The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

[Vixen]

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.

There are folk who do not believe all of the above to be innocent. The conviction of the guy who was eventually caught re Central Park Jogger does seem to fit with his MO.

Blaming the boy's stepfather for the murder of the three little boys doesn't prove the West Memphis Three are innocent. The conviction was merely vacated. Echols was not exonerated. He seems to have a lot of insider knowledge about the sex attack on that boy. Nonetheless, he has made huge sums of money from 'art exhibitions', exoneration speaking and from books.

I believe Amanda is a great fan of his. Not surprisingly.

 

[LondonJohn]

Not a problem. It occurred to me that you had liked the content of my post so much that you simply wanted me to repeat part of it.

It's my view that Marasca was doing no more or less than ensuring that his motivations report explicitly remained compatible with the previously-adjudicated notion that Knox was present at the cottage at the time of the murder (hence the "even if she was present...." construction). And it's obvious to me that he was doing so precisely to prevent (or wave off) the possibility of their being any form of clash/contradiction between two judicial verdicts (which might in itself precipitate a new investigation and ruling....).

As Marasca says and implies in so many ways: nobody except the culprit(s) knows what truly, factually happened within the cottage that evening. Since Knox (and Sollecito) cannot prove they weren't there, we can't say with clinical certainty that they were not within the cottage at the time of the murder. We cannot even say with clinical certainty that they were not involved in the murder itself. But that is not the matter that the Marasca court (nor any one of the lower courts in this sorry, botched case) was there to determine. The only question was this: was there sufficient credible, reliable evidence presented to the court which, taken as a whole, proved beyond all reasonable doubt that Knox and/or Sollecito committed any of the murder-related crimes with which they were charged? And that answer to that is a massive, resounding NO.

If there's not sufficient evidence to prove guilt BARD of any particular crime, then the only conceivable outcome is to acquit (and for the person to preserve the presumption of innocence). A person does not need to (and very often cannot) prove they didn't do the crime (for reasons which are overwhelmingly sound in law, ethics and logic, but which probably fall beyond the intellectual reasoning capabilities of so many pro-guilt commentators....).

 

[acbytesla]

That's you. What about me?

Now you sound like Pee Wee Herman.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Then why did she hold up a placard that was knowingly false, claiming to be 'exonerated from four years in prison'. Total misrepresentation.

She remains convicted in perpetuity of the serious crime of Calunnia.

How ironic she maliciously sent her innocent boss to prison, and she and her mother Edda, were more than happy to let him rot there.

To add insult to injury, she hasn't paid Patrick the compensation as ordered by the court.

If anyone was 'wrongfully imprisoned', it was Patrick.

We note Amanda has not put in a claim for compensation, unlike Raff, who had his claim dismissed and his and Amanda's characters torn to shreds in the Florence MR.

It ruled Amanda was 'indisputably' present at the scene during the murder, as an absolute 'certainty'.

 

[Vixen]

Now you sound like Pee Wee Herman.

Good ol' Pee Wee.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

I fully agree. But I think the opinion of the police (and probably the PM also) was that this was "noble lying" - that they may have used methods which, ermmm, *weren't totally by the book*, but the end justified the means, and they "got to the truth" in the end. I also strongly suspect that among the police (and possibly many PMs too) there's a feeling of "We know how to do our jobs properly, and our methods bring results - if the law says we're not allowed to do certain things, then we'll just turn a blind eye to the law and lie about it later if necessary (after all, it's our words against that of a snivelling low-life criminal: who are the authorities gonna believe...?)"

I also think that all of the above informs the *interesting* decisions not to record those interrogations. My own opinion is that the police (and, again, possibly also the PM) knew in advance that they might well be using unlawful interrogation "techniques", and that's why they took care to avoid making recordings (which might provide unimpeachably damning evidence of their malpractice at a future date). I believe that this practice of conducting an unrecorded interrogation of a person whom they considered a suspect - but whom they'd deliberately failed to assign the official classification of "suspect", so as to enable them to conduct the interrogation in the first place - was/is a well-practised and well-choreographed tactic among police forced across Italy. I think it's one of the classic ways of "obtaining" a "confession" - and I think the associated tactic of having the PM come in shortly afterwards and elicit a "spontaneous declaration" (in which the person repeats the "confession", but which can then, of course, be used in court against the person) is part of the whole disgraceful charade.

 

[LondonJohn]

Now you sound like Pee Wee Herman.

Ughhhhh. This whole "That's you. What about me?" thing is such an intellectually dishonest, weasel form of "argumentation".

 

[Stacyhs]

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

We'll be the best judge of that.

To be a "best judge of something" one would have to be very familiar with it. Fair-minded is not a something I associate with most PGP. If they were, they'd admit that:

1) negative TMB tests mean no blood present,
2) a kitchen knife with no blood on it, that doesn't fit most of the wounds and is only "compatible" with one is not the murder weapon,
3)memory is not perfect and making a mistake isn't a "lie",
4)Guede could easily have scaled the wall,
5) a bra hook found 46 days after the murder and found across the room and collected with dirty gloves is highly indicative of contamination.
6) Stefanoni did not follow protocols
7) mixed DNA does not mean the two DNAs were left at the same time
8) Amanda was not jealous of Meredith
9) Amanda and Raff were not "druggies" and did not use cocaine or other narcotics
etc etc etc

 

[acbytesla]

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".

I really wasn't saying that most investigators frame suspects. Although on some occasions I'm convinced that it happens. Armando Saldate comes to mind. You're right on with your comments that wrongful prosecutions and convictions are almost always the result of mistakes including a an overly narrow focus on a specific suspect. Vixen's comments are just more of the same illogical reasoning that result in convictions like this one and Russ Faria.

Basically Vixen's perspective is that the police are never wrong.

 

[Stacyhs]

I fully agree. But I think the opinion of the police (and probably the PM also) was that this was "noble lying" - that they may have used methods which, ermmm, *weren't totally by the book*, but the end justified the means, and they "got to the truth" in the end. I also strongly suspect that among the police (and possibly many PMs too) there's a feeling of "We know how to do our jobs properly, and our methods bring results - if the law says we're not allowed to do certain things, then we'll just turn a blind eye to the law and lie about it later if necessary (after all, it's our words against that of a snivelling low-life criminal: who are the authorities gonna believe...?)"

I also think that all of the above informs the *interesting* decisions not to record those interrogations. My own opinion is that the police (and, again, possibly also the PM) knew in advance that they might well be using unlawful interrogation "techniques", and that's why they took care to avoid making recordings (which might provide unimpeachably damning evidence of their malpractice at a future date). I believe that this practice of conducting an unrecorded interrogation of a person whom they considered a suspect - but whom they'd deliberately failed to assign the official classification of "suspect", so as to enable them to conduct the interrogation in the first place - was/is a well-practised and well-choreographed tactic among police forced across Italy. I think it's one of the classic ways of "obtaining" a "confession" - and I think the associated tactic of having the PM come in shortly afterwards and elicit a "spontaneous declaration" (in which the person repeats the "confession", but which can then, of course, be used in court against the person) is part of the whole disgraceful charade.

I'm in total agreement with your assessment. There is absolutely no justifiable reason for them not to have recorded the interrogations. And Mignini's explanations are laughable.

 

[acbytesla]

Ughhhhh. This whole "That's you. What about me?" thing is such an intellectually dishonest, weasel form of "argumentation".

Yes it is. Vixen seems to think we are debating this case and she is interested in winning. So she doesn't care if what she says is logical or correct if it means she can think she won.

Whereas most if not all of us are just interested in the truth.

 

[Numbers]

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

"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.

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

We'll be the best judge of that.

It's interesting to examine the above set of quoted posts to show Vixen's peculiar twists and misrepresentations.

Apparently, Vixen did not comprehend or chose to misinterpret that the reference to "fair-minded people" was to the attendees at the Windsor School of Law Defense of the Wrongfully Convicted (DWC) assembly. I have not stated that I was present. Attendance was limited to Windsor students and faculty, and it was the DWC who invited Amanda Knox.

Vixen interprets my statement as a claim that I am "fair-minded". A peculiar reading which, I believe, is an attempt by Vixen, who has no credible arguments about the Knox - Sollecito case, to resort to a round-about ad hominen.

 

[Bill Williams]

It ruled Amanda was 'indisputably' present at the scene during the murder, as an absolute 'certainty'.

It did!? Please provide a list of exhibits and quote from testimony that **that** court heard to come to this conclusion!

What!? You can't? I would have thought you could.

 

[Stacyhs]

It's interesting to examine the above set of quoted posts to show Vixen's peculiar twists and misrepresentations.

Apparently, Vixen did not comprehend or chose to misinterpret that the reference to "fair-minded people" was to the attendees at the Windsor School of Law Defense of the Wrongfully Convicted (DWC) assembly. I have not stated that I was present. Attendance was limited to Windsor students and faculty, and it was the DWC who invited Amanda Knox.

Vixen interprets my statement as a claim that I am "fair-minded". A peculiar reading which, I believe, is an attempt by Vixen, who has no credible arguments about the Knox - Sollecito case, to resort to a round-about ad hominen.

She pulls this tactic quite often. We're used to it.

 

[Vixen]

It's interesting to examine the above set of quoted posts to show Vixen's peculiar twists and misrepresentations.

Apparently, Vixen did not comprehend or chose to misinterpret that the reference to "fair-minded people" was to the attendees at the Windsor School of Law Defense of the Wrongfully Convicted (DWC) assembly. I have not stated that I was present. Attendance was limited to Windsor students and faculty, and it was the DWC who invited Amanda Knox.

Vixen interprets my statement as a claim that I am "fair-minded". A peculiar reading which, I believe, is an attempt by Vixen, who has no credible arguments about the Knox - Sollecito case, to resort to a round-about ad hominen.

OK, fair enough. I thought you were referring to yourselves.

 

[Bill Williams]

OK, fair enough. I thought you were referring to yourselves.

An example of confirmation bias. You, yourself, introduced the meme of "PIP being proud of themselves", and than blamed the PIP for "being proud of themselves....

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

You started the meme, then assumed the meme.

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen, what scientific evidence shows that Amanda washed her hands of Meredith's blood? And please, don't mention the mixed DNA since the scientific facts are that 1) DNA cannot be time stamped and 2) mixed samples don't have to be deposited at the same time and 3) the source of Amanda's DNA was never determined.

Oh, you can't site any evidence of this? Go figure...

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, what scientific evidence shows that Amanda washed her hands of Meredith's blood? And please, don't mention the mixed DNA since the scientific facts are that 1) DNA cannot be time stamped and 2) mixed samples don't have to be deposited at the same time and 3) the source of Amanda's DNA was never determined.

Oh, you can't site any evidence of this? Go figure...

We have been through this many times. Please read the court documents if you want to know the arguments.

 

[acbytesla]

We have been through this many times. Please read the court documents if you want to know the arguments.

What nonsense. In other words You don't have a damn bit of evidence to backup a single claim. God forbid you even try to prove something.

 

[Stacyhs]

We have been through this many times. Please read the court documents if you want to know the arguments.

Oh, I have. They give NO scientific evidence to support this claim. NONE. Which is why YOU can't.