Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #13

[SMK]

Addendum: Actually, unless Aviello really did have the knife and keys, then he is lying, and why on earth bother with his testimony???:waitasec::waitasec:

 

[dgfred]

You might want to check Otto's post citing the "experts were calling for "maximum collaboration". Not quite the same as what you're implying. You do understand that they just got the raw data after months of waiting for it, I hope.

The supreme court decision has no bearing on the appeal. If it did, there would be no appeal. You might also want to ask why the supreme court didn't just name the "collaborators" as specifically being AK and RS.

Not sure where you get your information, but the mere fact that the independent experts have just received the raw data means they will be reviewing Stefanoni's DNA readings. If anything, the fact the they are reviewing the analysis of the DNA and the collection method is anything but what you've just declared.

As you might want to 'check'. 'maximum cooperation' is what they said.

If the defense is bringing in multiple people who claim to have committed the murder that equals to RG was NOT A LONE WOLF.

We shall see. I do hope you continue on when the appeals fail. That is something I am looking forward to.

 

[SMK]

As you might want to 'check'. 'maximum cooperation' is what they said.

If the defense is bringing in multiple people who claim to have committed the murder that equals to RG was NOT A LONE WOLF.

We shall see. I do hope you continue on when the appeals fail. That is something I am looking forward to.

Right. Instead of sticking to the simple Lone Wolf analysis of someone like Hendry, they are muddying the waters, bringing in multiple witnesses to prove multiple suspects, which could wind up leading back to the Rudy, Amanda, and Raffaele scenario. I just hope they know what they are doing.....

 

[otto]

You mean "Migs", the jolly old Perugian Prosecutor? :floorlaugh: Joking....a little levity never hurts....:innocent::seeya:

But of course ... Foxy Knoxy adds levity as well.

 

[SMK]

But of course ... Foxy Knoxy adds levity as well.

Nothing derogatory about "Mig" or "Migs", is there?

 

[OldSteve]

sniped for brevity:

..........
AK is the one who picked the bathmat up the next day and used it as a towel because no towels were in the bathroom. When she replaced it, she put it back with the footprint facing the shower instead of facing the door.
.................

My gosh that sounds gross - using a messy bath mat from the floor as a towel...
wonder if she was stoned....

 

[Malkmus]

As you might want to 'check'. 'maximum cooperation' is what they said.

collaboration/cooperation... the point is the experts are calling for it, not saying they received it. Your claim that the above quote somehow nullifies the complaint that Stephanoni took three months to hand over the raw data is mystifying.

If the defense is bringing in multiple people who claim to have committed the murder that equals to RG was NOT A LONE WOLF.

Rudy not acting alone, if that ends up being determined, won't somehow validate the forensic evidence and place AK and RS in the cottage that night. While I agree that bringing too many whacko inmates into the picture is potentially harmful, the fact that Hellman is allowing them to be heard tells us a lot about his opinion of the prosecution's case. As is his allowance of the independent review which Massei refused.

We shall see. I do hope you continue on when the appeals fail. That is something I am looking forward to.

I'm here to discuss the case as long as there is news about it, not enter a pissing contest over which side is going to win.

 

[Nova]

As you might want to 'check'. 'maximum cooperation' is what they said.

If the defense is bringing in multiple people who claim to have committed the murder that equals to RG was NOT A LONE WOLF.

We shall see. I do hope you continue on when the appeals fail. That is something I am looking forward to.

I believe three out of the five potential witnesses are to testify they heard RG say AK and RS were not involved.

Only two are talking about additional suspects.

 

[dgfred]

collaboration/cooperation... the point is the experts are calling for it, not saying they received it. Your claim that the above quote somehow nullifies the complaint that Stephanoni took three months to hand over the raw data is mystifying.

Rudy not acting alone, if that ends up being determined, won't somehow validate the forensic evidence and place AK and RS in the cottage that night. While I agree that bringing too many whacko inmates into the picture is potentially harmful, the fact that Hellman is allowing them to be heard tells us a lot about his opinion of the prosecution's case. As is his allowance of the independent review which Massei refused.

I'm here to discuss the case as long as there is news about it, not enter a pissing contest over which side is going to win.

Well they got it regardless, now the 'crying foul' and 'THAT BEING THE REASON THEY ARE NOT GUILTY' can finally stop.

If the defense is bringing forward others that were supposed to be there that pretty much squashes a lone-wolf theory. No way around that point.

Yeah, Hellmann crossing the t's at appeal shows his opinion of the prosecution's case... your hope regarding that is wishful thinking IMO.

Also makes Curatolo's testimony acceptable does it not? :innocent:

I'm just awaiting the next batch of excuses/etc after the appeals fail... not really a 'pissing contest' over which side wins.

 

[dgfred]

I believe three out of the five potential witnesses are to testify they heard RG say AK and RS were not involved.

Only two are talking about additional suspects.

Well.... how can you have a lone-wolf if there are 'additional suspects'?

*Honestly, do any of you pro-innocent posters actually believe this will be a benefit for the defenses?

If so, how could talk sooo bad of Curatolo not apply twice as much to these guys.

If not, doesn't it reek of desperation to you?

 

[dgfred]

sniped for brevity:
My gosh that sounds gross - using a messy bath mat from the floor as a towel...
wonder if she was stoned....

She did the 'boogie/shuffle' on it, not used it as a towel.

Yep, that same one joint was still clouding her mind.

 

[SMK]

Well.... how can you have a lone-wolf if there are 'additional suspects'?

*Honestly, do any of you pro-innocent posters actually believe this will be a benefit for the defenses?

If so, how could talk sooo bad of Curatolo not apply twice as much to these guys.

If not, doesn't it reek of desperation to you?

Where on earth have you heard a single pro-innocent poster say anything other than that this is weird and worrisome for the defense?:waitasec:

 

[Malkmus]

Well they got it regardless, now the 'crying foul' and 'THAT BEING THE REASON THEY ARE NOT GUILTY' can finally stop.

Straw man. Nobody ever said the lack of full disclosure re the raw data is the reason they're not guilty.

If the defense is bringing forward others that were supposed to be there that pretty much squashes a lone-wolf theory. No way around that point.

Sure, no lone wolf. I'm okay with verifying the inmates stories if there is any truth to them. The truth is, after all, what I'd like to know. And if Rudy told these guys something while sharing a cell with them I'd like to know what he said.

Yeah, Hellmann crossing the t's at appeal shows his opinion of the prosecution's case... your hope regarding that is wishful thinking IMO.

What is my hope?

Also makes Curatolo's testimony acceptable does it not? :innocent:

What makes Curatolo's testimony acceptable? If you're going to state something like this at least explain your reasoning...

I'm just awaiting the next batch of excuses/etc after the appeals fail... not really a 'pissing contest' over which side wins.

If you didn't claim to know the future it would help your arguments a bit more. The adversarial tone doesn't help either.

 

[dgfred]

Interesting you mention 'adversarial tone'... that is what I feel like I get from you just about every post of mine you reply to.

If child-killers and such are ok by you for the defense to use, wouldn't Curatolo be acceptable too using that logic? Did I explain that good enough?

Ha... nothing helps my arguments it seems, judging by your replies.

 

[dgfred]

Where on earth have you heard a single pro-innocent poster say anything other than that this is weird and worrisome for the defense?:waitasec:

You seem to be the only one honestly posting their worry.

 

[Nova]

Well.... how can you have a lone-wolf if there are 'additional suspects'?

*Honestly, do any of you pro-innocent posters actually believe this will be a benefit for the defenses?

If so, how could talk sooo bad of Curatolo not apply twice as much to these guys.

If not, doesn't it reek of desperation to you?

If you've read the last few pages of this thread, you'll find most of us are surprised that the defense is bothering with the accusations against other suspects and concerned that such testimony will muddy the waters and hurt the defense.

But it may be the defense attorneys feel they have to bring up anything that might exonerate their clients. I don't know exactly what defense attorneys in Italy are taught in terms of their ethical obligations.

 

[Malkmus]

Interesting you mention 'adversarial tone'... that is what I feel like I get from you just about every post of mine you reply to.

If child-killers and such are ok by you for the defense to use, wouldn't Curatolo be acceptable too using that logic? Did I explain that good enough?

Ha... nothing helps my arguments it seems, judging by your replies.

There's a difference between arguing points made by other posters and constantly accusing an entire group of posters of being dishonest, making excuses, and then claiming to know the future outcome of this trial as if we're too ignorant to realize it. You seem more interested in our intentions than the actual points we make.

Curatolo is discredited because his story had too many holes, was conflicting and it just didn't add up. If the same happens with these inmates then I expect the same outcome. This is another of many straw man arguments you've made. No one here has said Curatolo was discredited simply because he's a drug addict/dealer.

 

[Malkmus]

You seem to be the only one honestly posting their worry.

Then you should go back and re-read our posts.

 

[dgfred]

Yes, your intentions are interesting to me, and your 'actual points' not so much... because I don't hold your point of view.

Enough with the 'straw man' JREF stuff already. You can always ignore my post. I try to refrain from quoting you anyway, because you seem to have this 'reaction' every time I do.

 

[dgfred]

Then you should go back and re-read our posts.

Okeydokey.

Which part of 'I want to know what they have to say' should I decipher?