General Discussion

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)

36. Yes--he did. I am giving you an American language link, since I presume you do not read Italian....

Mon Sep 30, 2013, 01:58 PM

Sep 2013

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/09/07/jury-rejects-dna-request-in-amanda-knox-trial/

Hellman denied the prosecution's request for DNA testing.....why would he do that????

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

115 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Today's first ruling in Amanda Knox's fourth trial for murder doesn't bode well for a fair trial. [View all] pnwmom Sep 2013 OP

No wonder Italy's such a fucking joke Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Sep 2013 #1

It's the same country that convicted half a dozen PHD geologists of manslaughter pnwmom Sep 2013 #3

And this is the country JustAnotherGen Sep 2013 #12

Human Rights Watch has Italy near the bottom in its rankings pnwmom Sep 2013 #18

I still prefer JustAnotherGen Sep 2013 #22

Congratulations, you are the first person Boudica the Lyoness Oct 2013 #114

Did Amanda Knox ever pay Diya Lumumba the damages she owes him? On edit-- msanthrope Sep 2013 #2

I have no idea whether she paid the damages she owed him because pnwmom Sep 2013 #5

Well, she caused an innocent man to go to jail with her signed statement, an innocent msanthrope Sep 2013 #7

Living up to your screen name once again. Comrade Grumpy Sep 2013 #9

Ahem--getting the boss who fired you arrested for killing your roommate isn't a msanthrope Sep 2013 #16

Yeah, but Amanda is pretty so it's all okay. Pretty sure that's how that works. nt Demo_Chris Sep 2013 #79

What is Lumumba's attorney doing? Why is he even there? Comrade Grumpy Sep 2013 #11

Lumumba is a victim of Knox. He's there, representing his client's interests, and providing msanthrope Sep 2013 #13

He's there because Lumumba has a better chance of getting more money pnwmom Sep 2013 #14

He already has his damage award. As for the Kerchers, I don't blame them for suing all three msanthrope Sep 2013 #17

The Kerchers and anyone else who thinks Amanda and Raffaele were involved are sadly deluded. pnwmom Sep 2013 #19

Having read the Massei and Micheli reports, and being a criminal defense attorney, I will tell you msanthrope Sep 2013 #27

But you didn't read the Hellman report. How telling. pnwmom Sep 2013 #29

Oh--I read Hellmann-Zanetti. Helmann's denial of DNA testing is perplexing, and frankly, his msanthrope Sep 2013 #32

You didn't read it carefully then. He didn't deny DNA testing. pnwmom Sep 2013 #34

Yes--he did. I am giving you an American language link, since I presume you do not read Italian.... msanthrope Sep 2013 #36

Why would he do that? Because that testing would have been pointless pnwmom Sep 2013 #37

Wait a second--you want DNA testing of some stain on a pillow downthread, but here, you don't msanthrope Sep 2013 #46

The pillow was found underneath the sexually assaulted woman's body. pnwmom Sep 2013 #50

Wait a second--she wants the stains on a pillow tested....but not the murder weapon? I say 'stains' msanthrope Sep 2013 #55

She's NOT objecting to having the kitchen knife tested. She wanted it tested even more pnwmom Sep 2013 #57

Excellent. Then when Kercher's DNA is found on it, I suspect she won't be surprised. nt msanthrope Sep 2013 #71

I wouldn't be surprised at all because it was transported in an unsanitary box to the police station pnwmom Sep 2013 #72

Well, the defense can certainly try that argument. I mean, OJ managed to explain away the bloody msanthrope Sep 2013 #74

A reasonable explanation for how Knox's DNA ended up on the knife handle in the kitchen pnwmom Sep 2013 #76

First of all, like you, my username clearly indicates my gender. Second of all, since the msanthrope Sep 2013 #80

It's not the prosecution that wanted the knife taken apart -- it was the DEFENSE. pnwmom Sep 2013 #81

Nencini granted the prosecution request for testing on the knife---and it seems that the request for msanthrope Sep 2013 #82

It isn't the obligation of the defense to prove how and when contamination occurred, pnwmom Sep 2013 #83

Um, yeah--it is in Italy. And here, in America, if one is going to assert contamination, msanthrope Sep 2013 #84

Any American jury would be impressed by the video showing police wearing pnwmom Sep 2013 #86

If the evidence reveals what you say it does, then I have no doubt the judge will be just. msanthrope Sep 2013 #87

Defense expert testimony is part of the evidence, as any criminal defense attorney would know. pnwmom Sep 2013 #88

Um, no. First, you are conflating 'testimony' with 'evidence.' Second, you are msanthrope Sep 2013 #93

The system in Italy is what we're talking about, so Rule 702 doesn't apply. pnwmom Sep 2013 #95

Which is why I noted that there's a difference between the two countries. We will see what gets msanthrope Sep 2013 #96

The result is pre-ordained. The High Court has already basically ordered the appeals pnwmom Sep 2013 #98

You know--you keep citing the Hellmann report. So I have a question for you--Hellmann msanthrope Sep 2013 #99

Ethically, he was wrong. Without the tape that was supposed to have been recorded pnwmom Sep 2013 #101

So Hellmann's reliance on the fact that Knox implicated Patrick when she was a mere witness was msanthrope Sep 2013 #103

She wasn't a mere witness. The police don't hit witnesses in the head. pnwmom Sep 2013 #107

I think you are mistaken. The Hellmann report indicates that during her initial questioning, msanthrope Sep 2013 #108

That link proves nothing. The police brought up Patrick's name because they found him in the texts. pnwmom Sep 2013 #110

I don't believe a convicted liar. And even your Judge Hellmann doesn't, either. nt msanthrope Oct 2013 #111

I don't care about any of the smoke and mirrors the prosecution put forward. pnwmom Oct 2013 #112

Unless I missed something, there was only one murderer. Bonx Sep 2013 #51

He's the only one who left evidence all over the murder room pnwmom Sep 2013 #60

No, she didn't. The police already knew he was innocent when they put him in jail, pnwmom Sep 2013 #24

She wrote two statements indicating his guilt. Her appeal of her felony conviction for implicating msanthrope Sep 2013 #28

She said that she could "imagine" being in the kitchen with her hands over her ears pnwmom Sep 2013 #30

She could imagine the boss who fired her killing her roommate? That's some imagination. No wonder msanthrope Sep 2013 #48

She was ordered by the policewoman who was striking her to do so. pnwmom Sep 2013 #52

Sure she was. She was ordered by the police to accuse the boss who fired her the week before. msanthrope Sep 2013 #54

He didn't fire her. She was still working for him the day of the murder, pnwmom Sep 2013 #56

Yes--he did. He fired her from the bar on October 30th, and she kept coming around, hoping to msanthrope Sep 2013 #70

No, he didn't. That was a lie he made up to help the police, pnwmom Sep 2013 #73

Okay--so the police decide, after finding a black wool fiber, that the assailant must have been a msanthrope Sep 2013 #78

No, she didn't. The police forced her into making that statement, for reasons pnwmom Sep 2013 #33

right. They forced her into naming the boss that fired her. nt msanthrope Sep 2013 #44

He didn't fire her. And they conveniently lost the recording of their interrogation pnwmom Sep 2013 #47

She was fired on October 30th, according to her boss. As she is a convicted liar, I tend to believe msanthrope Sep 2013 #53

He was lying then, which is obvious from their texts about him not needing her that night, pnwmom Sep 2013 #58

No--he fired her from the bar, and she continued to hang out there, hoping he would change his mind msanthrope Sep 2013 #69

She's a convicted liar? Convicted by who - the Italian courts? Sheldon Cooper Oct 2013 #113

Can he explain why the sperm on the pillow underneath Meredith's body shouldn't be tested for DNA? pnwmom Sep 2013 #21

Lumumba's attorney? It would be easier if you used names, not pronouns. nt msanthrope Sep 2013 #42

Yes, Lumumba's attorney, since he's inserting himself in the continuing case. n/t pnwmom Sep 2013 #45

Lumumba's attorney didn't speak as to the DNA testing. The defense and Crini did. nt msanthrope Sep 2013 #49

You're right. Lumumba is just there because he's hoping for a bigger payoff. pnwmom Sep 2013 #59

Why shouldn't a crime victim seek redress from the criminal? nt msanthrope Sep 2013 #68

He alleged police brutality. He should be suing the police. pnwmom Sep 2013 #92

Or, maybe, since he knows Amanda personally, he knows precisely where the blame should lie msanthrope Sep 2013 #94

How do you know whether I know her personally? pnwmom Sep 2013 #97

You know--you keep citing the Hellmann report. So I have a question for you--Hellmann msanthrope Sep 2013 #100

this trial isnt about justice. italy botched the case and now that amanda is gone theyll retry leftyohiolib Sep 2013 #4

I feel sorry for Raffaele, who spent four years in prison and is still at risk for a life sentence pnwmom Sep 2013 #6

Except JustAnotherGen Sep 2013 #8

It's not a show trial for the defendants -- especially Sollecito. n/t pnwmom Sep 2013 #10

But it's good for business JustAnotherGen Sep 2013 #15

Actually, there are many American students in Perugia. pnwmom Sep 2013 #20

Students JustAnotherGen Sep 2013 #25

We aren't very popular there, that's for sure. And that is why Amanda pnwmom Sep 2013 #26

Each year about 35 million Americans travel abroad, excluding Mexico and Canada, overseas Bluenorthwest Sep 2013 #85

Why are there even any lawyers there for her? snooper2 Sep 2013 #23

Here's one possible reason Donald Ian Rankin Sep 2013 #31

Looks like article 6 and article 7 would prevent her extradition snooper2 Sep 2013 #35

I think jeopardy refers to acquittal, not a vacated conviction. Donald Ian Rankin Sep 2013 #38

No one really knows whether this would be considered double jeopardy or not, pnwmom Sep 2013 #40

Meredith's parents have sued her for millions of dollars pnwmom Sep 2013 #39

What is the likelihood she'd be extradited if convicted this second time around? Avalux Sep 2013 #41

Different lawyers here have given different opinions. No one really knows for sure. n/t pnwmom Sep 2013 #43

The whole of it is nonsense Wash. state Desk Jet Sep 2013 #66

I don't know if she did it or not.... Adrahil Sep 2013 #61

Here's what it boiled down to me. pnwmom Sep 2013 #67

I certainly do have more than reasonable doubt. Adrahil Oct 2013 #115

She didn't do it. They got the killer. The prosecutor is totally demented. duffyduff Sep 2013 #90

I guess she'll be knocking Italy off of her list of future places to visit. Pretzel_Warrior Sep 2013 #62

And all of Europe, and anywhere else with an extradition agreement. pnwmom Sep 2013 #63

She should find some way to launch a civil law suit Pretzel_Warrior Sep 2013 #64

There is some kind of European court of appeals. But I don't think you can go there to pnwmom Sep 2013 #65

what am I missing here? mnmoderatedem Sep 2013 #75

In Italy, about half of the people convicted at the first trial end up having pnwmom Sep 2013 #77

It's all a damned joke. I wouldn't believe anything that court system there says. duffyduff Sep 2013 #89

But Raffaele, her former boyfriend could. He already spent four years in prison pnwmom Sep 2013 #91

It's not a 100% sure thing that we wouldnt extradite her back davidn3600 Sep 2013 #105

it's pretty obvious they've made up their mind on her the evidence be damned. Bill USA Sep 2013 #102

Why are the British so convinced she did it? alarimer Sep 2013 #104

Pretty much. The media in Europe for the most part completely tore her apart davidn3600 Sep 2013 #106

That is an interesting question Wash. state Desk Jet Sep 2013 #109