a bit like the Lindy Chamberlain case, in that Woodward was seen to be lacking in emotion and portrayed as being very cold. The type of media circus happening in the Kercher case was happening 10+ years ago in Boston, and doubtless many other places too - Perugia definitely doesn't have a monopoly on it!

 

[jhunter1163]

Attention all thread participants:

There have been a considerable number of reports from this thread recently. The Mod Team is currently reviewing the last few pages of posts to determine what further action will be taken. I strongly suggest that all participants keep their Membership Agreement in mind when posting in this thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[billyryan]

What I meant by the four knox sisters leaving court together,is a sucessful aplication to have raffaele and Amanda freed pending the result of the appeal.I do not know if there will even be an aplication for release,but one thing is certain that mignini has opposed all such aplications in the past and having got back on the prosecutorial team, one way or another,such an aplication may well be opposed again

And as reguards comparing mignini to joseph stalin,maybe you are right L J,maybe it would be unfair to joseph's memory

 

[platonov]

What I meant by the four knox sisters leaving court together,is a sucessful aplication to have raffaele and Amanda freed pending the result of the appeal.I do not know if there will even be an aplication for release,but one thing is certain that mignini has opposed all such aplications in the past and having got back on the prosecutorial team, one way or another,such an aplication may well be opposed again

And as reguards comparing mignini to joseph stalin,maybe you are right L J,maybe it would be unfair to joseph's memory

We earlier had the comparison with NKVD interrogation techniques [the overnight sleep deprivation thing] and the show trials of the 30's (and none of the innocentsi demurred)

But this thread just keeps on giving - now Mignini is worse than Stalin

.

 

[LondonJohn]

Just saw a trailer for a programme on Discovery Channel here (in the UK) this coming Wednesday, entitled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?". Interesting title. UK readers with satellite/cable might be interested in watching.

 

[Alt+F4]

And as reguards comparing mignini to joseph stalin,maybe you are right L J,maybe it would be unfair to joseph's memory

Disgusting. Anyone who in any way, shape or form compares this case to what Joseph Stalin did is extremely mentally ill.

 

[LondonJohn]

Whatever that stain is, I can't imagine how introducing the statements of a mobster and a baby murdering shovel killer will somehow get the stain tested.



Well the defense isn't trying to introduce evidence that Oprah Winfrey, Vladmir Putin or Carrot Top are the killers. They are very specific as to who's statments they want to introduce in the appeal: Mario Alessi and Luciano Aviello. It's that nonsense that the defense decided to go with.

As for and "ironclad alibi", neither have one. Amanda's alibi has nothing to back it up at all and Raffaele's was not submitted at the original trial, we will have to see how it holds up on appeal.

I don't think that anyone here is currently qualified to say that the testimony of either Alessi or Aviello is "nonsense". Clearly they will both have big battles to establish their general credibility, before even getting to the specifics of their stories. As I said before, my perception is that if their unsupported testimony was all the defence had, then it would appear doubtful that their testimony would be accepted as reliable or credible. But if that were the case, then I severely doubt whether the defence would even risk bringing them into the appeal in the first place.

So, for all we know, there may be elements of truth to either/both of their stories. I think we should therefore wait until we see what comes out in the appeal court before reflexively labelling their potential contributions as "nonsense".

 

[quadraginta]

Yes, if I recall correctly the appeal judge reduced the conviction from 2nd degree murder to involuntary manslaughter, since he believed the prosecution had failed to prove intent to kill. Therefore Woodward was still held criminally responsible for the death of the child. I remember the fanfares and media circus on her return to the UK, and felt it was grotesquely inappropriate, since she remained convicted of a serious crime.

It might also be pointed out that it was at the specific request of the lead defense counsel, Barry Scheck, that the jury not be permitted the option of considering a finding of manslaughter in the initial trial. He was trying for an all-or-nothing showboat defense, which backfired.

This was what the judge found unreasonable in the post conviction motion for relief. A significant portion of the jurors had been reluctant to find her guilty of the murder charge, but were persuaded largely because no other option but "not guilty" had been left to them ... by her defense.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Whatever that stain is, I can't imagine how introducing the statements of a mobster and a baby murdering shovel killer will somehow get the stain tested.

I'm guessing about a topic I have no real expertise in on this one, but I guess the argument might be "These people's stories look ridiculous, but we have a simple and definitive test to rule them in or out and if it rules their story in then our clients are innocent, so we would like it tested".

Then when the stain comes back as Rudy's for all I know they could drop the whole mobster/shoveller angle like a hot potato and never bring it up again.

Well the defense isn't trying to introduce evidence that Oprah Winfrey, Vladmir Putin or Carrot Top are the killers. They are very specific as to who's statments they want to introduce in the appeal: Mario Alessi and Luciano Aviello. It's that nonsense that the defense decided to go with.

I'm inclined to wait and see on that one. Maybe they are going to try to sell their stories to the judges as being true or at least grounds for reasonable doubt, but then again maybe they are just doing technical lawyer things to get some results they want and the mobster and the shoveller will vanish like Mignini's satanic conspiracy theories vanished.

As for and "ironclad alibi", neither have one. Amanda's alibi has nothing to back it up at all and Raffaele's was not submitted at the original trial, we will have to see how it holds up on appeal.

As I have said before, lawyers rarely lie about matters of fact, and since we deduced some time ago that Amanda and Raffaele's alibi was almost certainly sound based purely on the time of death and the computer evidence that was presented in the first trial (showing Raffaele and Amanda at home until 21:10 at the very earliest, when Meredith was probably already under attack) I think it's very highly likely that this additional computer evidence will prove that at least one of the two was at home from 6pm to 1am on the night of the murder.

If at least one of them was home from 6pm to 1am that scotches Curatolo as a reliable source immediately, and he was the only source placing them outside Raffaele's house at all on the night of the murder.

Since they vouched for each other's presence, either one of them is innocent of the murder and covering for the other - which makes little sense for a 6-day relationship - or they are both innocent of the murder. I'd want to see some extraordinary evidence for the first possibility.

 

[platonov]

"Well it turns out I was wrong, thanks for letting me know" ?

<snip>

The real problem is that we have computer evidence now to support Amanda's alibi, and DNA evidence doesn't come with a time stamp. If Amanda was not there when the murder happened, then she didn't do it. If Amanda didn't do it then any DNA traces found around the house must have been there before the murder, which is perfectly possible. So almost no DNA result is going to overrule the alibi evidence in a rational person's mind.

.....do you think you could tell us how you think the murder happened, assuming that Meredith died around 21:10 and Raffaele's computer was in constant use from 6pm to 1am?

............
This doesn't work - someone was using his computer from 6pm to 1am....................

As I pointed out to you within minutes of the doc being posted this is not what the defence claims - they have a vague 6pm - 6am 'screensaver' claim and a request for further testing - no more.

Although you seem to have changed from your earlier 9pm-1am to 6pm-1am presumably because the 6-9 period is not an issue -- But why not include the 1am-6am period ?? The defence do.

In any case your argument regarding what the defence even claims is competely erroneous.

Not even other FOAkers believe this - see London Johns recent post for example : and he even still argues for the early precise ToD (with some recent slippage ?) & the bathroom 'hokey- cokey' (although the existence of showers has now been finally acknowledged).


What happened to your recent definition....

Rationalists see the ability to turn on an intellectual dime as a virtue. In theory if you show a good skeptic ironclad proof that they have been arguing the wrong side of a case vigorously for years they will immediately say "Well it turns out I was wrong, thanks for letting me know".However most people who aren't trained to think that way don't, and even confronted with such proof they will take some time to very gradually rearrange the internal landscape of their mind to take this new proof into account. They'll say "Yeah well you think you're all clever and stuff with your proof, but you're a bad person, so I'm not going to believe it".

Also you appear to be again claiming a 9.10 ToD * - You dropped this when the 'screensaver' evidence came to light.

What has changed ??

* Lets ignore for the moment that this claim is on a par with the Stalin comparison & the defence haven't or wont made this argument.

.

 

[Matthew Best]

Although you seem to have changed from your earlier 9pm-1am to 6pm-1am presumably because the 6-9 period is not an issue -- But why not include the 1am-6am period ?? The defence do.

Presumably this is because nobody is claiming that the murder took place even as late as 1am, so what they were doing after that time is irrelevant.

///

1.61803 39887

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>
Next wednesday judge Claudio Pratillo Hellman is for the first time going to come face to face with Amanda Knox also in court will be Deanna and her two half sisters,at some stage the human factor is going to play a positive role,the good judge might just ignore the fat little bald would be(joseph stalin) sitting behind or infront or maybe on top of the new lead prosecuter and let four young girls leave court together to the aplause of the international press

That would be great, Billy.

 

[Matthew Best]

Also you appear to be again claiming a 9.10 ToD

I don't see that claim in Kevin's post. You seem to be conflating "under attack" and "dead".

 

[platonov]

That only works for Macavity

Presumably this is because nobody is claiming that the murder took place even as late as 1am, so what they were doing after that time is irrelevant.

///

1.61803 39887

I'm afraid this is not the case - nor is it the point.

Again, see my earlier ref to Macavity.

.

 

[platonov]

I don't see that claim in Kevin's post. You seem to be conflating "under attack" and "dead".

Kevin has several posts on this issue - although there may be some 'slippage' in some posts.
You seem to be conflating the post I quoted with another post.
But again this misses the general point over dropping the early ToD.
.

 

[Matthew Best]

Presumably this is because nobody is claiming that the murder took place even as late as 1am

I'm afraid this is not the case - nor is it the point

So you are claiming the murder took place after 1am?



////

2.7183

 

[Chris C]

Does Colonel Garofano give a reason why he believes the luminol was over applied? Are there other reasons why there might be loss of detail in an image?

Also, this might not be an intelligent question, but why wasn't luminol applied to Meredith's bedroom floor or to the small bathroom floor?

Maybe because they where too busy turning the bathroom red and claiming its blood. Then releasing the picture to the media.

 

[platonov]

...not making it obvious

Originally Posted by Matthew Best
Presumably this is because nobody is claiming that the murder took place even as late as 1am, so what they were doing after that time is irrelevant.

VS

Originally Posted by Matthew Best/me
Presumably this is because nobody is claiming that the murder took place even as late as 1am

-------------------

So you are claiming the murder took place after 1am?

At this stage I would claim state that snipping the relevant italicized portion of the post is a poor way to concede the point.

Remember SomeAlibi's ? advice about not making it obvious when you or your argument have taken a hit.

Better to move on quickly and not make it obvious to the jury

Calling opposing counsel an idiot doesn't look good either.
An apology wouldn't be out of place.

.