Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Kestrel]

And to support that, you cite Frank Sfarzo, who's FOA. Do you have any neutral source for that?

I checked the TJMK thread where the polka dot photo evidence was discussed. The "refutation" of the evidence consisted entirely of name calling, distractions and smears.

Considering that the crime scene was photographed by people who do this for a living, why can't you dig up a clear photo proving that there was glass on top of the clothing?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Your faith in the divinely inspired perfection of the Italian justice system is touching

As opposed to your xenophobic view of their inferiority you mean? That they are somehow more lacking then your nation? And what is the basis of that, aside from the mere existence of the Stars and stripes?

And aside from you 'assertions' based on xenophobia, what actual evidence do you provide to support it?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Someone needs to bring out the burglary statute in Italy because I think there are some misconceptions on what "burglary" actually is. If I had time I would do it.

Most burglary statutes in England and US have nothing to do with theft or things being stolen. That's "robbery" or "theft". It's simply entering or remaining unlawfully with intent to commit a crime. My guess is it is the same in Italy. If that's true, "nothing being stolen" would not negate a burglary. And to add to that, cell phones and credit cards were stolen.

Stilcho, you may very well be right that there was a faked burglary, but your steps to deduce that point are all logically flawed.

Point one: "none of them thought". Your insinuation that because none in the cottage "thought" there had been a burglary, that is actually evidence that there was none. Logically flawed.

Point two: "That is why RG was not charged with a burglary." Logically flawed again. Whether he was charged or not makes no difference whatsoever about what happened.

Point three: You ask, "what was stolen?" Nothing needs to be stolen for a burglary to occur. To boot, it is a fact that Meredith's phones and credit cards were stolen. Something was stolen.

You write: "AK, RS, Filomena, the Postal Police, the photographic evidence, and the physical evidence all say "nothing was stolen"." Again, this is meaningless, and of course it isn't true.

There are items of evidence that may support a burglary and that may support a fake burglary, but nothing you mention establishes either as fact or non-fact. This is still a skeptics forum correct?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I checked the TJMK thread where the polka dot photo evidence was discussed. The "refutation" of the evidence consisted entirely of name calling, distractions and smears.

Considering that the crime scene was photographed by people who do this for a living, why can't you dig up a clear photo proving that there was glass on top of the clothing?

That's called' 'defence lawyers earning their money', that's what the defence said. It doesn't make them right. Let's see if they were...oh no, they weren't, all defendants found guilty, unanimous verdict. Next asinine argument...

 

[Fulcanelli]

I checked the TJMK thread where the polka dot photo evidence was discussed. The "refutation" of the evidence consisted entirely of name calling, distractions and smears.

Considering that the crime scene was photographed by people who do this for a living, why can't you dig up a clear photo proving that there was glass on top of the clothing?

They were photographing a room that simply by all appearances, had been rifled. There were no forensics. Close up pics weren't considered to be needed at the time.

In any case, they aren't required...we have at least two qualified witnesses.

 

[Kestrel]

As opposed to your xenophobic view of their inferiority you mean? That they are somehow more lacking then your nation? And what is the basis of that, aside from the mere existence of the Stars and stripes?

And aside from you 'assertions' based on xenophobia, what actual evidence do you provide to support it?

I would be the last person to claim that the US justice system is perfect. Or that an investigator could reliably solve a crime simply by observing the behavior of the suspects under interrogation as was claimed in the Kercher murder case.

The US system does make mistakes. All too often, our courts find people guilty of crimes they did not commit. Emotionally charged cases like the Peggy Hettrick murder case^WP, where evidence takes a back seat to tabloid psychology, can result in this kind of injustice.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I would be the last person to claim that the US justice system is perfect. Or that an investigator could reliably solve a crime simply by observing the behavior of the suspects under interrogation as was claimed in the Kercher murder case.

The US system does make mistakes. All too often, our courts find people guilty of crimes they did not commit. Emotionally charged cases like the Peggy Hettrick murder case^WP, where evidence takes a back seat to tabloid psychology, can result in this kind of injustice.

Well Kestrel, I'm glad to hear you're not making any ethno-superioriy claim here.

However, it is difficult to separate general criticism of a system (in this case the Italian) and that of this particular case.

So Kestrel, is the Italian justice system intrinsically wrong, or did they simply make a mistake in this case and if so, what and how?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Chauvinism

Interesting. I lived in Texas and my experience was that as long as you weren't guilty, telling the truth exonerated you just as readily as any other state...

Of course, as with any dealings with any legal system: YMMV.

ETA: Forgot the smiley...

BobTheDonkey,

The original comment about Texas might have been a reference to the Cameron Todd Willingham case (see the David Grann article in the New Yorker), or to the Timothy Cole case (William L. Anderson’s blog would be a good place to start). Mr. Willingham was convicted of the arson deaths of his three children on the basis of arson forensics that are now known to be absolutely false. Mr. Cole was convicted of rape with the help of the police coaching/pressuring the complaining witness. He died in prison of asthma (the actual rapist was a chain smoker, which should have been a clue), but he was exonerated by DNA forensics. I am not saying that Texas is any more or less prone to miscarriages of justice than any other state in the U.S., but there have been some high-profile cases recently.

No comments of mine, nor I suspect other Knox/Sollecito supporters, should be construed to mean that we think that one nation does forensics in a uniformly better or worse way than another. The same holds true for criminal justice systems. Let’s put all the implication that some commenters have exhibited Chauvinism or anti-European bias away, once and for all.

Chris

 

[piktor]

Point one: "none of them thought". Your insinuation that because none in the cottage "thought" there had been a burglary, that is actually evidence that there was none. Logically flawed.

This is an Italian trial. Anglosaxon trial court rules and "logic" do not apply.

One example is the defendant can speak at any time during the trial to clarify or add to the testimony.

The defendant is expected to lie in court and if the defendant does lie, it is not considered perjury.

If Filomena testified she "did not think it was a real burglary", it is taken into account by the judges.

 

[HumanityBlues]

This is an Italian trial. Anglosaxon trial court rules and "logic" do not apply.

One example is the defendant can speak at any time during the trial to clarify or add to the testimony.

The defendant is expected to lie in court and if the defendant does lie, it is not considered perjury.

If Filomena testified she "did not think it was a real burglary", it is taken into account by the judges.

Your insinuation is that because it is "taken into account" under the Italian system that adds some sort of weight to its value. Taken into account does not equal proof or relevance, in any system.

Anglo-saxon trial rules do not apply, but all crimes in Italy are governed by the appropriate statute. That is the same for burglary. Unless the Italian statute for burglary says something must be stolen, it is not necessary. You may be confused with what is a statutory crime and what is an evidentiary issue.

You write: "Anglo-saxon" logic does not apply". I'm not quite sure how to interpret that. Perhaps you should expand on that because it sounds like you are saying that inherently fallacious or sound arguments are confined to the countries they're made in---which I don't think anyone here really believes.

 

[piktor]

You write: "Anglo-saxon" logic does not apply". I'm not quite sure how to interpret that. Perhaps you should expand on that because it sounds like you are saying that inherently fallacious or sound arguments are confined to the countries they're made in---which I don't think anyone here really believes.

By "Anglosaxon logic" I mean some testimony considered "anecdotal" by U.S. and British courts is automatically tossed out by the judge in those countries.

In Italy anecdotal testimony is not discarded and is given weight by the judges or thrown out.

Maybe I should have said that what "makes sense" in Italian courts could be discarded automatically in a U.S. or a German or a British court.

Rules of evidence in Italy are different than American rules of evidence.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

No comments of mine, nor I suspect other Knox/Sollecito supporters, should be construed to mean that we think that one nation does forensics in a uniformly better or worse way than another. The same holds true for criminal justice systems. Let’s put all the implication that some commenters have exhibited Chauvinism or anti-European bias away, once and for all.

Is it your intent here to suggest that no Knox supporters have meant to impugn the Italian legal system or suggest that it is inferior in comparison to the U.S., or that the Knox conviction was influenced by such systemic failures?

 

[lector]

BobTheDonkey,

The original comment about Texas might have been a reference to the Cameron Todd Willingham case (see the David Grann article in the New Yorker), or to the Timothy Cole case (William L. Anderson’s blog would be a good place to start). Mr. Willingham was convicted of the arson deaths of his three children on the basis of arson forensics that are now known to be absolutely false. Mr. Cole was convicted of rape with the help of the police coaching/pressuring the complaining witness. He died in prison of asthma (the actual rapist was a chain smoker, which should have been a clue), but he was exonerated by DNA forensics. I am not saying that Texas is any more or less prone to miscarriages of justice than any other state in the U.S., but there have been some high-profile cases recently.

No comments of mine, nor I suspect other Knox/Sollecito supporters, should be construed to mean that we think that one nation does forensics in a uniformly better or worse way than another. The same holds true for criminal justice systems. Let’s put all the implication that some commenters have exhibited Chauvinism or anti-European bias away, once and for all.

Chris

Thanks, it was the Willingham case I had in mind. It's a cautionary tale if ever there was one.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Taking the bad with the good

Is it your intent here to suggest that no Knox supporters have meant to impugn the Italian legal system or suggest that it is inferior in comparison to the U.S., or that the Knox conviction was influenced by such systemic failures?

I have found certain things to admire in the Italian system, for example the automatic appeal. I also liked the way the Supreme Court quashed Amanda's statement prior to the trial, not after it. I have also found aspects that I would like to change, if I were an Italian citizen. The wide latitude given to the prosecutor to make up hypothetical statements that Amanda Knox might have said comes immediately to mind. I also think that a prosecutor should be given less power to direct the details of an investigation.

 

[quadraginta]

Is it your intent here to suggest that no Knox supporters have meant to impugn the Italian legal system or suggest that it is inferior in comparison to the U.S., or that the Knox conviction was influenced by such systemic failures?

I have found certain things to admire in the Italian system, for example the automatic appeal. I also liked the way the Supreme Court quashed Amanda's statement prior to the trial, not after it. I have also found aspects that I would like to change, if I were an Italian citizen. The wide latitude given to the prosecutor to make up hypothetical statements that Amanda Knox might have said comes immediately to mind. I also think that a prosecutor should be given less power to direct the details of an investigation.

It this intended as a direct answer to the simple and direct question I asked? If so it fails on many levels.

-------------

As a separate question, when you say ...

"I also think that a prosecutor should be given less power to direct the details of an investigation."
​

... are you conflating the function of the prosecutor and the judge in the Italian system, or are you suggesting that an Italian prosecutor has significantly more control over the direction of an investigation than an American prosecutor does?

Admittedly my grasp of the fundamentals is somewhat tenuous, but as I understand it one of the basic differences between Napoleonic law and English common law is that the participation of the judge is more investigative. I'm not certain that this leads to comparatively increased discretionary power for the prosecutor. It might even suggest that there is less.

I have been somewhat bemused by the baseless caricature of Mignini when it seems that much of the thrust in pursuit of information in the case seems to have been driven by Judge Micheli. It appears to me that vehicles such as Preston's novel book have made the character assassination of Mignini more convenient from a media perspective even though many if not most of the decisions and opinions that culminated in the conviction of Sollecito and Knox were actually Micheli's, a less opportune target for distortion.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

BobTheDonkey,

The original comment about Texas might have been a reference to the Cameron Todd Willingham case (see the David Grann article in the New Yorker), or to the Timothy Cole case (William L. Anderson’s blog would be a good place to start). Mr. Willingham was convicted of the arson deaths of his three children on the basis of arson forensics that are now known to be absolutely false. Mr. Cole was convicted of rape with the help of the police coaching/pressuring the complaining witness. He died in prison of asthma (the actual rapist was a chain smoker, which should have been a clue), but he was exonerated by DNA forensics. I am not saying that Texas is any more or less prone to miscarriages of justice than any other state in the U.S., but there have been some high-profile cases recently.

No comments of mine, nor I suspect other Knox/Sollecito supporters, should be construed to mean that we think that one nation does forensics in a uniformly better or worse way than another. The same holds true for criminal justice systems. Let’s put all the implication that some commenters have exhibited Chauvinism or anti-European bias away, once and for all.

Chris

So, you're now claiming the evidence was falsified? Or are you claiming there is, in fact, no evidence and only a coerced confession?

I understand about the way Texas justice is viewed from outside. I also understand that Amanda has yet to confess to the crime - as such, I cannot see how a case in which a suspect was coerced into a confession and thereafter convicted based solely on said confession applies.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Willingham and Cole

So, you're now claiming the evidence was falsified? Or are you claiming there is, in fact, no evidence and only a coerced confession?

I understand about the way Texas justice is viewed from outside. I also understand that Amanda has yet to confess to the crime - as such, I cannot see how a case in which a suspect was coerced into a confession and thereafter convicted based solely on said confession applies.

I don't follow you. To the best of my knowledge, neither Mr. Cole nor Mr. Willingham confessed to anything, coerced or not. The evidence against Mr. Willingham was not falsified, but it was misinterpreted by the standards of the day. Moreover, much more is known about arson science than in 1991, so the evidence against Willingham looked far weaker by the time of his final appeal in 2004. Help me out here; I don't understand what you mean.

 

[stilicho]

Someone needs to bring out the burglary statute in Italy because I think there are some misconceptions on what "burglary" actually is. If I had time I would do it.

Most burglary statutes in England and US have nothing to do with theft or things being stolen. That's "robbery" or "theft". It's simply entering or remaining unlawfully with intent to commit a crime. My guess is it is the same in Italy. If that's true, "nothing being stolen" would not negate a burglary. And to add to that, cell phones and credit cards were stolen.

Stilcho, you may very well be right that there was a faked burglary, but your steps to deduce that point are all logically flawed.

Point one: "none of them thought". Your insinuation that because none in the cottage "thought" there had been a burglary, that is actually evidence that there was none. Logically flawed.

Point two: "That is why RG was not charged with a burglary." Logically flawed again. Whether he was charged or not makes no difference whatsoever about what happened.

Point three: You ask, "what was stolen?" Nothing needs to be stolen for a burglary to occur. To boot, it is a fact that Meredith's phones and credit cards were stolen. Something was stolen.

You write: "AK, RS, Filomena, the Postal Police, the photographic evidence, and the physical evidence all say "nothing was stolen"." Again, this is meaningless, and of course it isn't true.

There are items of evidence that may support a burglary and that may support a fake burglary, but nothing you mention establishes either as fact or non-fact. This is still a skeptics forum correct?

This is why we have to defer to the facts and evidence as supplied by the prosecution and debated by the defence. By your definition, no witnesses would be allowed to supply their opinions in a courtroom. Investigators' questioning of witnesses would be pointless.

The issue of Meredith's belongings was not a part of the charges¹ against RS and AK. They were not in Filomena's room.

I don't mind your challenges but the verdict was supported by the witness statements that you call logically flawed. The police had two options when they started piecing together the scene in Filomena's room. They could go with a burglary or a fake burglary. Why do you suppose they approached it as a fake burglary rather than a real one? Don't worry about the semantics of what constitutes a "legal" burglary or the fact that Meredith's possessions were taken.

What did all the evidence collected by the police support? An actual burglary? Or a fake one?

-----

Footnote 1 ETA: I mean, of course, the charges relevant only to the scene in FR's room rather than those elsewhere in the cottage.

 

[Matthew Best]

That's called' 'defence lawyers earning their money', that's what the defence said. It doesn't make them right. Let's see if they were...oh no, they weren't, all defendants found guilty, unanimous verdict. Next asinine argument...

Speaking of asinine arguments....

 

[stilicho]

Someone needs to bring out the burglary statute in Italy because I think there are some misconceptions on what "burglary" actually is. If I had time I would do it.

I looked too and I cannot locate anything in English.

Do we really need this though? Are we questioning whether the charge itself was real? I understand scepticism and all but there should be some limits to what we're doubting. Was the charge itself a part of some elaborate charade?

I am not sure that I follow piktor's objections regarding "Anglo-Saxon" law versus Italian law. Witnesses with scant technical expertise are routinely used in criminal cases here in Canada. Heck, I've been a witness twice and it could be argued that I don't know much of anything at all. Filomena was on the stand for four hours although she wasn't there during the commission of the crimes.

Without the recommended technical knowledge, I'd have to assume that the crime of staging a burglary is something similar to obstruction of justice. If we're really interested in it, someone might want to buzz LashL, who is an expert in this area, just to provide some context.

Why do you suppose the police didn't charge RG with burglary?