Page 374 of 536 FirstFirst ... 274324364370371372373374375376377378384424474 ... LastLast
Results 5,596 to 5,610 of 8026

Thread: Amanda Knox gets 26 Years

  1. #5596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fabrizio View Post
    Things like believing this trial was somehow only about the DNA and Curatolo shows your profound confusion over what's going on and lack of knowledge about the fundamentals of the case.
    You have been continually confused by fact that I regard the court in Perugia as the Court of Fools.

    When I speak about the need to place the defendants at the scene of the crime (which can't be done without the DNA and the Village Idiot), and that the rest of the case falls apart without them, I'm implying what a reasonable court would do. I've always said I have no idea what this court will actually do.

    If you think I'm wrong, find a legal analysis of the evidence that supports you (Please, no Barbie Nadeau).

    A blog by you would be howl. By now we would have seen that same photo of the train wreck at least 3,000 times.
    I believe it was about 3 times, and I think, well placed in the narrative. Seems to have worked, since it's still on your mind many weeks after last posted.


    Is that Johnny Cash I hear?

  2. #5597

    Default

    Nice spin: but no, you were insisting that that this trial was only about the DNA and Curatolo.

    ----------

    You are right: The train-wreck photo is still on my mind... I just kind of associate it with you. Even more so than the avatar of the monkey.

  3. #5598

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fabrizio View Post


    The trial is not taking place in the US. Maybe this is accepted here and not considered out of the ordinary. Did the defense raise an objection?

    In fact, I ask: during Mignini's comments: can the defense raise an objection?

    Zippy is right. Mignini's closing would have resulted in mistrial and discipline against Mignini in the US.

    You're probably right, too, that the Italian system for some reason allows the prosecutor in closing to expand his "statement" beyond the bounds of the evidence, good taste and truthfulness in order to collaterally prejudice the defendant. Yet another reason the Italian system is a barbaric piece of crap. If there is Karma, this garbage is going to come back and bite Mignini in the ass.

  4. #5599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fabrizio View Post
    Nice spin: but no, you were insisting that that this trial was only about the DNA and Curatolo.
    I can't even say nice spin.

    Not only did I the not insist "what the trial was about", but I actually stated what a reasonable court would do when this same thing came up before. If you haven't figured out by now what I think about this trial, you're in a coma.

    It's a farce.

    I'm not going to waste my time finding it, unless we make it interesting.

    If I find it, you don't post on this thread for a month.
    If I don't, I won't post on this thread for a month.

  5. #5600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oybama View Post
    I read an interesting article about female sex criminals who kill other females and two points stood out: 1. Females usually find a male to do their dirty work and 2. The victims genitals are usually mutilated (i.e. with a knife). In this case we have a knife to the neck, which indicates that someone was trying to keep someone silent. I have not read anything about genital mutilation in this case, so that brings further doubt about any female on female sex crime. On the other hand a male/female rape/murder with a neck wound is very common.

    One question I have in this case is did Guede go to the house to rape? murder? or just burgle? Most people believe that he came to burgle the place, but I think he might have gone to rape, or at least have sex with someone in the house. If so did he have a specific target? Who?
    No one can be sure what Guede's motive was, unless he tells us. Even if he tells us, because at least half of what he has said so far is clearly not true.

    Re: research into crime patterns male/female. IF it turned out that the prosecution theory was true (which it isn't), it would be a crime that is extremely rare. It is almost unheard of that a young woman with no history of violence of any kind suddenly decides to lead two men, only one of which speaks the same language as her, and neither one of them who has ever killed anyone, into a violent murder. To date, I have never seen a similar crime presented as an example.

  6. #5601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oybama View Post
    Also, is it possible that Guede used a plank of wood, like scaoffolding, to get into the broken window. From pictures, it looks like the bottom of the windowsill might be at the same level as what looks like a walkway. Is this possible?
    Probably not. There is no evidence he used any wood. However, several people that have seen the window, and my own impressions from pictures I have seen, make it appear that a young, athletic man like Guede could have gotten up to that window, either from the side walkway by the front door, or by climbing the grate on the downstairs window.

    The mystery is more about why he would have chosen that window, when it is higher off the ground and more difficulat to get to than another option. Although that makes it a more difficult choice, it does not make it impossible.

  7. #5602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    I didn't mention the US. I said ethics.

    Attorneys get away with crossing the line during closing arguments because interruptions (objections) may be regarded by the jury as rudeness. Sometimes, the opposing attorney may think it's not worth it.

    You frequently say, "Did the defense....?" It doesn't necessarily mean what you want it to mean.

    Getting a jury to imagine themselves as a victim is a slimy tactic; that's why victims don't sit in judgement. If it's ethical in Perugia, well, that's just another problem.

    And presenting non-evidentiary items, such as people getting free transportation to Perugia, is really crossing the line.

    Ridiculously naive.

    Just another day at the Court of Fools.
    This line of discussion in general is what I have been trying to talk about from the beginning. My questions are not about what the rules are in Italy, would it be allowed in the US, or which journalists are good or not good (although the discussion has ended up going that way repeatedly).

    The point of all of this is, is it right? Yes, I am sure that in Perugia, things are done differently than in the UK or US. Yes, I know that in the US, some things are wrong, and I am happy to criticize those.

    The key issue here is -- is that is being done in this trial right or wrong? Yes, Mignini might have the right to do what he did under law; does that make it OK? There are many people somehow supporting what the police did in Amanda's interrogation, and somehow thinking it is fine to bring a murder case on the rediculously flimsy evidence and innuendo this case is built on. Is that right or wrong?

    * When the prosecution changes the motive several times during the case, essentially because the facts don't make sense, is that right or wrong?
    * When they subsequently argue that, because there is no motive (= no reason for these kids to have killed anyone), that is the rationale for punishing them even more?).
    * Is it right or wrong for the prosecution to defend the embarrassing forensic collection meathods, the blatant errors in which can be seen on video and are obvious to even amateurs?
    * Is it right or wrong to use a witness who has been shown to have substantial facts wrong, and admits to have been using heroin on the night of the crime? But he says that heroin does not make you hallucinate, so that is OK?
    * Is it right or wrong for the chief forensic scientist in the case have tested the so called "bloody footprints" with a confirming test for blood (TMB), then try to hide this from the court in her testimony by saying she didn't?
    * Is it right or wrong for the prosecution to say that there was "mixed blood" that was left at the same time in Amanda and Meredith's bathroom, when there is no scientific backing to that claim?
    * Is it right or wrong for the prosecution to say that, since Amanda testified that the bathroom "was clean" when she left on the day of the murder, that proves that her single drop of dried blood on the side of the faucet was not there then, even though it was not easy to see?
    * Is it right or wrong to use a piece of evidence (the knife) that was clearly not the murder weapon, did not match the wounds or the bloody imprint on the sheet, and was selected by the policeman from Raffele's kitchen drawer based on "police intuition"?

    This goes on and on. The only discussion I would have about Italy is -- is all this OK with people there? Maybe they don't know about it. Or maybe they don't believe it. Whatever. All I know is that it is wrong.

  8. #5603

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diocletian View Post
    Zippy is right. Mignini's closing would have resulted in mistrial and discipline against Mignini in the US.

    You're probably right, too, that the Italian system for some reason allows the prosecutor in closing to expand his "statement" beyond the bounds of the evidence, good taste and truthfulness in order to collaterally prejudice the defendant. Yet another reason the Italian system is a barbaric piece of crap. If there is Karma, this garbage is going to come back and bite Mignini in the ass.
    I'll differ with you here. You might be right, but I feel like I have seen several cases in the US (the high profile ones that we hear about) where an attorney has presented something outrageous in an opening or closing statement, and not only was not censured, but won the case. Actually, the two I can think of were both defense lawyers, so maybe if it was a prosecutor, they would not get away with it.

    1) In the OJ Simpson trial, Johnnie Cochran mentioned in his opening statement an alternative theory of the crime he said they would prove, then he dropped it and never presented any evidence of it. He basically pulled it out of his a**. I forgot what it was, but I can look it up if anyone thinks it is important
    2) In the Casey Anthony case, the defense claimed that Casey was abused by her father, yet produced no evidence of this. And got away with that somehow.

    Anyway, these were not the prosecution, but I'll bet that kind of thing happens in the US from time to time. Doesn't make it any less sleazy.

  9. #5604

    Default

    Zippy.... you insist on making personal comments. This thread has had to suffered through this constantly with you. From the "the advocate" ...on down.

    Others here are able to discuss the case with out jamming up the thread with this silliness.

    The logical conclusion to your personal comments and name calling is to bait me into getting banned.

    If you would like to ban me, then just do so.

    The other members here will come to their own conclusions on what it's really about.

  10. #5605

    Default

    ^
    Re post # 5595:

    You said "nice try."

    What you say I insisted isn't true. I said I wasn't going to waste my time finding the proof .

    Getting banned?

    You wouldn't be banned. Just not post in this thread. And I would be held to the same condition.

    I left it up to you. If you thought I was wrong, all you had to do was take me up on it. You wouldn't have to suffer through all those photos.

    My last photo is from Sfarzo. The caption is mine. Others found it funny.

    Here she is about to enjoy a snack from the refrigerator


    "Oh no, what have I eaten!"




    I think this trial is a farce. I think the people involved in the prosecution are scumbags. That's my opinion. I told you once before, if that upsets you, too bad.

    jamming up the thread with this silliness.
    Really? Why don't we let the others weight in on that

  11. #5606
    Forum Veteran MidtownGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    East Midtown
    Posts
    6,832

    Default

    "Oh no, what have I eaten!"
    Alfalfa, clover and rye. She looks like a horse.

  12. #5607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dougm View Post
    I'll differ with you here. You might be right, but I feel like I have seen several cases in the US (the high profile ones that we hear about) where an attorney has presented something outrageous in an opening or closing statement, and not only was not censured, but won the case. Actually, the two I can think of were both defense lawyers, so maybe if it was a prosecutor, they would not get away with it.

    1) In the OJ Simpson trial, Johnnie Cochran mentioned in his opening statement an alternative theory of the crime he said they would prove, then he dropped it and never presented any evidence of it. He basically pulled it out of his a**. I forgot what it was, but I can look it up if anyone thinks it is important
    2) In the Casey Anthony case, the defense claimed that Casey was abused by her father, yet produced no evidence of this. And got away with that somehow.

    Anyway, these were not the prosecution, but I'll bet that kind of thing happens in the US from time to time. Doesn't make it any less sleazy.
    It's a big mistake to promise something in openings and not deliver it, but I guess these guys got away with it. But it's not the same as a prosecutor sweeping in at the end of the case, and launching all sorts of bogus attacks that have nothing to do with the real issues and evidence, and hoping that this will poison the jury so much that they'll convict, evidence be damned. That's not right in any language.

  13. #5608

    Default

    ^ As I wrote earlier: if it was so over-the-top, it may well backfire... what will the judge have thought of it?

    And if anything, it should give the defense more amunition for next week.

  14. #5609

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post

    I think this trial is a farce. I think the people involved in the prosecution are scumbags.
    I think so too.

  15. #5610

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diocletian View Post
    It's a big mistake to promise something in openings and not deliver it, but I guess these guys got away with it. But it's not the same as a prosecutor sweeping in at the end of the case, and launching all sorts of bogus attacks that have nothing to do with the real issues and evidence, and hoping that this will poison the jury so much that they'll convict, evidence be damned. That's not right in any language.
    Well, let's hope the judge and jury see it for the obvious BS that it is.

Similar Threads

  1. London's Congestion Charge Two Years On
    By ablarc in forum News and Politics
    Replies: 192
    Last Post: October 2nd, 2008, 10:43 AM
  2. New Years Eve in Time Square
    By clasione in forum Social Club
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: January 3rd, 2005, 06:18 PM
  3. Airtrain Newark, two years and still growing
    By STT757 in forum New York Metro
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 27th, 2003, 10:17 PM
  4. Almost 2 years later, the events of 9.11.01 still hurt
    By Qtrainat1251 in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 10th, 2003, 10:34 PM
  5. Where to live? - Possibly moving to NYC in a few years...
    By Jonny in forum Moving to New York
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: May 21st, 2003, 11:48 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software