Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 27

[Planigale]

Yes, I pointed this out in my post above. The Open International University for Complementary Medicines, which the author lists as the source of her "degree", is unaccredited and a "diploma mill" run out of Sri Lanka.

Yes you beat me to it! What comes of perusing the thread while cooking. You read one post and respond to it then you find someone else has already done so.

But an interesting comparison with the other reference above by Professor Martha Grace Duncan J.D. Ph.D. Professor of Law, Emory University. (Ph.D., Columbia University; J.D., Yale University)
http://law.emory.edu/_includes/docu...rship/faculty-cvs/duncan-curriculum-vitae.pdf

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Stefano Maffei interview

It's strange that no law professors have written about how strong the case was seeing as only delusional murder groupies believe otherwise

The only exception I can think of is in the linked article. The author interviewed Stefanon Maffei and quoted him on p. 61: "The case against Raffaele and Amanda is overwhelming; I’ve never seen so much circumstantial evidence! It’s not a very interesting case as a result.” On page 62, she quoted him again: “When the Court of Appeals acquitted, it claimed that if you take one piece out, the whole case falls apart. They took out the DNA from the bra clasp, which was contaminated, but DNA is not necessary to prove guilt.” She went on, "His comment puzzles me, because the Court of Appeals had not merely challenged 'one piece.'"

Professor Maffei's comment would make sense if applied to Rudy Guide; if you threw out the DNA evidence against him, you would still have enough evidence to convict him BARD twice over.

 

[Bill Williams]

The only exception I can think of is in the linked article. The author interviewed Stefanon Maffei and quoted him on p. 61: "The case against Raffaele and Amanda is overwhelming; I’ve never seen so much circumstantial evidence! It’s not a very interesting case as a result.” On page 62, she quoted him again: “When the Court of Appeals acquitted, it claimed that if you take one piece out, the whole case falls apart. They took out the DNA from the bra clasp, which was contaminated, but DNA is not necessary to prove guilt.” She went on, "His comment puzzles me, because the Court of Appeals had not merely challenged 'one piece.'"

Professor Maffei's comment would make sense if applied to Rudy Guide; if you threw out the DNA evidence against him, you would still have enough evidence to convict him BARD twice over.

What is amazing, but sadly typical, is that Vixen would ignore Maffei, while making other arguments based on someone with a degree from a Sri Lankan, diploma mill!

Maffei is entitled to his opinion. I liken him to Paul Callan who as late as Feb 2014 was going on CNN arguing for the pair's guilt, and setting up the (now obsolete) extradition fight. The program back then I;d seen him on was with Steve Moore, and Callan simply handwaved away anything Moore said.

Yet by March and April, once the Supreme Court had acquitted the pair, Callan had switched 180 degrees. (Ok, ok that part is not Maffei.....)

But for some reason this case attracted one or two people like Callan and Maffei who imply handwaved facts away. However, I'll bet you that Maffei agrees with what even Maresca had said the day of the definitive acquittals, that this case is over.

Has anyone seen him argue for an international Masonic, US Media conspiracy to pervert justice in Italy?

 

[bagels]

The only exception I can think of is in the linked article. The author interviewed Stefanon Maffei and quoted him on p. 61: "The case against Raffaele and Amanda is overwhelming; I’ve never seen so much circumstantial evidence! It’s not a very interesting case as a result.” On page 62, she quoted him again: “When the Court of Appeals acquitted, it claimed that if you take one piece out, the whole case falls apart. They took out the DNA from the bra clasp, which was contaminated, but DNA is not necessary to prove guilt.” She went on, "His comment puzzles me, because the Court of Appeals had not merely challenged 'one piece.'"

Professor Maffei's comment would make sense if applied to Rudy Guide; if you threw out the DNA evidence against him, you would still have enough evidence to convict him BARD twice over.

Yeah but that seems to be a rather casually informed opinion, similar to Dershowitz. He hasn't actually written out a paper on why the evidence is so compelling which would require actually looking into the statements of Quintavalle and Curatolo, looking at the photos of the break-in, reading the Medical Examiner's actual findings etc etc.

I have never in the history of this case seen an esteemed individual set out to analyze why the case is strong. It's easy to just align yourself on the whim of the prosecution seeing as you'll be statistically right 99%+ of the time, but it doesn't add any insight if you're not willing to actually examine the evidence.

The prosecution's case is overwhelming if we take it at face value, evidence of multiple attackers, lying about when the police are called, eyewitnesses disproving alibis, etc etc. So yeah, he's right that the case on its surface isn't interesting. It's interesting because it's all false. It's perhaps the most false case ever presented in a modern court, and it's more interesting because it's not just false but transparently false. Like the evidence of multiple attackers is just something claimed. There isn't anything to back it up. Not a single thing. The prosecutor just said "there's evidence of multiple attackers" and that has made it so in the minds of everyone who just accepts that a prosecutor wouldn't make a demonstrably false claim in court.

This case is the ultimate litmus test really.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, I pointed this out in my post above. The Open International University for Complementary Medicines, which the author lists as the source of her "degree", is unaccredited and a "diploma mill" run out of Sri Lanka.

You are really ignorant - the author of the article is clearly drawing on common psychological findings in the matter.

She didn't claim to have carried out the experiments herself.

 

[Vixen]

What is amazing, but sadly typical, is that Vixen would ignore Maffei, while making other arguments based on someone with a degree from a Sri Lankan, diploma mill!

Maffei is entitled to his opinion. I liken him to Paul Callan who as late as Feb 2014 was going on CNN arguing for the pair's guilt, and setting up the (now obsolete) extradition fight. The program back then I;d seen him on was with Steve Moore, and Callan simply handwaved away anything Moore said.

Yet by March and April, once the Supreme Court had acquitted the pair, Callan had switched 180 degrees. (Ok, ok that part is not Maffei.....)

But for some reason this case attracted one or two people like Callan and Maffei who imply handwaved facts away. However, I'll bet you that Maffei agrees with what even Maresca had said the day of the definitive acquittals, that this case is over.

Has anyone seen him argue for an international Masonic, US Media conspiracy to pervert justice in Italy?

Here comes the racism. So Stacyhs discovered the author of a random article - of which there are many - comes form...gasp...Sri Lanka.

Get over it.

The points she makes in her article are very good.

 

[bagels]

Here comes the racism. So Stacyhs discovered the author of a random article - of which there are many - comes form...gasp...Sri Lanka.

Get over it.

The points she makes in her article are very good.

PIP articles are found in like, the Harvard Law Journal, Forensic Science International, etc.

PGP articles are found on random WordPress blogs, tabloids, etc.

Interesting disparity.

 

[Vixen]

PIP articles are found in like, the Harvard Law Journal, Forensic Science International, etc.

PGP articles are found on random WordPress blogs, tabloids, etc.

Interesting disparity.

The topic of Body Language is standard psychology. All the author of the article did was collate expert opinion on the psychology of lying. If you go to PSYCHOLOGY TODAY you'll find numerous articles about lying and deception and how to identify it there by academic psychologists.

So the author of the one I found at random is Sri Lankan and enjoys belly dancing, as if that makes her article null and void.

Disgusting.

 

[Stacyhs]

Using phrases like 'obviously' is a qualifier, and that alerts anyone with an ear for embellishment.

I did read a learned piece recently about the specific use of 'obviously' as a flag, but can't remember where.

Oh, dear. Isn't "clearly" a synonym for "obviously"? Maybe it's not in British English.

By the way, still waiting for those citations, including the one that supports your claim that "many judges immediately start sniffing a lie when people in the witness box use words like, 'Obviously'. It's often a flag they are trying to persuade the court a thing is obvious when it is anything but."
and that "Police, barristers and judges are trained to be alert to lying."

You are really ignorant - the author of the article is clearly drawing on common psychological findings in the matter.

She didn't claim to have carried out the experiments herself.

LOL! No one claimed she did. But the author never gives a citation for any of her lengthy list. She doesn't bother to give any supporting evidence of her claims. Sounds strangely familiar.

 

[Stacyhs]

Here comes the racism. So Stacyhs discovered the author of a random article - of which there are many - comes form...gasp...Sri Lanka.

Get over it.

The points she makes in her article are very good.

You really should stop digging the hole deeper, Vix. From your link:

Born in France, Frédérique has lived in Canada since 1980.

I said the unaccredited, paper mill "school" she got her worthless "diploma" from is in Sri Lanka. Try reading more carefully before you start slinging groundless accusations of racism. Tut-tut.

 

[Vixen]

Oh, dear. Isn't "clearly" a synonym for "obviously"? Maybe it's not in British English.

By the way, still waiting for those citations, including the one that supports your claim that "many judges immediately start sniffing a lie when people in the witness box use words like, 'Obviously'. It's often a flag they are trying to persuade the court a thing is obvious when it is anything but."
and that "Police, barristers and judges are trained to be alert to lying."



LOL! No one claimed she did. But the author never gives a citation for any of her lengthy list. She doesn't bother to give any supporting evidence of her claims. Sounds strangely familiar.

I can't be held responsible for your lack of knowledge. I gave you a random citation from Google. What is to stop you doing your own research if you have a genuine interest in the topic?

Once again we see your demand for citation is merely a facetious attempt by you to wilfully waste my time, as you couldn't care less about any citation I give you.

 

[Vixen]

You really should stop digging the hole deeper, Vix. From your link:



I said the unaccredited, paper mill "school" she got her worthless "diploma" from is in Sri Lanka. Try reading more carefully before you start slinging groundless accusations of racism. Tut-tut.

A Sri Lanka diploma is 'worthless' ?


How do you work that out?

 

[TruthCalls]

A Sri Lanka diploma is 'worthless' ?


How do you work that out?

I don't think she did, more like you did by morphing what has been said.

The Open International University for Complementary Medicines is located in Sri Lanka. That is about the extent of the relevance of Sri Lanka in this discussion.

You can read about this particular 'school' here. http://degrees4sale.blogspot.com/

It's a "degree mill" - in other words, if you want a degree just write them a check and you'll get it. In other words, citing a degree from this school does not afford one any particular credibility.

But you can keep ignoring the obvious and cry racism, disgust, etc. Sometimes you can be such a drama queen.

 

[Bill Williams]

A Sri Lanka diploma is 'worthless' ?


How do you work that out?

You have severe reading comprehension issues. No one said Sri Lankan diplomas, per se, were worthless. However, diplomas from on-line diploma factories are worthless, even the ones from Sri Lanka.

9/10s of this thread is responding to your miscomprehensions.

 

[Bill Williams]

Here comes the racism. So Stacyhs discovered the author of a random article - of which there are many - comes form...gasp...Sri Lanka.

Get over it.

The points she makes in her article are very good.

LOL! It is not racism which is at play here, it is academic skepticism. Having a healthy dose of skepticism over a diploma which comes from a diploma mill, is well placed.

Then again, the nutters on your side of the fence have always played the race card, usually dealing it from the bottom of the deck. It is usually played when you've run out of things to talk about.

 

[bagels]

The topic of Body Language is standard psychology. All the author of the article did was collate expert opinion on the psychology of lying. If you go to PSYCHOLOGY TODAY you'll find numerous articles about lying and deception and how to identify it there by academic psychologists.

So the author of the one I found at random is Sri Lankan and enjoys belly dancing, as if that makes her article null and void.

Disgusting.

I didn't read nor care about whatever article you linked. Criminal cases are solved by evidence, forensic evidence, witness testimony, electronic surveillance, interrogations, etc. Not tea leaf reading whoever the tabloids are following around with their cameras.

 

[Stacyhs]

The topic of Body Language is standard psychology. All the author of the article did was collate expert opinion on the psychology of lying. If you go to PSYCHOLOGY TODAY you'll find numerous articles about lying and deception and how to identify it there by academic psychologists.

So the author of the one I found at random is Sri Lankan and enjoys belly dancing, as if that makes her article null and void.

Disgusting.

Give two experts the same Dianne Sawyer interview video to watch and they'll often come up with completely opposite conclusions. For example, David Givens, Ph.D and the Director of the Center for Nonverbal Studies said that Knox is "extremely credible" and that ""She is not a deceiver, she is telling the truth, she is displaying emotional feelings about the police and the whole process," and "She seems relaxed and truthful. I don't see any deception indicated."
(http://www.kxly.com/news/local-news/spokane/analyzing-amanda-knoxs-body-language/177049763)

But another expert, watching the same video, came to a different conclusion:

Although there are some scientific methods to test for veracity, there’s body language, there are facial giveaways, there’s statement analysis, and there is also intuition. When you watch Knox in her interview with CNN and with Diane Sawyer the thought foremost in our minds is the most basic and most obvious one. Are you a murderer, Amanda? And for my money, just watching Knox’s reactions, she’s not very convincing. If Knox is a liar, she’s not a very good one.

Oh, wait, that was Nick van der Leek in Extradition. And he's not an expert on body language. Mea culpa.

 

[Stacyhs]

I can't be held responsible for your lack of knowledge. I gave you a random citation from Google. What is to stop you doing your own research if you have a genuine interest in the topic?

Once again we see your demand for citation is merely a facetious attempt by you to wilfully waste my time, as you couldn't care less about any citation I give you.

Oh, dear. That swooshing sound is the point going right over your head yet again. You gave a link in an attempt to support your case. The link proved to be a worthless blog by a woman who has no expertise in the subject nor does she provide a single citation in support.

Once again, you assume to know what I think. You don't. The fact is, Vixen, that you make claims over and over again and fail to provide any citations to support them when asked to do so. The fact is that you cannot provide these citations because what you claimed is false. You are employing the very common tactic of "the best defense is a good offense" which is used when there is no other defense.

 

[Stacyhs]

A Sri Lanka diploma is 'worthless' ?


How do you work that out?

Oh, good lord. False accusations of racism and now this gem? Know when to stop digging the hole deeper.

 

[TruthCalls]

This is an interesting paper on the case written by an Emory University law professor.

What Not to Do When Your Roommate Is Murdered in Italy: Amanda Knox, Her 'Strange' Behavior, and the Italian Legal System

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3073208

Thanks for the link. I found the following particularly interesting;

A landmark study published in the Stanford Law Review in 1987 supports the proposition that innocent people do confess. In this study, Professors Hugo Bedau and Michael Radelet found that out of 350 miscarriages of justice, forty-nine were at least partially due to false confessions. In fact, false confessions were the fourth most recurrent cause of these wrongful convictions, preceded only by mistakes in eyewitness identification, perjury by prosecutorial witnesses, and “community outrage over a crime.”

Considering Curatolo and Quintavalle likely fall under either 'mistaken identification' or 'perjury by the witness', or both, and given the international focus and pitchfork & torch crowds outside the courthouse for each verdict announcement, it would seem to me that Amanda suffered from a wrongful conviction "perfect storm".