1230 users online (215 members and 1015 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 5 of 77 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 55 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 1151
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,308
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    So in your opinion, will the lay judges be likely to wind up:

    A. NOT having reasonable doubt due to explanations of stress, confusion, contamination, etc. ??

    Or could they:

    B. claim reasonable doubt, and excuse themselves because it was all so confusing and contradictory?

    Of course none of us can really know, but with your grasp of the Italian justice system, which scenario is more likely?

    I guess it could be said that here in the US, regarding the Casey Anthony verdict, the jury chose B. But in Italy, do they have a professional judge guiding their deliberations?
    Yeh they have professional judges along with the juries.

    I thought at this level it was 3 judges that make up the jury but I could be wrong, someone please correct me if I am wrong.

    It may be just confusion for me because of the way judge/jury is used with Italy.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    26,956
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    So in your opinion, will the lay judges be likely to wind up:

    A. NOT having reasonable doubt due to explanations of stress, confusion, contamination, etc. ??

    Or could they:

    B. claim reasonable doubt, and excuse themselves because it was all so confusing and contradictory?

    Of course none of us can really know, but with your grasp of the Italian justice system, which scenario is more likely?

    I guess it could be said that here in the US, regarding the Casey Anthony verdict, the jury chose B. But in Italy, do they have a professional judge guiding their deliberations?
    I can't begin to predict the outcome. I was shocked when Hellman was overturned. That decision somewhat restored my hope that the courts would review the case once again as a totality, rather than as a piece by piece analysis.

    If the evidence is examined one piece at a time, as it is often debated on forums, it doesn't seem difficult to find an excuse or explanation for each individual piece of evidence. It is when one views the totality of evidence that it becomes apparent that a difference excuse, or explanation, is required for each evidence item. For example, if a woman committed a murder, and each piece of evidence was explained in terms of: she was blind, then it can be reasonable to excuse each piece of evidence, one at a time, because one explanation addresses all the evidence.

    In this case, we have a mountain of evidence and an equal sized mountain of excuses. That's where the totality of the evidence becomes important. Lots of evidence and one sound explanation could mean not guilty. Lots of evidence and many sometimes farfetched explanations leaves me wondering how an innocent person could need so many unrelated explanations to distance themselves from what appears to be a fact.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,639

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by Harmony2 View Post
    Oh, thanks Harmony for notifying us. I promise to be good now.
    Now my philosophy is that it's never okay to kill someone. -- Convicted Murderer Jodi Arias

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,308
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    I can't begin to predict the outcome. I was shocked when Hellman was overturned. That decision somewhat restored my hope that the courts would review the case once again as a totality, rather than as a piece by piece analysis.

    If the evidence is examined one piece at a time, as it is often debated on forums, it doesn't seem difficult to find an excuse or explanation for each individual piece of evidence. It is when one views the totality of evidence that it becomes apparent that a difference excuse, or explanation, is required for each evidence item. For example, if a woman committed a murder, and each piece of evidence was explained in terms of: she was blind, then it can be reasonable to excuse each piece of evidence, one at a time, because one explanation addresses all the evidence.

    In this case, we have a mountain of evidence and an equal sized mountain of excuses. That's where the totality of the evidence becomes important. Lots of evidence and one sound explanation could mean not guilty. Lots of evidence and many sometimes farfetched explanations leaves me wondering how an innocent person could need so many unrelated explanations to distance themselves from what appears to be a fact.
    And this is exactly one of the problems the SCC found with Hellmann. That with the circumstantial evidence he singled it all out and came up with explanations for it, instead of looking at the whole picture the evidence creates.

    Thank you for this post.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,216
    It looks like a mivie will be released based loosely on the book "Angel Face" titled "The Face of an Angel". http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/a...potter-2830593 Please forgive if this has already been posted.
    All posts are my opinion only unless otherwise stated.
    Thanks!!

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,110
    Quote Originally Posted by aa9511 View Post
    Wow. Meaning we don't have to even pretend it just might be a possibility, because of such-and-such reason and because "everyone is different." And "not everyone does things the same way." And it just might be a possibility.

    I'm curious how we can use this standard for Rudy's statements but not Amanda's? We are expected to give her every possible benefit of the doubt in her "lame" stories.

    Amanda's stories are just as lame as Rudy's.

    To me, her stories are just as outrageous and hard-to-believe as Rudy's are. That's why I sometimes find it very difficult to entertain other ideas other than "that's just her lame story/excuse."
    Exactly, it appears that they are all wired to the moon, all three of them. With that weird incoherent way of answering questions you would be hard pressed to understand what the hell they are all going on about. The old dope must have scrambled their recollection of who done what that night or they are just trying to confuse by being evasive, bare faced liars. Maybe they are all in denial since the harsh reality of what was done to Meredith that night may be is too hard for any of them to face up to.
    Last edited by whiterum; 11-22-2013 at 03:46 PM.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    26,956
    Quote Originally Posted by redheadedgal View Post

    Knox was working illegally.
    Sollecito had a daily drug habit, just like Knox

    did i miss the post which provided the link/proof harmony requested?
    Regarding Knox statement related to a life of drug use, her bond with Sollecito over their mutual vice (illegal drugs), and marijuana being as common as pasta - which is a daily staple in Italy (like rice in China):

    "In Waiting To Be Heard, Knox recalls a life of drug use ...as she travelled around Italy en-route to Perugia. ... Amanda Knox ... admitted that marijuana was her ‘vice’. ... Knox describes how she and Sollecito bonded over their mutual love of cannabis. Around our house marijuana was as common as pasta"

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...oxy-Knoxy.html

    "Tense and anxious, [Sollecito] always carried a penknife and smoked hashish and pot with great frequency. ... Because there was so much grass, so much alcohol, he just couldn’t remember,” Raffaele’s lawyer offers helpfully. Only hashish and marijuana, he adds."

    http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/fe.../perugia200806

    Regarding whether Knox was working legally in Perugia, there has to be a work visa. I have never heard that she had a work visa, I have never seen a work visa, Knox has never claimed that she had a work visa, and Mr Lumumba did make one remark that she did not have a visa to work. When I have my computer set up (still using a temperamental antique laptop), I'll see if I can find that one sentence in the millions of documents that probably exist in relation to this case.
    Last edited by otto; 11-22-2013 at 05:48 PM.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    SWO :)
    Posts
    4,566
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    I've noticed that there seems to be some confusion regarding what it means to respect the Italian justice system.
    yes, let's respect a system that

    --admits into evidence dna test results from poorly collected samples
    --lies to a prisoner about her HIV status to get info out of her and releases it to media
    --"neglects" to tape an interrogation b/c of alleged budget constraints but then decides to spend over $200,000US on an animated video of the murder
    --releases misleading crime scene photos to media
    --fails to find blood on a knife yet determines it's the murder weapon: it's been cleaned (but dna from both the victim and perp are still on it)
    --accidentally (?) fries several hard drives so no further analysis can take place
    --accidentally (?) neglects to store a piece of evidence properly negating future analysis
    --literally framed amanda knox before she was even charged with a crime:

    "I could not believe my eyes when I saw the picture," says CBS consultant and Chicago private investigator Paul Ciolino. "There's a photo of Amanda Knox, an honor student from Seattle, hanging along side of photos of Italy's most vicious killers, kidnappers and mafia kingpins. It was unbelievable. I mean, the girl hadn't even been charged with a crime at the time, yet she'd become one of the big trophy criminals they'd bagged."
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/amanda-k...d-with-murder/
    *** THIS POST IS JMO (unless a link is provided) AND IS ONLY FOR USE ON WEBSLEUTHS -- PLEASE DO NOT LINK OR COPY IT ELSEWHERE ***

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    954
    Quote Originally Posted by Amber29 View Post
    And this is exactly one of the problems the SCC found with Hellmann. That with the circumstantial evidence he singled it all out and came up with explanations for it, instead of looking at the whole picture the evidence creates.

    Thank you for this post.
    Isn't it then one is getting into reasonable doubt? If you can mount a credible argument to discount a piece of evidence, as with pretty much you can do with almost every piece of evidence in this case as someone in the other thread did, you are left with reasonable doubt.

    I don't see how the DNA evidence can be relied upon at all. First of all, there is no evidence of MK on the knife. Two independent experts confirmed this and 20 experts from the USA said that the testing fell below standards. Second, there is not even evidence that it was the murder weapon - the cuts do not match the body nor do they match the bloody knife print. Same thing goes for the bra DNA - at least 21 experts discounted that evidence. Even if one wants to say those experts are biased, there is still reasonable doubt - you would not get more than 20 people risking their reputation to get a murderer out of jail, one, two, three, maybe but not all 20 and not independent experts. Indeed the Supreme Court of Italy said that further testing of the knife would be "decisive." They recently did the testing - MK's DNA was not found.

    Do people want a system where DNA can be admitted in criminal cases with standards that the scientific community say is not reliable? Do we want this case to set that precedent?

    And why no evidence of AK in the murder room? Did she hop around the room to avoid leaving bloody footprints? RG left a bloody foot trail - why didn't AK and RG? luminal never showed any evidence of blood for them only DNA, which would not be unusual since amanda lived there.

    Many statements people cite in support of Amanda's guilt are part of the inadmissible statement to police. Once you take that away (because it is inadmissible evidence) what are you left with?

    Finally, this would be the first case I ever heard of where someone would decide to join a murder of someone they know while a perfect stranger practically (what did AK meet RG - once at a party? And RS never?) committs a murder. That motive would sound more plausible if this was a cheating spouse or a business partner but for a 20 year old kid who really had no motive to brutally murder a girl she knew 2 months? There were no boyfriend issues, etc. Moreover, I never heard of joining a stranger in a murder even where you have a better motive like cheating spouse. And in many cases of multiple defendants, one often turns on the other. RS could easily have told the whole story - why wouldn't he make up a story saying AK did it and he just sat there? He would have been out years ago if he did,

    So what, RG comes in, decides to murder and AK and RS decide at the spur of the moment to join in the murder with someone that was pretty much a stranger? You would need evidence to believe this and another scenario - did anyone ever see the three together? Were there phone calls between the three? Did the three arrange to flee town together? Was there mixed DNA evidence between RG and the other two? Do people who believe in her guilt think this was pre arranged and if so what evidence supports that view? What is the motive?
    Last edited by Yellow; 11-22-2013 at 06:57 PM.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    954
    Quote Originally Posted by aa9511 View Post
    Agreed. That's what I'm saying, that they would have to essentially toss eveyrthing out. And there is just too much there to ignore.
    The most persuasive piece of evidence against her is already excluded - the alleged confession/false statement to police. Then you have the DNA - and the "excuse" to exclude that is VERY strong - many experts, including 2 independents experts- said it is not reliable.

    Without those 2 - one of which is already excluded and the other one of which would make the Italian justice system look pretty silly not to exclude - you are left with a very weak circumstantial case. For such a case to work, juries want a motive, you don't have that here, you would have to believe someone decides to join a murder with a perfect stranger just for kicks. I am not sure if that ever happened before especially where there is not already a motive for murder like competing for same guy, etc.


  11. #71
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952
    Quote Originally Posted by Yellow View Post
    The most persuasive piece of evidence against her is already excluded - the alleged confession/false statement to police. Then you have the DNA - and the "excuse" to exclude that is VERY strong - many experts, including 2 independents experts- said it is not reliable.

    Without those 2 - one of which is already excluded and the other one of which would make the Italian justice system look pretty silly not to exclude - you are left with a very weak circumstantial case. For such a case to work, juries want a motive, you don't have that here, you would have to believe someone decides to join a murder with a perfect stranger just for kicks. I am not sure if that ever happened before especially where there is not already a motive for murder like competing for same guy, etc.
    I know what you mean. I began by believing in their innocence, became open to their possible culpability, and now do see strong indications that they were probably involved - but I can't grasp any sane motive ( only insane ones) and cannot tell to what degree they may have been involved.

    Yes, juries do like a motive: Psychologically, you need to know why, and it's not as if AK and MK knew eachother for years and feuded over a man (there was a case in the US where 2 young women murdered their best friend of 15 years over long-simmering envy and boyfriend -stealing. Very different)

    And yet.....Despite millions protesting their complete railroading at the hands of Mignini, it is not so simple- at least not to me ( I will admit poring over all the murderofmeredithkercher wiki data has turned me somewhat. I am also one who finds it hard to dismiss thought-print analysis, since reading Andrew Hodge's excellent work). I just don't know how this will play out. I guess I can see the viewpoints of both sides, well. Perhaps too well.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Yellow View Post
    The most persuasive piece of evidence against her is already excluded - the alleged confession/false statement to police. Then you have the DNA - and the "excuse" to exclude that is VERY strong - many experts, including 2 independents experts- said it is not reliable.

    Without those 2 - one of which is already excluded and the other one of which would make the Italian justice system look pretty silly not to exclude - you are left with a very weak circumstantial case. For such a case to work, juries want a motive, you don't have that here, you would have to believe someone decides to join a murder with a perfect stranger just for kicks. I am not sure if that ever happened before especially where there is not already a motive for murder like competing for same guy, etc.
    The hand written letter is still in evidence

    From page 72 of the SCC report:

    6 ‐ The failure to [properly] evaluate KNOX’S handwritten letter

    The observation of the Prosecutor General is correct with regard to the failure [of the Hellmann Court of Appeal] to [properly] evaluate the letter written in English by Knox, which was translated and contained in the appeal files and which was already considered fully admissible by this Court [53] in decision no. 990/2008, it being a document coming from the accused, who wrote the letter voluntarily and in a moment of solitude (i.e., after the alleged pressure on the part of the investigators had ended) with the intention of defending herself, [and] pursuant to article 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In this letter, the young woman, without even wanting to clarify to herself and others the sequence of actions carried out the evening of the crime (“perhaps I checked the emails, perhaps I read and studied, perhaps I made love with Sollecito...”), admitted only to having smoked marijuana, to having had a shower with Sollecito, and to having dined very late; and then, placed herself in a dimension more dreamlike than real, writing of having seen herself crouching in the kitchen, with her hands over her ears, because in her head she had heard Meredith scream, even though these things seemed like a dream and she was not sure that what had appeared to her had really happened. She also added a very perplexing detail, that of having seen blood on Sollecito’s hands; but she says she had the impression it was blood from the fish (most likely cooked for dinner). Her presence “crouched in the kitchen” when she heard the victim’s scream and the presence of blood on Sollecito’s hand (linked to the aforementioned fish) are facts disclosed in a perplexing sequence, unless we interpret them as an attempt at clarification and as an admission of her presence in the house, which she reaffirmed when she specified that she saw Patrick (Lumumba, indisputably falsely accused) near the front door. She concluded her letter by saying that she “didn’t remember with certainty” whether she was at her house that night.

    It is indeed true that these reflections are of dubious substantial meaning, but it is also true that they cannot be dismissed – as they were – based on the presupposition of psychological pressure to which the author was subjected and of some mental manipulation that was exerted, first because the letter was written in complete solitude after the so‐called excesses of the interrogation and second because that same document was used by the Second Instance Court itself as the probative basis for the crime of calunnia, on the assumption of the full possession of her mental faculties, such that Knox was found guilty on the basis of this very letter (as well as on the basis of what she told her mother, once again in the full possession of her mental faculties, free from pressing interference, in the course of a conversation with her).

    On this point there is, therefore, an obvious contradiction in the evaluation of the same evidence, which calls into question the structural coherence of the decision: on this basis, the judge of remand will have to formulate a new judgment with more coherent argumentation, the issue once again being a significant passage of the justifying argument pertaining to the presence or lack thereof of the young woman at her residence at the time of the murder.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    406
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    I think it they were to focus on all the various details we have been discussing, the judges would conclude some definite involvement at least. The problem is, how far did that involvement go; was it peripheral or premeditated, and how firmly is it proven might possibly be a stumbling block.

    Additionally, doubts about the forensic evidence, coupled with diverse explanations on the part of the defense as well as some errors which were made (or at least were purported to be made ) on the prosecution's part, may make them waver when it comes to a firm commitment involving these two young people. Of course, that is just the negative view, but I am one to always take the worst and best case scenarios and compare them. I still wager the ruling is up in the air at this point....
    SMK, I really appreciate your posts. As I've been reading along, I keep having this scenario play out in my mind in which AK and RS were there but did not actively participate. I can imagine that they enter the apartment, hear the assault, but being completely stoned out of their minds, they don't intervene. Suddenly there is a scream and that part plays out as AK said in her lie about PL--she's plugging her ears and everything is a blurr. RG leaves the apartment and AK and RS are like WTF just happened? When they see Meredith in her room, they realize that they have just allowed this all to happen--they were too stoned to care or too stoned to act like a normal human being. They realize that this looks really bad for them so they try to clean up a little but mostly just leave fast and deny they were ever there.

    This would fit with there being big gaps in the DNA and evidence, for example not having evidence of their presence around Meredith. I really don't understand how they could have been holding Meredith down and left no trace on her. It also fits what people say about there being truth in a lie--maybe AK was describing what actually happened, just without PL. Also, she may have told her mother this account and her mother knows this looks really bad for her daughter and so she is willing to cover this up, because she knows her daughter was innocent of the murder itself. This also fits with RS's comments about never smoking pot again. Like that is such a big regret. Weed doesn't make you violent, but it does make you dumb. Just some wild speculation on my newbie part, but it is the scene that keeps running through my mind.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952
    Quote Originally Posted by song22 View Post
    SMK, I really appreciate your posts. As I've been reading along, I keep having this scenario play out in my mind in which AK and RS were there but did not actively participate. I can imagine that they enter the apartment, hear the assault, but being completely stoned out of their minds, they don't intervene. Suddenly there is a scream and that part plays out as AK said in her lie about PL--she's plugging her ears and everything is a blurr. RG leaves the apartment and AK and RS are like WTF just happened? When they see Meredith in her room, they realize that they have just allowed this all to happen--they were too stoned to care or too stoned to act like a normal human being. They realize that this looks really bad for them so they try to clean up a little but mostly just leave fast and deny they were ever there.

    This would fit with there being big gaps in the DNA and evidence, for example not having evidence of their presence around Meredith. I really don't understand how they could have been holding Meredith down and left no trace on her. It also fits what people say about there being truth in a lie--maybe AK was describing what actually happened, just without PL. Also, she may have told her mother this account and her mother knows this looks really bad for her daughter and so she is willing to cover this up, because she knows her daughter was innocent of the murder itself. This also fits with RS's comments about never smoking pot again. Like that is such a big regret. Weed doesn't make you violent, but it does make you dumb. Just some wild speculation on my newbie part, but it is the scene that keeps running through my mind.
    Thank you so much. I have had similar thoughts; and yes, such a theory is effective in closing the gaps and answering some of the puzzling questions.

    I also used to ponder if Knox and Sollecito had jokingly spoken of Guede raping MK and then when it occurred were horrified that he had acted on the fantasy, and realized that they had "put him up to it". I know that pot is not known to make people violent; and so in my mind I had precluded violence on their part.

    I suppose at this point it is for the court to decide and if they were accessories to this murder in any way (if they feel the preponderance of evidence points toward this, as I believe it does) and to rule and sentence accordingly.

    On the other hand, I do find this section of the Galati Appeal which was accepted by the Italian Supreme Court , thus overturning the Hellmann acquittal of the defendants, most interesting and telling. from the PDF which I have downloaded and forms part of my own files:

    ". . . Knox, in her [court] interrogation (transcript hearing June 13, 2009
    p 49), excludes having seen, she and Raffaele, into Meredith’s room, when the door was kicked in because she was away from the room, she was near the front door, in the living room.
    Marco Zaroli, one of the young men who kicked in the door in Meredith’s house, says that Amanda and Raffaele were off to one side [lontani = ‚far away‛+ and would not have seen anything (transcript hearing February 6, 2009 p 183). This circumstance has been confirmed by Luca Altieri (hearing February 6, 2009 p 220), and by Paola Grande, present with the other two (transcript February 6, 2009 pp 253 and 254).
    Also Inspector Michele Battistelli from the Postal Police says that neither of the two would have seen anything when the door was kicked in (transcriptFebruary 6, 2009 pp 73 and 74).

    Thus, Amanda has described the spot where Meredith was effectively murdered (in front of the wardrobe) and she has described the state of the body and of the room and the injury to the throat, in speaking with Meredith’s co-nationals, although, at the moment when the door to Meredith’s room was kicked in, neither she nor Sollecito, for certain, were able to look inside. According to her, neither she nor Sollecito went into that room that morning before the arrival of the police because it was locked. Yet she knew everything. She knew because she was in that room at the time of the murder and when Meredith was left in the conditions in which she was discovered. "

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    954
    Quote Originally Posted by song22 View Post
    SMK, I really appreciate your posts. As I've been reading along, I keep having this scenario play out in my mind in which AK and RS were there but did not actively participate. I can imagine that they enter the apartment, hear the assault, but being completely stoned out of their minds, they don't intervene. Suddenly there is a scream and that part plays out as AK said in her lie about PL--she's plugging her ears and everything is a blurr. RG leaves the apartment and AK and RS are like WTF just happened? When they see Meredith in her room, they realize that they have just allowed this all to happen--they were too stoned to care or too stoned to act like a normal human being. They realize that this looks really bad for them so they try to clean up a little but mostly just leave fast and deny they were ever there.

    This would fit with there being big gaps in the DNA and evidence, for example not having evidence of their presence around Meredith. I really don't understand how they could have been holding Meredith down and left no trace on her. It also fits what people say about there being truth in a lie--maybe AK was describing what actually happened, just without PL. Also, she may have told her mother this account and her mother knows this looks really bad for her daughter and so she is willing to cover this up, because she knows her daughter was innocent of the murder itself. This also fits with RS's comments about never smoking pot again. Like that is such a big regret. Weed doesn't make you violent, but it does make you dumb. Just some wild speculation on my newbie part, but it is the scene that keeps running through my mind.
    And the fact that this is a plausible alternative scenario raises reasonable doubt as to the murder and could explain some of her contradictory statements. She cannot be found guilty if it is possibly or probably. It is whether she did it beyond a reasonable and the circumstantial case is just too weak in the absence of a strong motive. You don't have any motive really.

    She would have had to leave physical evidence in the murder room. A confession alone is not even sufficient for a murder conviction, you need corroborating evidence, you don't have if here.

    No one may ever know what happened in that house - unless they subject Rudy to a lie detector someday. But I do not think either or them were involved in the murder - I think they probably were not there at all, but I could see a scenario like the above where they were out of it and did not render MK aid after the fact. That would explain the phone call, etc. They could even have arrived at the cottage later that night, saw the scene and did not do anything till morning - that could equally explain the evidence and would just show they were scared kids, not murderers.

Page 5 of 77 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 55 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 943
    Last Post: 01-31-2014, 10:01 AM
  2. Replies: 1026
    Last Post: 01-12-2014, 08:07 AM
  3. Replies: 1064
    Last Post: 01-05-2014, 12:29 AM
  4. Replies: 1013
    Last Post: 12-19-2013, 05:30 AM
  5. Replies: 1011
    Last Post: 11-12-2013, 12:34 AM

Tags for this Thread