Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

I'm afraid I'm working in Dorset that day. It looks rather dry anyway. One for law scholars I think.

Not too dry, I think Alex.

Here is something from McLaughlin with regard to the McCann case.

"Formal criminal justice is constrained by due process. During "trial by media", due process - and the attendant legal requirement to provide evidence of guilt - gives way to moral speculation about the actions and motives of key protagonists. This is creating a volatile climate in which sections of the media take the lead in defining who is guilty and who is innocent in the court of public opinion. What is at stake is more than the reputation of one family. Obsessive media reporting is reshaping how we think about crime and justice."
Dr Chris Greer, Professor Eugene McLaughlin

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/sep/13/pressandpublishing.crime

This thinking carries forward to his Knox case critique:

"This paper analyses how, through a combination of well-established discursive and innovative representational practices, the UK’s national newspapers transformed Amanda Knox into “Foxy Knoxy”. It is particularly concerned with how and why the UK’s national newspapers were able to fabricate this killer identity so quickly and powerfully. Finally it highlights the lasting effects of the initial press coverage that successfully conferred a killer celebrity identity onto Amanda Knox."

 

[Mr Fied]

I see. So you reckon anybody from Africa, Asia or the Americas are free to travel around Europe? I don't think so!

Every time I go abroad, even by Eurostar train to Germany, I have had to show my passport, there and back. (At the Uk border)

When I lived in Spain I had Spanish residency. I could use my Residencia (ID) card to travel to any country in Europe except the UK, where I needed to show my passport. The only other place I needed my passport was to enter Gibraltar.

Travelling by road I have driven into various countries on the European mainland and have never once been stopped for a passport check at any of the borders, since the open borders came into being.

By the way, I don't think I have ever been a citizen of any country. I may need Anglo to help me out here, but are we Subjects in the UK not citizens?

 

[Kauffer]

When I lived in Spain I had Spanish residency. I could use my Residencia (ID) card to travel to any country in Europe except the UK, where I needed to show my passport. The only other place I needed my passport was to enter Gibraltar.

Travelling by road I have driven into various countries on the European mainland and have never once been stopped for a passport check at any of the borders, since the open borders came into being.

By the way, I don't think I have ever been a citizen of any country. I may need Anglo to help me out here, but are we Subjects in the UK not citizens?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject

 

[Dan O.]

Neither of those professors appear to have any understanding of the facts in the case. In their writings they limit their discussions to the judicial process and the social responses to the case. McLaughlin didn't even consider the possibility that the ISC would acquit so how could he claim to be some kind of expert on Italian law?

 

[lonepinealex]

Not too dry, I think Alex.

Here is something from McLaughlin with regard to the McCann case.

"Formal criminal justice is constrained by due process. During "trial by media", due process - and the attendant legal requirement to provide evidence of guilt - gives way to moral speculation about the actions and motives of key protagonists. This is creating a volatile climate in which sections of the media take the lead in defining who is guilty and who is innocent in the court of public opinion. What is at stake is more than the reputation of one family. Obsessive media reporting is reshaping how we think about crime and justice."
Dr Chris Greer, Professor Eugene McLaughlin

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/sep/13/pressandpublishing.crime

This thinking carries forward to his Knox case critique:

"This paper analyses how, through a combination of well-established discursive and innovative representational practices, the UK’s national newspapers transformed Amanda Knox into “Foxy Knoxy”. It is particularly concerned with how and why the UK’s national newspapers were able to fabricate this killer identity so quickly and powerfully. Finally it highlights the lasting effects of the initial press coverage that successfully conferred a killer celebrity identity onto Amanda Knox."

Well, anyway, I couldn't get there in time so it's all academic.

 

[Strozzi]

Neither of those professors appear to have any understanding of the facts in the case. In their writings they limit their discussions to the judicial process and the social responses to the case. McLaughlin didn't even consider the possibility that the ISC would acquit so how could he claim to be some kind of expert on Italian law?

McLaughlin is not a member of the Masons. How could he know we were going to buy off the Italian Supreme Court to acquit?

 

[analemma]

Has the WikiPedia Amanda Knox been changed recently???
IT recently said
'''Amanda Marie Knox''' (born July 9, 1987) is an American woman [[wrongly convicted]] of the 2007 murder of British student [[murder of Meredith Kercher|Meredith Kercher]] in Italy."

Now it says;

"Amanda Marie Knox (born July 9, 1987) is an American woman who spent almost four years in an Italian prison accused of the 2007 murder of Meredith Kercher, one of the women who shared her apartment, before being definitively acquitted by the Supreme Court of Cassation. "
Am I remembering wrong?

The Wiki seems to be a battleground between Vanisheduser and Overagainst who are changing it back and forth.
It appears that Overagainst changed to the wishy-washy guilter version we see there now, eliminatting the "wrongly convicted" statement on May 19.
Does anyone knwo what teh rules for updating these Wikis are? They can be very damaging

What is even worse, what appears on the google search page summary is ONLY this;
""Amanda Marie Knox (born July 9, 1987) is an American woman who spent almost four years in an Italian prison accused of the 2007 murder of Meredith Kercher"
which does not even say that she was definately acquitted. I am sure this truncation trick on purpose by Overagainst.
Will they NEVER stop LYING??????????????????
where is Vanisheduser when we need them?

 

[carbonjam72]

Well, anyway, I couldn't get there in time so it's all academic.

arfarfarf

 

[bagels]

Has the WikiPedia Amanda Knox been changed recently???
IT recently said
'''Amanda Marie Knox''' (born July 9, 1987) is an American woman [[wrongly convicted]] of the 2007 murder of British student [[murder of Meredith Kercher|Meredith Kercher]] in Italy."

Now it says;

"Amanda Marie Knox (born July 9, 1987) is an American woman who spent almost four years in an Italian prison accused of the 2007 murder of Meredith Kercher, one of the women who shared her apartment, before being definitively acquitted by the Supreme Court of Cassation. "
Am I remembering wrong?

You can click the history tab on the article to see all the recent changes. Looks like some user made a bunch of changes to the lead. It is Wikipedia after all, anybody can edit it.

 

[analemma]

You can click the history tab on the article to see all the recent changes. Looks like some user made a bunch of changes to the lead. It is Wikipedia after all, anybody can edit it.

Anybody?

 

[Strozzi]

Anybody?

Well, not just anybody. There are certain criteria one must meet. To edit an article, you must 1) have Internet access and an email account in the name of your dog, and 2) register. It is a very select group.

I don't know that Nara, for example, met the criteria.

 

[Dan O.]

Look on yhe talk page and see if there is a discussion on the change.

 

[lonepinealex]

I'm not seeing the problem - the wikipedia article is accurate isn't it?

 

[Kauffer]

Neither of those professors appear to have any understanding of the facts in the case. In their writings they limit their discussions to the judicial process and the social responses to the case. McLaughlin didn't even consider the possibility that the ISC would acquit so how could he claim to be some kind of expert on Italian law?

Where did you get this from, Dan?

I don't get the impression that McLaughlin regards himself as an expert on Italian law, nor that he made any determination one way or the other with regard to the possible results at trial. Yet, he is clearly well versed in the UK media coverage of the case and recognises the fabrications, which were perpetrated. He specialises in "trial by media" studies and its effects on due process.

 

[Strozzi]

I'm not seeing the problem - the wikipedia article is accurate isn't it?

In Italy guilty verdicts in trial courts must be confirmed by the Italian Supreme Court. Until that happens, a defendant is not regarded as legally convicted. Knox and Sollecito were found guilty in lower courts but their guilty verdicts were never upheld (confirmed) by the Italian Supreme Court. They, in fact, we're acquitted. They were found innocent by the Supreme Court.

Perhaps what is occurring on Wikipedia is that two people editing the article are fighting back and forth over the use of the word "convicted". One party may want the article to say they were convicted (as in "convicted kilkers"), and grudgingly admit that it was later "overturned". The other editor may want history to state they were never convicted.

I can't tell you if the article, in my opinion, is accurate because it changes each time it is edited. I defer to others on this who will freeze the article in time and then answer if it is accurate.

 

[lonepinealex]

In Italy guilty verdicts in trial courts must be confirmed by the Italian Supreme Court. Until that happens, a defendant is not regarded as legally convicted. Knox and Sollecito were found guilty in lower courts but their guilty verdicts were never upheld (confirmed) by the Italian Supreme Court. They, in fact, we're acquitted. They were found innocent by the Supreme Court.

Perhaps what is occurring on Wikipedia is that two people editing the article are fighting back and forth over the use of the word "convicted". One party may want the article to say they were convicted (as in "convicted kilkers"), and grudgingly admit that it was later "overturned". The other editor may want history to state they were never convicted.

I can't tell you if the article, in my opinion, is accurate because it changes each time it is edited. I defer to others on this who will freeze the article in time and then answer if it is accurate.

Exactly, so the latest version as posted by analemma is accurate. So what am I missing?

 

[davefoc]

In Italy guilty verdicts in trial courts must be confirmed by the Italian Supreme Court. Until that happens, a defendant is not regarded as legally convicted. Knox and Sollecito were found guilty in lower courts but their guilty verdicts were never upheld (confirmed) by the Italian Supreme Court. They, in fact, we're acquitted. They were found innocent by the Supreme Court.

Perhaps what is occurring on Wikipedia is that two people editing the article are fighting back and forth over the use of the word "convicted". One party may want the article to say they were convicted (as in "convicted kilkers"), and grudgingly admit that it was later "overturned". The other editor may want history to state they were never convicted.

As a practical matter what does this mean?

Was Guede really convicted even though his conviction wasn't confirmed by the ISC? Perhaps Guede's decision to go the fast track route put his case in a different category that didn't need to be confirmed by the ISC?

If a convicted individual doesn't file an appeal is his conviction confirmed by default?

Is it possible here that the claim that AK/RS weren't really convicted is dependent on a strained interpretation of Italian law? Whatever happened to them as a result of court decisions they went to prison. I'd say just by the definition of convicted that they had been convicted.

ETA: Why did MichaelB post a picture of an Audi gas pedal?

 

[Dan O.]

Where did you get this from, Dan?

I don't get the impression that McLaughlin regards himself as an expert on Italian law, nor that he made any determination one way or the other with regard to the possible results at trial. Yet, he is clearly well versed in the UK media coverage of the case and recognises the fabrications, which were perpetrated. He specialises in "trial by media" studies and its effects on due process.

I just googled his name with Amanda Knox and found a couple of articles he authored or was quoted in. To be fair, I don't think anyone was predicting an outright acquittal. But in one article he listed all the possible rulings of the ISC and acquittal was not in the list.

 

[davefoc]

The Massei decision is now definitively annuled. Despite you unsubstantiated claim it is only the US media saying there is no evidence, really, against either of them....

.... that's the final determination of Italy's courts.

Why do you not accept this?

Is that a fair or useful question? Most people participating in this thread, (presumably all), think OJ Simpson killed his ex-wife and Ron Goldman, but he was acquitted. I think the people that think he was guilty accept the fact that he was acquitted, but they still think he was guilty.

The discussion here is mostly about whether AK/RS were innocent or guilty regardless of the ISC decision. The decision provides significant support for the idea that they were innocent of the crimes they were charged with but I would have thought they were innocent regardless of the ISC decision.

 

[Dan O.]

In Italy guilty verdicts in trial courts must be confirmed by the Italian Supreme Court. Until that happens, a defendant is not regarded as legally convicted. Knox and Sollecito were found guilty in lower courts but their guilty verdicts were never upheld (confirmed) by the Italian Supreme Court. They, in fact, we're acquitted. They were found innocent by the Supreme Court.

Perhaps what is occurring on Wikipedia is that two people editing the article are fighting back and forth over the use of the word "convicted". One party may want the article to say they were convicted (as in "convicted kilkers"), and grudgingly admit that it was later "overturned". The other editor may want history to state they were never convicted.

I can't tell you if the article, in my opinion, is accurate because it changes each time it is edited. I defer to others on this who will freeze the article in time and then answer if it is accurate.

The discussion on changes to a wikipedia article takes place on the articles talk page. Here is the latest discussion on the lede for that article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amanda_Knox#Time_to_change_the_lede