Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

One other question is when did she state this position. If this was long after the fact, her position is likely colored by everything else she has seen or read.

I don't actually know. But it wouldn't matter to me what she thought.

 

[Desert Fox]

I don't actually know. But it wouldn't matter to me what she thought.

There is a lot of truth there. . . .She could have been a horrid person in general and if the evidence shows her to be not guilty, it does not matter. My only issue is that unlike many people who I argue for, she seems to be a person I might like.

 

[acbytesla]

There is a lot of truth there. . . .She could have been a horrid person in general and if the evidence shows her to be not guilty, it does not matter. My only issue is that unlike many people who I argue for, she seems to be a person I might like.

I feel the same way DF. But as you said she might have been a horrible person but either way there really is no evidence that proves she was involved. That is what is really important.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

It is tough to hide who you are

Early on my view of the public portrait of the defendants in this case was influenced by my impressions of the Duke lacrosse case, and later by the Lindy Chamberlain case, which I know somewhat less well. The latter two cases were notable for how negatively the defendants were initially portrayed in the media. Here is what reporter Sharon Swanson wrote after meeting the family of Collin Finnerty, one of the three DL players who were indicted: "I understand that good people can do awful things. I also know that awful things can happen to good people. And within those poles lie the facts in the Duke lacrosse case...No doubt the Finnertys have been somewhat prepped for dealing with reporters. Any good defense attorney would see to that. Was their house cleaner, more picked up than you might expect from a large family on a regular basis? Probably. Were the Finnertys on their best behavior? Most definitely. Yet, during my social work days, I have sat in interviews with couples who extolled their virtues as parents at great length while their toddler played behind them, unconsciously pretending to toke a joint. It’s tough to hide who you are for eight hours. If any clues as to the hidden natures of this family were there, I did not pick up on them. What I did observe, however, was a close family that sees themselves under siege by an enemy that has chosen to attack them for reasons they don’t fully understand." The entire article is worth reading, although it is interesting that the paper published a shorter article from Ms. Swanson the previous October, prior to the big shift in public opinion about the DL case in December of 2006.

Do the testimonials of their friends and family mean that it is impossible for Amanda and Raffaele to commit a horrific crime? No. Do positive testimonials make it more difficult for the prosecution to reach the BARD threshold than if negative information about their characters came to light instead? In my opinion, they should.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I find this exerpt from Natalie Hayward inciteful.

She was clearly a powerful person," said Miss Hayward. "She talked about herself a lot. She talked about her friends as though they couldn't live without her. She was very different to Meredith. She was used to being the centre of attention."

I see no reason to detach this from the public record Amanda would not expect to have become public.

How much time did this woman spend with Amanda? Her description is wildly at odds with the Amanda I know. I have socialized with Amanda quite a bit at this point, because I have become a family friend and I have been invited to a number of gatherings.

What I have seen is that Amanda is friendly and unassuming, not the least bit flamboyant and definitely not an attention seeker. In a group setting, she listens carefully, and she listens far more than she talks.

She is not shy, however. She can be a bit of a goof, and she has a wry sense of humor.

All in all, she's an immensely likable young woman. One thing Hayward got right is that Amanda's family and friends really were beside themselves when they were without her. That is why her family mortgaged everything they had and maintained a constant presence in Perugia, and her friend Madison moved over there.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Lindy Chamberlain and the forensic and legal failures

Here are two interesting paragraphs on Lindy Chamberlain: "But what has to be faced is that neither forensic science nor the law failed in the Chamberlain case as systems. Rather the practitioners are to blame for failing to abide by the principles of their vocations. Scientific guesses replaced experimental tests, tests lacked adequate controls, the onus of proof was reversed, the presumption of innocence was forgotten and, contrary to the common law, the Chamberlains’ loquacity was skilfully employed against them. But the prejudice caused by the individuals who deviated from venerable forensic and judicial principles was simply the expression of a nation’s failure.

"Professor Stuart Piggin of the University of Wollongong’s History Department nominates the Chamberlains as the most hated persons in Australia’s 200-year history. But why such intense and unprecedented hatred for two quite ordinary Australians? At the end of the trial, Australia, through a Daily Mirror headline (1.11.82), asked the Chamberlains, ‘Why, Lindy! Why?’ With the quashing of the convictions and the entering of a verdict of acquittal, the question has been transposed and the Chamberlains might well ask the nation, ‘Why, Australia! Why?’" (highlighting mine)

As Ms. Swanson's article is, so is this article worth reading in its entirety.

 

[Samson]

How much time did this woman spend with Amanda? Her description is wildly at odds with the Amanda I know. I have socialized with Amanda quite a bit at this point, because I have become a family friend and I have been invited to a number of gatherings.

What I have seen is that Amanda is friendly and unassuming, not the least bit flamboyant and definitely not an attention seeker. In a group setting, she listens carefully, and she listens far more than she talks.

She is not shy, however. She can be a bit of a goof, and she has a wry sense of humor.

All in all, she's an immensely likable young woman. One thing Hayward got right is that Amanda's family and friends really were beside themselves when they were without her. That is why her family mortgaged everything they had and maintained a constant presence in Perugia, and her friend Madison moved over there.

On rereading my post I realise it is not what I intended to say, but rather than complicate it further, I can say that Amanda was interviewed by Kathryn Ryan on New Zealand radio after the new appeal trial was announced, and over twenty minutes, because it was for me a local interview, I felt I got to know her better. It was heart rending, and with events that have followed, more so. She reads authors I read in my youth, and I can fully understand why. Kafka, Dostoyevsky and so on.
She undoubtedly seems to be a good and interesting person.

 

[anglolawyer]

How much time did this woman spend with Amanda? Her description is wildly at odds with the Amanda I know. I have socialized with Amanda quite a bit at this point, because I have become a family friend and I have been invited to a number of gatherings.

What I have seen is that Amanda is friendly and unassuming, not the least bit flamboyant and definitely not an attention seeker. In a group setting, she listens carefully, and she listens far more than she talks.

She is not shy, however. She can be a bit of a goof, and she has a wry sense of humor.

All in all, she's an immensely likable young woman. One thing Hayward got right is that Amanda's family and friends really were beside themselves when they were without her. That is why her family mortgtaged everything they had and maintained a constant presence in Perugia, and her friend Madison moved over there.

A timely reminder of a mundane fact which is of enormous significance - lack of adequate state funding for the defence. We are following the same path in England.

 

[Desert Fox]

The US is horrible as far as funding the defense. . ..There are even cases of defense attorneys showing up at trials drunk.

 

[carbonjam72]

Early on my view of the public portrait of the defendants in this case was influenced by my impressions of the Duke lacrosse case, and later by the Lindy Chamberlain case, which I know somewhat less well. The latter two cases were notable for how negatively the defendants were initially portrayed in the media. Here is what reporter Sharon Swanson wrote after meeting the family of Collin Finnerty, one of the three DL players who were indicted: "I understand that good people can do awful things. I also know that awful things can happen to good people. And within those poles lie the facts in the Duke lacrosse case...No doubt the Finnertys have been somewhat prepped for dealing with reporters. Any good defense attorney would see to that. Was their house cleaner, more picked up than you might expect from a large family on a regular basis? Probably. Were the Finnertys on their best behavior? Most definitely. Yet, during my social work days, I have sat in interviews with couples who extolled their virtues as parents at great length while their toddler played behind them, unconsciously pretending to toke a joint. It’s tough to hide who you are for eight hours. If any clues as to the hidden natures of this family were there, I did not pick up on them. What I did observe, however, was a close family that sees themselves under siege by an enemy that has chosen to attack them for reasons they don’t fully understand." The entire article is worth reading, although it is interesting that the paper published a shorter article from Ms. Swanson the previous October, prior to the big shift in public opinion about the DL case in December of 2006.

Do the testimonials of their friends and family mean that it is impossible for Amanda and Raffaele to commit a horrific crime? No. Do positive testimonials make it more difficult for the prosecution to reach the BARD threshold than if negative information about their characters came to light instead? In my opinion, they should.

Chris, I'm always a fan of your posts. I guess I would disagree a smidge on this point, and perhaps its not really disagreeing at all, I just feel like saying it.

It's frustrating when people use generalizations about individuals. "Could good people do bad things?", isn't evidence. Amanda's character in particular, and Raf too from what I gather, guarantees they could not, did not, and would never commit this crime.

That's not proof either, but its a working premise. In theory, we say innocent until proven guilty. BUt it seems to me you have to have a reason to single one person out of a crowd and say, "maybe, lets discuss it".

It is the most horrific act of violence imaginable, and Mignini tried to hang the crime on the gentlest person/people one could ever run into. That's why the case ios such an obvious miscarriage of justice to me. It's not just false, it's farcical.

I've never met either of them, but I heard Amanda plead for her life. I saw her family and friends. I saw the lack of evidence.

These things in and of themselves, for me at least, aren't like some bolt from the blue, or some "aha" moment, as Mignini is so fond of proclaiming in the middle of his coercive interrogations. But more of a re-confirming feedback loop. The more you see, the more you know, in each of these areas, the more certain you/I/one is. They become mutually reinforcing, and "known" with greater certainty.

The evidence and the science, those things are fixed in stone. BUt our opinions are malleable and form over time.

The difference between someone who loops negatively, and solidifies their opinion of guilt, is that they must remain closed minded with respect to the evidence. They cannot withstand scrutiny of their views, lest their beliefs conflict with the reality.

So yes, the truth is the truth in countless ways, and a lie is a lie in countless more. But Amanda and Raf are real people, with real personalities, real proclivities, real characters. The mere suggestion they are any less then they are, is already too much. Without evidence, such conjecture is grossly unfair, and by definition, unfounded.

 

[MichaelB]

I was just reading the translated testimony of Marco Chiacchiera at the ballerina stalkers site and something caught my eye.

I've seen so many guilters say: "There's no way Amanda had a shower on November 2, just look at the photo of her."

Chiacchiera confirms she did have a shower although it's a little strange why he doesn't want to say how he knows.

Here's the testimony. I've removed the bizarre commentary from pseudo lawyer/doctor "CardiolMD" after every Q&A.

MC: However the faeces were in which of the two bathrooms?
MaCh: Of the bathrooms. Me, if I take a shower in a bathroom where there are faeces, instinctively I flush the toilet, in short.
MC: Yes, but the faeces were in the other bathroom.
MaCh: Yes, yes, I understood. However, in short, in some way it comes instinctively, no?, to flush the toilet? The fact is that ….
GCM: Excuse me, do you know how many bathrooms there were in the house?
MaCh: Two.
GCM: Two bathrooms. Excuse me, please. Do you know that a shower was taken?
MaCh: Yes.
GCM: How do you know?
MaCh: I know because it is a thing that I cannot, I believe, report because it was ….
GCM: But you checked…?
MaCh: I am trying to be very very careful.

Any guesses why this is top secret and he doesn't want to say?

 

[anglolawyer]

I was just reading the translated testimony of Marco Chiacchiera at the ballerina stalkers site and something caught my eye.

I've seen so many guilters say: "There's no way Amanda had a shower on November 2, just look at the photo of her."

[qimg]http://media.komonews.com/images/080517_amanda_knox.jpg[/qimg]

Chiacchiera confirms she did have a shower although it's a little strange why he doesn't want to say how he knows.

Here's the testimony. I've removed the bizarre commentary from pseudo lawyer/doctor "CardiolMD" after every Q&A.



Any guesses why this is top secret and he doesn't want to say?

Nice nugget.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

A timely reminder of a mundane fact which is of enormous significance - lack of adequate state funding for the defence. We are following the same path in England.

Does that mean the Kercher family would not have got any financial support from the UK government.

 

[Diocletus]

Does that mean the Kercher family would not have got any financial support from the UK government.

Why would they need to defend themselves against criminal charges. Did they finally get wrung up for wrongful character assassination on the first degree?

 

[Diocletus]

The US is horrible as far as funding the defense. . ..There are even cases of defense attorneys showing up at trials drunk.

I don't think that's a funding issue. The drunk guy is obviously getting paid enough to afford his martinis.

 

[Diocletus]

I was just reading the translated testimony of Marco Chiacchiera at the ballerina stalkers site and something caught my eye.

I've seen so many guilters say: "There's no way Amanda had a shower on November 2, just look at the photo of her."

[qimg]http://media.komonews.com/images/080517_amanda_knox.jpg[/qimg]

Chiacchiera confirms she did have a shower although it's a little strange why he doesn't want to say how he knows.

Here's the testimony. I've removed the bizarre commentary from pseudo lawyer/doctor "CardiolMD" after every Q&A.



Any guesses why this is top secret and he doesn't want to say?

It's almost like he's trying to say that a shower was taken in Filomena's bathroom.

 

[anglolawyer]

Does that mean the Kercher family would not have got any financial support from the UK government.

Is this some subtle point or a straight question? Treating it as the latter, the answer is: no. There is no government funded support for the family members of murder victims in the UK AFAIK. Nor should there be IMO. I was talking about the proper funding of criminal defence, fundamental to a properly-functioning criminal justice system. We used to have such a thing within living memory when per capita incomes were much lower than now but remuneration has been eroded to the point at which seasoned criminal lawyers are going out of business or leaving the field in droves. Labour has no plans to reverse the present cuts if/when they come to power. I am disgusted by this.

Dave Lee Travis had to sell his home to fund his defence against a raft of charges extended over two trials, most of which were not made out, ending up with a conviction for a minor and ancient charge of sexual assault. That is disproportionate as should be obvious to any reasonable observer.

My admittedly limited understanding of defence funding in Italy is that it is basic at best and entirely inadequate for a case of this kind. That is quite simply wrong and results in unfairness of various kinds.

I imagine you thought I was talking about accommodating Amanda's family in Italy during the trial at public expense. Well, I wasn't.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Is this some subtle point or a straight question? Treating it as the latter, the answer is: no. There is no government funded support for the family members of murder victims in the UK AFAIK. Nor should there be IMO. I was talking about the proper funding of criminal defence, fundamental to a properly-functioning criminal justice system. We used to have such a thing within living memory when per capita incomes were much lower than now but remuneration has been eroded to the point at which seasoned criminal lawyers are going out of business or leaving the field in droves. Labour has no plans to reverse the present cuts if/when they come to power. I am disgusted by this.

Dave Lee Travis had to sell his home to fund his defence against a raft of charges extended over two trials, most of which were not made out, ending up with a conviction for a minor and ancient charge of sexual assault. That is disproportionate as should be obvious to any reasonable observer.

My admittedly limited understanding of defence funding in Italy is that it is basic at best and entirely inadequate for a case of this kind. That is quite simply wrong and results in unfairness of various kinds.

I imagine you thought I was talking about accommodating Amanda's family in Italy during the trial at public expense. Well, I wasn't.

I am surprised that there isn’t support for travel and hotel expenses for the murder victim’s family as the trial is taking place in another country, assumed there would be some kind of foreign office fund, I guess not.

I have no issue with you or others posting about the hardship on Raffaele and or Amanda’s family, I do not see why it should be a problem to ask about Meredith’s family, thanks for your response.

 

[anglolawyer]

I am surprised that there isn’t support for travel and hotel expenses for the murder victim’s family as the trial is taking place in another country, assumed there would be some kind of foreign office fund, I guess not.

I have no issue with you or others posting about the hardship on Raffaele and or Amanda’s family, I do not see why it should be a problem to ask about Meredith’s family, thanks for your response.

It isn't a problem, Coulsdon. I have no concerns at all about questions of the kind you raise but I am more bothered by the defendants' position in these processes. Again, AFAIK, no case I have looked at seems to have featured expenses-paid trips or accommodation for victims' families. Whether this should be so I don't know but the fact is that, while it might be nice to fund victims families' attendance etc the defendants must have adequate representation.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the high cost of defending oneself: the Esposito arson case

Frank Esposito falsely confessed to starting a fire that burned down a stable. After they got him to confess to starting the fire accidently, the authorities charged him with arson (sound familiar?). "As it turned out, however, investigators advised Esposito to admit that the fire was an accident, and after 18 hours, Esposito succumbed and admitted to something he hadn't done. In fact, Esposito's lawyers discovered phone records that confirmed that Esposito was nowhere near the stable at the time the fire started.

"Though Esposito lacked a taped interrogation, he did have first rate counsel. His parents mortgaged their house for $150,000 to hire Nick Gravante of the famed Boies, Schiller & Flexner. Even when the bill exceeded what Esposito's parents had paid, David Boies urged the firm to continue, reportedly saying I don't care what kind of resources you put into the case. Win that case.'" link

"In reality the defense cost the firm, with the experts and lawyers’ time, about $500,000." link