Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[komponisto]

Dysfunctional, absolutely...

This is a great post by and large, but I think you're too charitable to Massei, who is clearly little more than a blithering dunce (and a tediously long-winded one at that). On the other hand, you're exactly on target about the villainy of Galati and his pals in the first section of Cassazione.

Also, one shouldn't forget Micheli, who could have stopped the whole thing in October 2008, but elected not to, making wisecracks in his motivation along the way. (Apparently he later said he wouldn't have sent the case on if he knew then what he knew later.)

 

[LondonJohn]

Is it true that Frank Sfarzo obtained nude photos of Knox (taken when she was admitted to prison) and tried to sell them to the press?

If it is true, of course it's abhorrent, and I'm amazed that Sfarzo was welcomed in Seattle by the Knox/Mellas family in 2012. But if it's not true, then Sfarzo and his legal team ought to pop over to .org.........

 

[Kaosium]

I agree to an extent, and ordinarily the response to this would be that it's one of the key jobs of those speaking for the defence and prosecution (and judges) to be able to express things in terms that are comprehensible to the average "man in the street". Arguably (in the past), if a lawyer/judge cannot do that, then (s)he's either not doing his/her job properly, or the whole area is too obtuse to be worthy of consideration by the court.

However, the problem is that with the advances in forensic science, there are now areas of evidence that are of vital importance to outcomes and verdicts, but which really are too obtuse to be able to reduce to simplistic terms to appeal to lay jurors. In the UK (well, in England & Wales) we've already seen attempts to limit complex fraud trials to judge-only trials (i.e. to abolish lay juries), for the very reason that the complex financial engineering issues that underpin many such trials - and of which a deep knowledge and understanding is required for anyone who is tasked with delivering a verdict - are simply too complicated for many "average" people to be able to understand. This has had the effect in practice of reducing some complex fraud trials to farce, when juries have had no choice but to acquit, purely on the basis that they just didn't understand the complexity of financial engineering that would be necessary in order to be persuaded of the defendants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: "We don't understand how the prosecution is alleging that the accused committed this crime, so we're going to have to acquit".

And the very same thing is starting to happen in areas such as low template DNA and other complex areas of forensic science. Unfortunately, particularly in the case of DNA, it seems that "a little learning can be a dangerous thing" - many jurors seem to think that DNA evidence is some sort of ultra-reliable "gold standard" of evidence, and consequently seem improperly resistant to defence arguments on the massive problems with low-template DNA evidence.

I feel that in the Knox/Kercher case, for example, it's reasonable to suppose that the convicting judicial panels - judges and lay judges alike - heard the prosecutors say "Sollecito's DNA was on the bra clasp" and "Kercher's and Knox's DNA was on Sollecito's kitchen knife", and immediately accorded this evidence a high level of certainty and reliability. I suspect that they therefore automatically discounted defence arguments that the low-template level of this DNA, coupled with the obvious potential paths of contamination, meant that this particular DNA evidence was unreliable and worthless. I suspect they took the view that "they (the defence) would say that, wouldn't they".

Exactly on the last part, well, come to think of it the whole thing!

That DNA evidence is evidence against the prosecution. That's what people like Thoughtful, who last I checked believed it was simply a matter of making a statistical match, just don't get. It's so myopic it's frightening, she's not the only one and the problem I had with some is they just thought it was automatic that if they could get a profile that 'put Raffaele/Amanda into that room.' Thankfully enough real experts chimed in and Komponisto/Katy-Did translated the Conti-Vecchiotti report which allowed people to determine just what Stefanoni had done and why it was wrong.

Others to this day still think innocentisti are being 'dishonest' when they challenge their assumptions on this even though it's they who are wallowing in pig ignorance. Some of those people are going to be on juries in the future, it's scary. They will take the disinformation that has become cemented in their mind on DNA evidence (and everything else the guilters are lying about regarding the 'evidence') and think they know enough to take someone's life away from them and their family.

 

[Bill Williams]

Is it true that Frank Sfarzo obtained nude photos of Knox (taken when she was admitted to prison) and tried to sell them to the press?

If it is true, of course it's abhorrent, and I'm amazed that Sfarzo was welcomed in Seattle by the Knox/Mellas family in 2012. But if it's not true, then Sfarzo and his legal team ought to pop over to .org.........

The highlighted part.

Folks - this is over. That should be what is communicated to the folks at .ORG. At least .NET had the good sense to caution their denizens about libel.

 

[Kaosium]

No kidding. My favorite moment was previous-longtime-guilter Simonetta Matone (I think it was; I couldn't see the picture properly) putting Dershowitz in his place: after they showed a clip of him saying that Amanda would have been convicted in any US court, she said something to the effect of that she couldn't understand what he was talking about, since he himself is an "artist" specializing in getting people off with much stronger evidence against them!

Salinger, Rather, Dershowitz....

 

[whoanellie]

I wish someone would ask Dershowitz if there was more evidence of guilt against OJ or Amanda.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the authoritarian perspective

"Only those in the courtroom are in possession of the full facts; it is only they who should make pronouncements on what the outcome should or should not be. Until then, the best course of action would be to wait for the (admittedly, grindingly slow) Italian legal process to come to its conclusion." link

This was from a pro-guilt letter to the Guardian in 2014. Do all of the 100+ cosigners still hold to this sentiment?

 

[Kaosium]

This is a great post by and large, but I think you're too charitable to Massei, who is clearly little more than a blithering dunce (and a tediously long-winded one at that). On the other hand, you're exactly on target about the villainy of Galati and his pals in the first section of Cassazione.

Also, one shouldn't forget Micheli, who could have stopped the whole thing in October 2008, but elected not to, making wisecracks in his motivation along the way. (Apparently he later said he wouldn't have sent the case on if he knew then what he knew later.)

I forgot to (also) compliment you on your rhetorical prowess and especially your sense of humor!

I made my argument, I'm not going to spend any more time defending Massei; I found his report extraordinarily useful and we saw from Nencini just how bad it might have been.

 

[Strawberry]

I wish someone would ask Dershowitz if there was more evidence of guilt against OJ or Amanda.

Dershowitz is currently facing some accusations of his own involving under age prostitutes, so maybe someone should ask him how it feels to be accused of a serious crime, and does he now sympathise with Amanda Knox.

 

[acbytesla]

Exactly on the last part, well, come to think of it the whole thing!

That DNA evidence is evidence against the prosecution. That's what people like Thoughtful, who last I checked believed it was simply a matter of making a statistical match, just don't get. It's so myopic it's frightening, she's not the only one and the problem I had with some is they just thought it was automatic that if they could get a profile that 'put Raffaele/Amanda into that room.' Thankfully enough real experts chimed in and Komponisto/Katy-Did translated the Conti-Vecchiotti report which allowed people to determine just what Stefanoni had done and why it was wrong.

Others to this day still think innocentisti are being 'dishonest' when they challenge their assumptions on this even though it's they who are wallowing in pig ignorance. Some of those people are going to be on juries in the future, it's scary. They will take the disinformation that has become cemented in their mind on DNA evidence (and everything else the guilters are lying about regarding the 'evidence') and think they know enough to take someone's life away from them and their family.

I'm convinced that most people see the contamination argument against DNA evidence as just a smoke and mirrors diversion from the truth. I have to admit over the years that this has always been how I have looked at it. The defense attorneys always try and make that argument. It is almost cliche. I also think it tiresome to see this argument raised just to try and get some guilty defendant off.

Now I know that sometimes it is a valid argument.

 

[whoanellie]

I can't believe I'm saying this about a Harvard professor, but Dershowitz really didn't have clue about much of what he said about this case. He was nothing really more than an attention whore. My guess is that he never was diligent about doing his homework. Because if he did, there is no way he could make those comments... unless..this explanation is far worse. He knew but didn't care because he got to be on TV.

Don't let the Harvard gig fool you. Dershowitz has been engaging in this sort of behavior for years on range of topics. Coulter, Grace, and Dershowitz: the three U.S. media stooges of guilters.

 

[Kauffer]

Hellman interview

Part of an interview with Hellmann by Meo Ponte in La Repubblica, 30th March, posted and presumably translated by 'guermantes' on .net. There is more from the interview at .net.


"Why did you leave the judiciary right after that verdict?"

"Basically, I was forced [to leave]. Our decision was met with reactions of anger. I still remember the whistles and screams of a claque that had gathered on the evening of the verdict in court. From that day on, I was surrounded by growing hostility. In bars of Perugia they were saying that I had sold out to Americans, who had succumbed to the pressures of the CIA. Tall Tales, sure, but what struck me most in this defamatory lynching that lasted for years was the reaction of fellow judges. Almost everyone stopped greeting

, in particular, those who for various reasons had been involved in the affair. I realized that my court was a lone voice in a court system where all judges, from a preliminary hearing judge to those who reviewed various stages of investigation, while criticizing the investigation, had endorsed the prosecution.

In addition I was considered for the position of the President of the Court of First Instance and of course another colleague, definitely worthy, got the job, but some suspect that it was retaliation against me. Six months after the judgment I decided to retire."

Extraordinary.

 

[Kaosium]

I can't believe I'm saying this about a Harvard professor, but Dershowitz really didn't have clue about much of what he said about this case. He was nothing really more than an attention whore. My guess is that he never was diligent about doing his homework. Because if he did, there is no way he could make those comments... unless..this explanation is far worse. He knew but didn't care because he got to be on TV.

He stared into the abyss of PMF and bought into it, body and soul.

Peg Ganong is not stupid, she's one of the most skillful liars and manipulators I've ever seen in the ether. There was a night she went online to actually debate about an article written about Andrea Vogt where I almost had a chance to go at her, but she managed to get the article pulled and the comments section offline before I could get into it.

I wonder if Andrea thanks her now...

 

[Kaosium]

I'm convinced that most people see the contamination argument against DNA evidence as just a smoke and mirrors diversion from the truth. I have to admit over the years that this has always been how I have looked at it. The defense attorneys always try and make that argument. It is almost cliche. I also think it tiresome to see this argument raised just to try and get some guilty defendant off.

Now I know that sometimes it is a valid argument.

And that is one of the biggest problems with LT/LCN DNA. You could very well profiling contamination, and you can find that so easily if there's a lack of forensic standards.

 

[Kauffer]

And that is one of the biggest problems with LT/LCN DNA. You could very well profiling contamination, and you can find that so easily if there's a lack of forensic standards.

How would you handle the thorny problem of jurors considering the complexities of DNA evidence?

 

[acbytesla]

Don't let the Harvard gig fool you. Dershowitz has been engaging in this sort of behavior for years on range of topics. Coulter, Grace, and Dershowitz: the three U.S. media stooges of guilters.

But you would think that someone with such a prestigious job as that would at least attempt to make sure that he knew what he was talking about when he was speaking to the world . It doesn't make Harvard look good.

 

[Kaosium]

How would you handle the thorny problem of jurors considering the complexities of DNA evidence?

I don't know!

Honest experts is one big start, keelhauling prosecutors who emote beyond the evidence is maybe another.

This advance should have made everything so much easier to determine, and once you learn it that does happen, but it took me longer than a typical American trial does to really get a handle on it--that's reading papers, articles and textbooks while posting on it just about every day and trying to gauge from Chris Halkides' posts whether I was on the right track or not.

 

[acbytesla]

He stared into the abyss of PMF and bought into it, body and soul.

Peg Ganong is not stupid, she's one of the most skillful liars and manipulators I've ever seen in the ether. There was a night she went online to actually debate about an article written about Andrea Vogt where I almost had a chance to go at her, but she managed to get the article pulled and the comments section offline before I could get into it.

I wonder if Andrea thanks her now...

I really think this goes beyond Peg and actually probably has more to do with control of the Meredith Kercher Amanda Knox entry on Wikipedia. But let me add this. That despite the so called PR super tanker, in many ways right up to the end, the pro guilt people mounted and maintained a very sophisticated campaign that hoodwinked many in the mainstream press.

Their use of Twitter was in fact masterful.

 

[Dougm]

I really think this goes beyond Peg and actually probably has more to do with control of the Meredith Kercher Amanda Knox entry on Wikipedia. But let me add this. That despite the so called PR super tanker, in many ways right up to the end, the pro guilt people mounted and maintained a very sophisticated campaign that hoodwinked many in the mainstream press.

Their use of Twitter was in fact masterful.

I completely disagree, unless their goal was to broadcast to the world what a bunch of nuts they are.

The only thing that I saw that they did well on Twitter was to send links to the fake wiki to journalists, some of whom were too lazy to fact check, so they fell for it. But the stream of tweets on the #amandaknox hashtag was a huge clusterF. It made the "they are guilty" opinion look strange and irrational.

I would actually post that there were a bunch of trolls posting misinformation on the Amanda Knox trial, without identifying them, and they would argue with me enmass!! It was weird, but hilarious. I am quite sure that anyone with with any sense immediately saw the guilters as a crazy bunch that was spamming twitter like mad.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Now that the court of last resort in the jurisdiction involved has spoken, can't you folks give it a rest?