The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

[Vixen]

Citation, please, to support your quoted statement regarding Barry Scheck.

Not that your statement about Scheck is directly relevant to the topic of this thread, but if you are attempting a diversion because you have no thread-topic relevant information to post, at least provide a citation to lend your calumny some credibility.

First thing that comes up on the search engines:

There’s no public listing for the apartment that Barry C. Scheck just purchased at 270 West 17th Street,
but we’ll assume that the $745,000 that he paid for it was probably a very good price.

After all, if anyone was going to argue a price down, it would be Mr. Scheck, the defense attorney who helped win O.J. Simpson an acquittal and founded the Innocence Project with Peter Neufeld in 1992, a legal group that has exonerated more than 200 of the wrongly-convicted with DNA evidence.

Mr. Scheck and his wife Dorothy Rick, who currently live in Brooklyn Heights, purchased the condo from Justo Artigus. We’re not sure what the pad is like inside; we’d guess a one-bedroom, but heck, with Mr. Scheck’s negotiating skills, it could even be a two-bedroom. The 21-floor building boasts many balconies and outdoor spaces, uptwon and downtown views as well as wood floors and room-by-room-controlled HVAC systems.

There is $'000's to be made out of 'Innocence Projects'. Let's face it, a large percentage of 'exonerees' who were released on a 'technicality' are simply hoping to cash in.

Why else is Amanda on the bandwagon falsely claiming she 'wrongfully served four years' for a serious crime she remains convicted of. It makes a mockery of the genuinely innocent who cannot afford the likes of Scheck or Zellner.

These attorneys are only going to take on cases where they can take a handsome chunk of any compensation on a contingency basis.

http://observer.com/2012/06/best-defense-lawyer-ever-barry-c-scheck-buys-in-chelsea/

 

[acbytesla]

Police get to investigate a case.

I promise you, they have better things to do with their time than frame innocent people.

Another pivot. I love how you make a wild unsubstantiated remark, ignore the response and then post a total no-sequitur.

Yes they do. But that doesn't mean they will or always do.

 

[acbytesla]

First thing that comes up on the search engines:

There is $'000's to be made out of 'Innocence Projects'. Let's face it, a large percentage of 'exonerees' who were released on a 'technicality' are simply hoping to cash in.

Why else is Amanda on the bandwagon falsely claiming she 'wrongfully served four years' for a serious crime she remains convicted off. It makes a mockery of the genuinely innocent who cannot afford the likes of Scheck or Zellner.

These attorneys are only going to take on cases where they can take a handsome chunk of any compensation on a contingency basis.

http://observer.com/2012/06/best-defense-lawyer-ever-barry-c-scheck-buys-in-chelsea/

BECAUSE SHE'S GOD DAMN INNOCENT.

 

[Vixen]

BECAUSE SHE'S GOD DAMN INNOCENT.

Great debating skills: bring in profanities and shouting.

 

[acbytesla]

Great debating skills: bring in profanities and shouting.

THANK YOU! !

But I'm not debating, just pointing out your nonsense.

 

[Vixen]

I won't give it dignity.

 

[Stacyhs]

Bravo, so a convicted felon evaded the Canadian border guards. Well done! We can trust the PIP to feel proud of it.

She evaded them by wearing a wig, eyeglasses, nun's outfit and presented a fake passport with the name Jane Smith.

Are you seriously telling us that that not one border guard or passport control agent at the airports recognized the name Amanda Knox?

And you say you've never pulled a prank in your life? I think you're pulling a massive one on us right now. It's either that or you really believe all this nonsense.

 

[Matthew Best]

Scheck paid $745,000 for his apartment? I wonder why, when he could have bought my two bedroom flat in North London for about the same amount.

 

[Stacyhs]

"Windsor Law in the Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted and the Speakers Committee are proud to present, Amanda Knox!

Date and Location: Friday, March 10th at 1:00 pm in the MAIN MOOT COURT."

Source: Windsor Law DWC & Speakers' Committee facebook page.

Apparently fair-minded people are proud to hear from Amanda Knox.

Self-praise is no recommendation.

That's not self-praise. It's the expression of pleasure. That's why replacing "proud" with "pleased" works.

 

[acbytesla]

I won't give it dignity.

You have to be in possession of some to give any.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Kirk Bloodsworth

There is $'000's to be made out of 'Innocence Projects'. Let's face it, a large percentage of 'exonerees' who were released on a 'technicality' are simply hoping to cash in.

For some reason this conversation made me recall Cliff Eberhardt's comment to the effect that "there's literally hundreds of dollars to be made in folk music."

Consider Kirk Bloodsworth, the first person exonerated on the basis of DNA evidence. Consider Patricia Stallings, convicted of poisoning her son, who was actually seriously ill with a genetic disease. Consider Brian Banks, convicted of a rape that never happened. Consider Ronald Cotton, who accepted an invitation to speak at a university recently, despite having some health issues. Consider the Central Park Five, the Norfolk Four, or the West Memphis Three (link to an article about Damien Echols). Have these people accepted speaking fees or made money from writing books? Perhaps some have, but I don't know any details. Do such payments begin to cover their lost years in prison or their struggles to reintegrate into society? If we even have to formulate this question, we have gone off the rails.

 

[Numbers]

First thing that comes up on the search engines:




There is $'000's to be made out of 'Innocence Projects'. Let's face it, a large percentage of 'exonerees' who were released on a 'technicality' are simply hoping to cash in.

Why else is Amanda on the bandwagon falsely claiming she 'wrongfully served four years' for a serious crime she remains convicted of. It makes a mockery of the genuinely innocent who cannot afford the likes of Scheck or Zellner.

These attorneys are only going to take on cases where they can take a handsome chunk of any compensation on a contingency basis.

http://observer.com/2012/06/best-defense-lawyer-ever-barry-c-scheck-buys-in-chelsea/

Your response is shockingly irrelevant and demonstrates a lack of research on the topic you have brought up.

The average cost of an apartment in Manhattan is over $2 million*. Scheck is a professor at Cardozo law school and would make a substantial salary** simply from that, so obtaining a mortgage for $745 thousand or so would not be unusual.

Regarding the Innocence Project, Wikipedia states:

"The Innocence Project is a non-profit legal organization that is committed to exonerating wrongly convicted people through the use of DNA testing and to reforming the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice. The Innocence Project was founded in 1992 by Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld.

To date, the work of the Innocence Project has led to the freeing of 343 wrongfully convicted people based on DNA, including 20 who spent time on death row, and the finding of 147 real perpetrators. ...

The Innocence Project receives 45 percent of its funding from individual contributions, 30 percent from foundations, 15 percent from an annual benefit dinner, 7 percent from the Cardozo School of Law, and the rest from corporations."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project#Funding

Thus, your calumnies are in error in a number of respects, for example: 1) the Innocence Project relies on DNA testing, not technicalities, to uncover wrongful convictions; 2) its DNA testing has determined the individuals actually guilty in a number of cases; 3) Innocence Project funding is based on largely on charitable contributions from individuals, charitable foundations, and corporations, and does not rely on client payments or government settlements.


* Source: The Average Price of a Manhattan Apartment Is Now Over $2 Million
http://ny.curbed.com/2016/4/1/11345882/average-cost-of-manhattan-apartment

**Law Professors in the US have a salary range of about $80,000 to $250,000 per year; median is about $133,000 (Source: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Professor_of_Law/Salary)

A professor with significant experience teaching at an elite institution, such as Barry Scheck, would likely earn an above-median salary.

 

[LondonJohn]

Another pivot. I love how you make a wild unsubstantiated remark, ignore the response and then post a total no-sequitur.

Yes they do. But that doesn't mean they will or always do.

It's also very telling indeed that Vixen sets up (whether through ignorance or an attempt to deceptively misdirect, it's hard to tell....) the false dichotomy that in the Knox/Sollecito case (and, presumably in Vixen's mind, so many similar cases) there are only two binary options regarding the actions, intentions and motives of the law enforcement and judicial investigators:

1) The investigators (i.e. police and prosecutors) acted diligently and with scrupulous fairness;

2) The investigators wilfully set out to "frame" one or more persons whom they knew (or at the very least suspected) to be factually innocent.


The truth of the matter is, of course, hugely different.

For example, it's a very well-documented phenomenon in criminal investigations (and many other types of investigation, for that matter) for the investigators to form an early "intuitive" fixation on a certain theory (and, in the case of criminal investigations, certain suspects), and then engage in the classic twin errors of tunnel vision and confirmation bias: in other words, they will go only looking for evidence to support their theory (while failing to look for evidence that might support any conflicting/alternative theory), and they will interpret any and all evidence in a way which is most favourable to their theory (while suppressing, ignoring or rationalising all evidence which simply cannot be made to fit with their theory).

And it's also a well-documented psychological phenomenon that people in positions of authority often have a near-pathological desire not to be shown to be wrong in any significant decisions/theories. For such people - both individually and collectively/institutionally - once they've "nailed their colours to the mast" (for example, gone public with a particular theory of a particular crime.....), they will do all they possibly can to maintain the perceived "truth" of that position - since they believe that to admit that they were wrong would be personally, professionally and/or institutionally damaging and embarrassing.

It's my opinion that all of the above was prevalent among the police and prosecutors in the investigation of the Kercher murder and the consequent wrongful prosecutions of Knox and Sollecito. None of it remotely involves conscious "framing" of any sort. Instead, it's all about a dreadful catalogue of mistakes and incompetence among police and prosecutors (driven by shocking examples of tunnel vision and confirmation bias), and the egotism- and hubris-driven need/desire of the PM and senior police officials to a) be seen to be "solving the crime" super-quickly and brilliantly, and b) never to have to admit that they were wrong in their initial triumphant pronouncements on how they'd "solved the crime".

 

[Vixen]

Scheck paid $745,000 for his apartment? I wonder why, when he could have bought my two bedroom flat in North London for about the same amount.

Leicester Square is not North London.

 

[Vixen]

Your response is shockingly irrelevant and demonstrates a lack of research on the topic you have brought up.

The average cost of an apartment in Manhattan is over $2 million*. Scheck is a professor at Cardozo law school and would make a substantial salary** simply from that, so obtaining a mortgage for $745 thousand or so would not be unusual.

Regarding the Innocence Project, Wikipedia states:

"The Innocence Project is a non-profit legal organization that is committed to exonerating wrongly convicted people through the use of DNA testing and to reforming the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice. The Innocence Project was founded in 1992 by Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld.

To date, the work of the Innocence Project has led to the freeing of 343 wrongfully convicted people based on DNA, including 20 who spent time on death row, and the finding of 147 real perpetrators. ...

The Innocence Project receives 45 percent of its funding from individual contributions, 30 percent from foundations, 15 percent from an annual benefit dinner, 7 percent from the Cardozo School of Law, and the rest from corporations."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project#Funding

Thus, your calumnies are in error in a number of respects, for example: 1) the Innocence Project relies on DNA testing, not technicalities, to uncover wrongful convictions; 2) its DNA testing has determined the individuals actually guilty in a number of cases; 3) Innocence Project funding is based on largely on charitable contributions from individuals, charitable foundations, and corporations, and does not rely on client payments or government settlements.


* Source: The Average Price of a Manhattan Apartment Is Now Over $2 Million
http://ny.curbed.com/2016/4/1/11345882/average-cost-of-manhattan-apartment

**Law Professors in the US have a salary range of about $80,000 to $250,000 per year; median is about $133,000 (Source: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Professor_of_Law/Salary)

A professor with significant experience teaching at an elite institution, such as Barry Scheck, would likely earn an above-median salary.

Do refer to the riches lawyers made out of the OJ Simspon (who was almost certainly guilty of murder) case:

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/31/us/meter-s-ticking-for-costly-simpson-defense.html

And also:

Barry Scheck, a co-founder of the Innocence Project, which works to free people who have been wrongfully convicted, recalls visiting Houston at the behest of a group of wealthy people who were interested in learning more about issues facing the criminal-justice system. At the time, he didn’t realize that Ms. Arnold, a Yale-trained lawyer, was one of the people behind his invitation.

https://www.philanthropy.com/article/A-Thirtysomething-Billionaire/157613

 

[LondonJohn]

For some reason this conversation made me recall Cliff Eberhardt's comment to the effect that "there's literally hundreds of dollars to be made in folk music."

Consider Kirk Bloodsworth, the first person exonerated on the basis of DNA evidence. Consider Patricia Stallings, convicted of poisoning her son, who was actually seriously ill with a genetic disease. Consider Brian Banks, convicted of a rape that never happened. Consider Ronald Cotton, who accepted an invitation to speak at a university recently, despite having some health issues. Consider the Central Park Five, the Norfolk Four, or the West Memphis Three (link to an article about Damien Echols). Have these people accepted speaking fees or made money from writing books? Perhaps some have, but I don't know any details. Do such payments begin to cover their lost years in prison or their struggles to reintegrate into society? If we even have to formulate this question, we have gone off the rails.

I think there's little doubt that there's a small cadre of unscrupulous lawyers who see revenues and/or fame in either "ambulance chasing" (trying to persuade injured people to sue), high-profile lawsuits against governments, or exoneration projects.

But I also think there's little (in fact no) doubt that in the area of exonerations, the established innocence projects across the world (following the successful US template) are driven by honourable motives that are in no way related to monetary remuneration.

And in addition, anyone who has had their conviction quashed by a fair court of appeal (and who thus stands exactly as innocent as anyone else) has a perfect right to a) seek fair compensation from the government which convicted (and usually imprisoned) them, and b) write books or make speeches as much as they want (and make as much money as comes from those who want to pay them to speak or pay to buy their books).

End of.

 

[Stacyhs]

First thing that comes up on the search engines:




There is $'000's to be made out of 'Innocence Projects'. Let's face it, a large percentage of 'exonerees' who were released on a 'technicality' are simply hoping to cash in.
Why else is Amanda on the bandwagon falsely claiming she 'wrongfully served four years' for a serious crime she remains convicted of.
It makes a mockery of the genuinely innocent who cannot afford the likes of Scheck or Zellner.

These attorneys are only going to take on cases where they can take a handsome chunk of any compensation on a contingency basis.

http://observer.com/2012/06/best-defense-lawyer-ever-barry-c-scheck-buys-in-chelsea/

1) Apparently, you are not aware that "the Innocence Project does not use legal technicalities to challenge convictions; the Project accepts only cases in which newly discovered scientific evidence can potentially prove that a convicted person is factually innocent."


2) "Bandwagon"? More of your hyperbole. She is speaking as a MURDER exoneree, not as a person convicted of calumny.

3) Wrong again! The Innocence Project is a pro-bono organization. They do not "take a handsome chunk of any compensation on a contingency basis" or, in fact, any payment. Stop posting lies.

 

[Vixen]

That's not self-praise. It's the expression of pleasure. That's why replacing "proud" with "pleased" works.

I was talking about Numbers' self-professed claim of being 'fair-minded'.

We'll be the best judge of that.

 

[Vixen]

You have to be in possession of some to give any.

That's you. What about me?

 

[Stacyhs]

It's also very telling indeed that Vixen sets up (whether through ignorance or an attempt to deceptively misdirect, it's hard to tell....) the false dichotomy that in the Knox/Sollecito case (and, presumably in Vixen's mind, so many similar cases) there are only two binary options regarding the actions, intentions and motives of the law enforcement and judicial investigators:

1) The investigators (i.e. police and prosecutors) acted diligently and with scrupulous fairness;

2) The investigators wilfully set out to "frame" one or more persons whom they knew (or at the very least suspected) to be factually innocent.


The truth of the matter is, of course, hugely different.

For example, it's a very well-documented phenomenon in criminal investigations (and many other types of investigation, for that matter) for the investigators to form an early "intuitive" fixation on a certain theory (and, in the case of criminal investigations, certain suspects), and then engage in the classic twin errors of tunnel vision and confirmation bias: in other words, they will go only looking for evidence to support their theory (while failing to look for evidence that might support any conflicting/alternative theory), and they will interpret any and all evidence in a way which is most favourable to their theory (while suppressing, ignoring or rationalising all evidence which simply cannot be made to fit with their theory).

And it's also a well-documented psychological phenomenon that people in positions of authority often have a near-pathological desire not to be shown to be wrong in any significant decisions/theories. For such people - both individually and collectively/institutionally - once they've "nailed their colours to the mast" (for example, gone public with a particular theory of a particular crime.....), they will do all they possibly can to maintain the perceived "truth" of that position - since they believe that to admit that they were wrong would be personally, professionally and/or institutionally damaging and embarrassing.

It's my opinion that all of the above was prevalent among the police and prosecutors in the investigation of the Kercher murder and the consequent wrongful prosecutions of Knox and Sollecito. None of it remotely involves conscious "framing" of any sort. Instead, it's all about a dreadful catalogue of mistakes and incompetence among police and prosecutors (driven by shocking examples of tunnel vision and confirmation bias), and the egotism- and hubris-driven need/desire of the PM and senior police officials to a) be seen to be "solving the crime" super-quickly and brilliantly, and b) never to have to admit that they were wrong in their initial triumphant pronouncements on how they'd "solved the crime".

Agreed. I have always been of this opinion. No one set out to "frame" Knox and Sollecito.

I do think the police did intentionally lie, though, about the interrogation of Nov 5/6. They broke the law and they knew it. They had to lie or face possible firing or official reprimands.