Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Samson]

Indeed. It would be as questionable as the case regarding calunnia against Lumumba, but for different reasons. Her statements called calunnia were made as part of her court testimony.

That they can be called calunnia and subject to criminal prosecution shows that there is no practical means to complain of police misconduct in Italy (at least in this case). In fact, Amanda and her lawyers should be pointing out this 2nd calunnia case to the ECHC in their application on the 1st case.

I am sure Machiavelli has said it is legal to lie in court as a defendant.
Of course she was not lying. In fact her testimony was very precise and beyond question as to its correctness, she was struck twice from behind.

 

[LondonJohn]

Rather naively I wondered whether this might bring pro-guilt and pro-innocence proponents together. Yes, I still think there are serious defects in the justice system. I have always thought that guilty or innocent better forensics would have clarified the issue. Pro-guilt commentators are now prepared to consider that the forensics were lacking or the legal systen is corrupt. If they came here we might now agree on some issues if not the result of better judicial assessment.

I do think it's idealistic (not naive really) in that I believe most pro-acquittal commentators (and certainly most who are not emotionally attached by virtue of being close to Knox or Sollecito - which is why I'm not keen on terms such as "Knox supporters") have approached this case in a logical and open-minded way, whereas most pro-guilt commentators are guilty of emotional prejudice, reinforced by confirmation bias, cherry-picking and rationalisation to fit their prior thesis.

So - as we are indeed seeing right now - most pro-guilt commentators are assessing the SC verdicts by searching for rationalisations that fit their preconceived prejudices. Either the SC has become corrupted (by money or political fixes), or the SC judges are plain incompetent. Either way, nothing can be allowed to shake their central belief that Knox and Sollecito really, factually, did participate in the murder. If they can make themselves believe that this is an OJ-style scenario of killers "getting away with it", particularly if they can transfer some of the blame for their acquittal onto the evil forces that corrupted the SC, then that will preserve their mental and emotional equilibrium.

So regarding the problems in the investigation and the various trials, I am very confident that the stock pro-guilt reaction will be that the investigation was more than adequate and competent, that the Massei and Nencini trials were essentially perfect, that Hellmann was either corrupted or incompetent (with the tasty side-excuse that Conti/Vecchiotti were in league with the defence to ensure the fix was in...), and that the final SC ruling was the product of corruption, bribery, incompetence or some sort of hidden agenda.

It's worth bearing in mind at all times that the likes of you, me and many others here approached this case with totally open minds, and we went where the evidence (and lack of evidence) took us. We were also open at all times to new evidence, and for that new evidence to alter our conclusions if appropriate. I (and, I imagine you) don't care at an emotional, personal level whether or not Knox and/or Sollecito participated in the murder. If I thought the evidence supported a conclusion of their participation, then that's what I would have readily concluded. And I would have readily switched to that conclusion at any time if new (reliable) evidence showing their participation had come to light.

But I (and you and others) thought that the evidence not only didn't support a conclusion of Knox's/Sollecito's particpation, it also even tended to support their factual innocence. I therefore concluded that neither Knox nor Sollecito should justly be convicted of participation in the murder, and I also concluded that they were almost certainly totally innocent.

I don't think, from reading their arguments and views, that most pro-guilt commentators have approached the case in that way. I think they've quickly reached a presumption of guilt, then have constantly searched for evidence to support that belief while simultaneously minimising, rationalising or ignoring anything that points away from that belief. Which is a classic definition of poor thinking, of the sort you often see from religious zealots or Moon-landing-hoaxers.

 

[Samson]

I do think it's idealistic (not naive really) in that I believe most pro-acquittal commentators (and certainly most who are not emotionally attached by virtue of being close to Knox or Sollecito - which is why I'm not keen on terms such as "Knox supporters") have approached this case in a logical and open-minded way, whereas most pro-guilt commentators are guilty of emotional prejudice, reinforced by confirmation bias, cherry-picking and rationalisation to fit their prior thesis.

So - as we are indeed seeing right now - most pro-guilt commentators are assessing the SC verdicts by searching for rationalisations that fit their preconceived prejudices. Either the SC has become corrupted (by money or political fixes), or the SC judges are plain incompetent. Either way, nothing can be allowed to shake their central belief that Knox and Sollecito really, factually, did participate in the murder. If they can make themselves believe that this is an OJ-style scenario of killers "getting away with it", particularly if they can transfer some of the blame for their acquittal onto the evil forces that corrupted the SC, then that will preserve their mental and emotional equilibrium.

So regarding the problems in the investigation and the various trials, I am very confident that the stock pro-guilt reaction will be that the investigation was more than adequate and competent, that the Massei and Nencini trials were essentially perfect, that Hellmann was either corrupted or incompetent (with the tasty side-excuse that Conti/Vecchiotti were in league with the defence to ensure the fix was in...), and that the final SC ruling was the product of corruption, bribery, incompetence or some sort of hidden agenda.

It's worth bearing in mind at all times that the likes of you, me and many others here approached this case with totally open minds, and we went where the evidence (and lack of evidence) took us. We were also open at all times to new evidence, and for that new evidence to alter our conclusions if appropriate. I (and, I imagine you) don't care at an emotional, personal level whether or not Knox and/or Sollecito participated in the murder. If I thought the evidence supported a conclusion of their participation, then that's what I would have readily concluded. And I would have readily switched to that conclusion at any time if new (reliable) evidence showing their participation had come to light.

But I (and you and others) thought that the evidence not only didn't support a conclusion of Knox's/Sollecito's particpation, it also even tended to support their factual innocence. I therefore concluded that neither Knox nor Sollecito should justly be convicted of participation in the murder, and I also concluded that they were almost certainly totally innocent.

I don't think, from reading their arguments and views, that most pro-guilt commentators have approached the case in that way. I think they've quickly reached a presumption of guilt, then have constantly searched for evidence to support that belief while simultaneously minimising, rationalising or ignoring anything that points away from that belief. Which is a classic definition of poor thinking, of the sort you often see from religious zealots or Moon-landing-hoaxers.

One thing I have learned from this thread, is that if a child of mine was charged with a crime, I would be far more confident in a just outcome if it was investigated by this forum, than the judicial system in New Zealand, which is failing badly in difficult cases even as I type this.

 

[Kauffer]

One curious thing is that whereas the murder case was thrown out on Friday and everybody let out a huge breath, litigation and other matters in connection with the murder of Meredith Kercher will go on probably for several years.

Much remains to be resolved in civil cases, a second calunnia case, claims for compensation, those claims probably later revisited, together with the possibility of several more applications to the ECHR as well as the result of the one already there, which will likely send the 1st Calunnia case back to Italy in search of restitutio in integrum.

Could be 2020 or even later before it's all done with.

 

[RoseMontague]

One thing I have learned from this thread, is that if a child of mine was charged with a crime, I would be far more confident in a just outcome if it was investigated by this forum, than the judicial system in New Zealand, which is failing badly in difficult cases even as I type this.

The biggest lesson for me is tell your kids not to talk to the cops. Talk to a lawyer first.

 

[Numbers]

One curious thing is that whereas the murder case was thrown out on Friday and everybody let out a huge breath, litigation and other matters in connection with the murder of Meredith Kercher will go on probably for several years.

Much remains to be resolved in civil cases, a second calunnia case, claims for compensation, those claims probably later revisited, together with the possibility of several more applications to the ECHR as well as the result of the one already there, which will likely send the 1st Calunnia case back to Italy in search of restitutio in integrum.

Could be 2020 or even later before it's all done with.

Compensation claims may take less time since they are apparently dealt with in the judges chambers, CPP Article 646 and 127.

 

[andreajo]

Vexatious litigancy!

I wish I'd said that.

 

[Kauffer]

I wish I'd said that.

But you can! I steal stuff all the time.

 

[sept79]

Many on this board have criticised the Italian justice system. Do you feel that despite the supreme court annulling the verdicts, it is still fair to say Italy has a corrupt and dysfuctional justice system.

Couple points:

--Concurrent civil trials with the criminal trial produces a 'ganging up' effect on the defendants

--Too much character assassination is permitted within the court room

--Discovery is quite lax

--Double jeopardy

 

[LondonJohn]

The biggest lesson for me is tell your kids not to talk to the cops. Talk to a lawyer first.

Absolutely. And this is by far the best advice for anyone, whether young or old, and regardless of how much (or how little) you think the police are viewing you as a potential suspect or a mere witness.

The problem is that for many people it's hard to shift the niggling idea that "lawyering up" is either indicative that you have something to hide, or at the very least that you're being needlessly uncooperative with the police. And of course the irony is that this thought is especially common among people who know they had nothing to do with the crime in question, so feel they have absolutely nothing to hide and that there's no way they could ever falsely incriminate themselves.

And then a proportion of those types of people end up saying things - especially if they are extremely talkative and "helpful" (cf Amanda Knox) - that can get them into very hot water if they are unlucky enough for other factors to fall into place at the same time (improper police interview techniques, confirmation bias among interviewers, sheer bad luck in certain key aspects of evidence).

Knox's communications with friends and family in the days after the murder make it pretty clear that she was a) talking a LOT with the police, and b) thinking that she was trying to help them catch the killer. Even when she first gets an inkling that the police might be focussing on her as a suspect, she appears to brush it off - which I would ascribe to the fact that she knew she had nothing to do with the murder so felt she had nothing to fear. In my opinion, had Knox really been a participant in the murder, then her demeanour would have changed remarkably as soon as she sensed the police were looking at her as a suspect.

 

[acbytesla]

But you can! I steal stuff all the time.

Good writers borrow, great writers steal outright.

 

[acbytesla]

Couple points:

--Concurrent civil trials with the criminal trial produces a 'ganging up' effect on the defendants

--Too much character assassination is permitted within the court room

--Discovery is quite lax

--Double jeopardy

Also conjecture without basis.

 

[andreajo]

Wayback

A few pages ago, someone was asking about Frank's blog, which is accessible via the Wayback Machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20110331081341/http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/

 

[toto]

I do think it's idealistic (not naive really) in that I believe most pro-acquittal commentators (and certainly most who are not emotionally attached by virtue of being close to Knox or Sollecito - which is why I'm not keen on terms such as "Knox supporters") have approached this case in a logical and open-minded way, whereas most pro-guilt commentators are guilty of emotional prejudice, reinforced by confirmation bias, cherry-picking and rationalisation to fit their prior thesis.

So - as we are indeed seeing right now - most pro-guilt commentators are assessing the SC verdicts by searching for rationalisations that fit their preconceived prejudices. Either the SC has become corrupted (by money or political fixes), or the SC judges are plain incompetent. Either way, nothing can be allowed to shake their central belief that Knox and Sollecito really, factually, did participate in the murder. If they can make themselves believe that this is an OJ-style scenario of killers "getting away with it", particularly if they can transfer some of the blame for their acquittal onto the evil forces that corrupted the SC, then that will preserve their mental and emotional equilibrium.

So regarding the problems in the investigation and the various trials, I am very confident that the stock pro-guilt reaction will be that the investigation was more than adequate and competent, that the Massei and Nencini trials were essentially perfect, that Hellmann was either corrupted or incompetent (with the tasty side-excuse that Conti/Vecchiotti were in league with the defence to ensure the fix was in...), and that the final SC ruling was the product of corruption, bribery, incompetence or some sort of hidden agenda.

It's worth bearing in mind at all times that the likes of you, me and many others here approached this case with totally open minds, and we went where the evidence (and lack of evidence) took us. We were also open at all times to new evidence, and for that new evidence to alter our conclusions if appropriate. I (and, I imagine you) don't care at an emotional, personal level whether or not Knox and/or Sollecito participated in the murder. If I thought the evidence supported a conclusion of their participation, then that's what I would have readily concluded. And I would have readily switched to that conclusion at any time if new (reliable) evidence showing their participation had come to light.

But I (and you and others) thought that the evidence not only didn't support a conclusion of Knox's/Sollecito's particpation, it also even tended to support their factual innocence. I therefore concluded that neither Knox nor Sollecito should justly be convicted of participation in the murder, and I also concluded that they were almost certainly totally innocent.

I don't think, from reading their arguments and views, that most pro-guilt commentators have approached the case in that way. I think they've quickly reached a presumption of guilt, then have constantly searched for evidence to support that belief while simultaneously minimising, rationalising or ignoring anything that points away from that belief. Which is a classic definition of poor thinking, of the sort you often see from religious zealots or Moon-landing-hoaxers.

I am not sure I agree about this. It isn't true of me I have to say at least. If some dramatic development suddenly took place that somehow revealed one or two or both of the persons were involved, (that most of the evidence was junk but crucially one or two elements were very much valid plus other evidence that came to light) , then I would be utterly shocked and upset. I suppose, to go back to your point, I would accept the evidence however. I wouldn't cling to my beliefs. I can't think of many things worse than either applauding the prison sentence of an innocent person or applauding the acquittal of a guilty person (I mean of a serious crime).

 

[Desert Fox]

Also conjecture without basis.

I see this in way to many US trials as well

 

[carbonjam72]

Congratulations to Amanda and Raffaele! I was really delighted to hear the latest veredict. I didn't really expect it but I have to say that I was thought that carbonjam72's analysis was correct. Cheers all

The test of any theory, is the ability to predict an outcome.

Since we have a non-repeatable event, its difficult to rely on a prediction where one of perhaps 5 or 6 outcomes were possible. It's literally as accurate a roll of the dice, except not quite because the judicial result is so statistically rare.

Fact remains, I laid out a very careful analysis of why I expected a full acquittal with no re-trial.

I think its an interesting alternative explanation, because it isn't 'evidence based' (meaning from the facts of the case), but rather a political argument concerning the conflict between Burlesconi and the Italian judiciary, and all of them struggling to put a lid on their madman Mignini, and a sock in the mouth of their fantasizing self-aggrandizing fabulist Michele Giuttari.

This is a skeptics board, and I'd be interested to hear if people buy into what I've proposed. (plus, I'm feeling needy).

 

[andreajo]

Many on this board have criticised the Italian justice system. Do you feel that despite the supreme court annulling the verdicts, it is still fair to say Italy has a corrupt and dysfuctional justice system.

I think it is better on paper than in practice, with an incomplete transition from inquisitorial to adversarial.

Like any other system, there are pockets of incompetence and corruption. Since you can face criminal charges for complaining, the oversight isn't very good. This makes it difficult to clean up problem spots.

 

[LondonJohn]

I am not sure I agree about this. It isn't true of me I have to say at least. If some dramatic development suddenly took place that somehow revealed one or two or both of the persons were involved, (that most of the evidence was junk but crucially one or two elements were very much valid plus other evidence that came to light) , then I would be utterly shocked and upset. I suppose, to go back to your point, I would accept the evidence however. I wouldn't cling to my beliefs. I can't think of many things worse than either applauding the prison sentence of an innocent person or applauding the acquittal of a guilty person (I mean of a serious crime).

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough. What I meant was that I have (and had) no emotional need for Knox or Sollecito to be found guilty or not-guilty or whatever.

If Knox had been my sister, for example, I'm sure I would have had a strong emotional wish for her to be innocent, and if it had turned out that she truly had participated in the murder, I'm sure I would have been emotionally devastated. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

What I wasn't meaning was that I didn't care about the outcome. I did care, at an intellectual and a personal level. After all, having concluded in my own mind that neither Knox nor Sollecito should be convicted for murder, and that they almost certainly had absolutely nothing to do with it, I felt it important to contribute to the debate since I felt I was seeing a miscarriage of justice in action. (Had I concluded that Knox and Sollecito had participated, I am certain that I would have felt no need to engage in online debate on the matter.)

And in addition, I did feel for Knox and Sollecito and their families at a personal level, since I believed they were being put through unnecessary and improper trauma (and incarceration). I also felt (and continue to feel) at a personal level for the Kercher family and friends, because they have clearly been through massive emotional trauma - not only on account of the murder of Meredith, but also through the many years of uncertainty and reverses of judgements on who was responsible for her death.

 

[carbonjam72]

I've decided to repost below, and desperately hoping Mach will respond. I thought I raised some fair questions, not involving food provocations of any kind, and I'm curious to hear any response. Thankyou!

Originally Posted by carbonjam72
Originally Posted by Machiavelli
1. Nadeu and Halkides are wrong. A civil trial against AK and RS is absolutely possible.
In addition to that, there is a recent law which allows the Kercher also to sue the Italian State, if the Cassazione ruling is inconsistent with others, and pursue truth that way.

I would suggest them to pursue those roads (where there are no evidence restrictions at all).

CJ72: Hey Mach, welcome back. Is this your first post since the acquittal verdict? So how great was that? Totally innocent, does it get any better?

Ok, on to matters at hand.

Speaking of other suits, what will happen now with all the other cases? (Honor Bound? Knox/defamation? Knox's parents defamation? etc ). And will the Sollecitos now go hog wild with law suits?

Different track - Nina Burleigh said on CNN (IIRC) that Guede criminal trial is still sealed "for some mysterious reason".

Is this true? Is Rudy Guede's criminal trial sealed? Is this usual? Is there nay reason this must remain so? How can it be opened?

Is Guede original interview with Mingini (I believe in December of 2007, when he first got back from Germany), is that available anywhere to your knowledge? Kind of curious to see it.

Now that Cassation has spoken, how do you read the situation? Was this verdict legitimate? Is it a corruption? Are there masons involved? Or satanists? (Just covering the bases here, I know you believe more masons and mafia then satanists, but thought I should ask).

By the way, will the evidence from this case now be destroyed immediately, preventing any further review?

Anyway, welcome back.

 

[Strozzi]

I think it is important to remember that the Italian Supreme Court isn't remotely similar to the US Supreme Court. There are over 300 magistrates overseeing thousands of cases whereas the US Supreme Court is made up of 9 justices who rule on less than a hundred cases a year. I can tell you every single member of our court. My guess is that the vast majority of judges in Italy toil in anonymity. Are the justices there susceptible to bribes and corruption? Italy is notorious for that, but I really don't know if that reputation is well founded.

Are our (U.S) judges politically partisan? Yes, in some areas they are enmeshed socially and politically in local political party circles. Do some run for office as members of a political party? Yes, some do - those that are elected must stand for re-election periodically. That means they are partisan with the county political party - often a "machine" when they dominate and control patronage even if they try to recuse themselves from general political activity. Other judges are appointed for very lengthy terms or life.

I had an uncle who was a low-level political party activist. In the 1960's and 70's he helped county officials including judges campaign for re-election. He distributed flyers, organized chicken-dinner fundraisers, helped arrange speaking engagements for candidates in front of local groups. After doing this for many years he was rewarded with a political job. He was appointed assistant clerk of a state appellate court, then clerk of the appellate court. It was a state civil service position. In that job he could no longer engage in partisan (political party) activities. The judges were of course appellate judges, one level below the state supreme court.

My uncle and I were close, although our political views did not mesh. I have never been involved in supporting a political candidate. Never donated a dime to a political candidate.