Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Kestrel]

It certainly is interesting to see how anxious some are to dismiss scenarios involving Rudy Guilty- which are known to be not uncommon- as implausible and unbelievable; while at the same time somehow managing to wrap their supposedly "skeptical" minds around a prosection scenario which, if true, is so unprecedented no one can offer a single parallel case.

They don't mind finding Rudy guilty, but reject anything that put's him in a leading role. You can see this in the insistence that Amanda must have let Rudy into the cottage. Never mind his connection to earlier burglaries where entry was made via a window.

We know Meredith arrived home at the cottage just after 9 PM. The car park video camera photographed a man exiting the car park 10 minutes before it captured what is almost certainly Meredith crossing the street to enter the cottage driveway. You can't identify Rudy directly from the video, but the sneakers look like the Nikes we know Rudy was wearing that night and the coat looks like one Rudy was wearing when arrested.

Rudy said at one point that he waited about 8 minutes outside the cottage for Meredith. But instead of waiting outside, he let himself in. It's just about the right amount of time for Rudy to throw a rock through the window, climb inside the cottage, start to toss Filomena's room and then head to the nearest bathroom to take care of an urgent need. It leaves him sitting on the can when Meredith gets home.

Not the kind of reasoning that it is in the best tradition of JREF, I would say. But, nevertheless, fascinating in it's own way for the type of bias and underlying motives such thinking might reveal.

Being a skeptic is not the same as defending authority or the status quo.

 

[piktor]

Being a skeptic is not the same as defending authority or the status quo.

There is a dead victim and there are three convicted.

Let us not minimize the outrage and the many chances the defendants have had to argue their case. Or better still, come clean and face the music.

The defendants here are not the victims. They have been convicted of causing the savage death of a totally innocent victim.

The defendants and their capable lawyers have had one year to prepare for the trial and eleven months to argue their case before the court.

They have been sentenced and are now in jail. One of the defendants has had his conviction upheld on appeal.

Their own testimony, their lies, the evidence, the investigation have put them where they are now.

This has nothing to do with reverence for authority.

The accused put themselves where they are now. They created their own status, as is.

 

[HumanityBlues]

There is a dead victim and there are three convicted.

Let us not minimize the outrage and the many chances the defendants have had to argue their case. Or better still, come clean and face the music.

The defendants here are not the victims. They have been convicted of causing the savage death of a totally innocent victim.

The defendants and their capable lawyers have had one year to prepare for the trial and eleven months to argue their case before the court.

They have been sentenced and are now in jail. One of the defendants has had his conviction upheld on appeal.

Their own testimony, their lies, the evidence, the investigation have put them where they are now.

This has nothing to do with reverence for authority.

The accused put themselves where they are now. They created their own status, as is.

You don't help your argument at all when the first thing you do is refer to authority as evidence as a way to counteract the notion that you do just that: "The defendants here are not the victims. They have been convicted of causing the savage death of a totally innocent victim."

And what is the point of emphasizing how long they had to prepare for trial? Are you implying that if any of the accused are innocent, they're not victims because they had time to prepare for trial?

You know, a lot of people with capable lawyers have been found guilty of crimes who later turned out to be innocent.

You state this has "nothing to do with authority" yet every argument you make on here does so.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

They don't mind finding Rudy guilty, but reject anything that put's him in a leading role. You can see this in the insistence that Amanda must have let Rudy into the cottage. Never mind his connection to earlier burglaries where entry was made via a window.

We know Meredith arrived home at the cottage just after 9 PM. The car park video camera photographed a man exiting the car park 10 minutes before it captured what is almost certainly Meredith crossing the street to enter the cottage driveway. You can't identify Rudy directly from the video, but the sneakers look like the Nikes we know Rudy was wearing that night and the coat looks like one Rudy was wearing when arrested.

Rudy said at one point that he waited about 8 minutes outside the cottage for Meredith. But instead of waiting outside, he let himself in. It's just about the right amount of time for Rudy to throw a rock through the window, climb inside the cottage, start to toss Filomena's room and then head to the nearest bathroom to take care of an urgent need. It leaves him sitting on the can when Meredith gets home.



Being a skeptic is not the same as defending authority or the status quo.

Where was Amanda the night in question?


And being a Skeptic has to do with evaluating all the evidence, not just the evidence that points to what you want to believe.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Speaking of evidence submitted at the trial, does it bother anyone here on either side that Mignini used a handwriting analyst who he referenced in court? Maybe some are comfortable with fringe science being allowed in a courtroom. Personally I find the fact that this was even referenced pretty appalling. You can argue the forensics I suppose until the cows come home, it looks like no sides will agree on that. But handwriting analysis IS fringe science. It is not reliable or generally accepted. So the prosecution certainly admitted unreliable scientific evidence at least once.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Speaking of evidence submitted at the trial, does it bother anyone here on either side that Mignini used a handwriting analyst who he referenced in court? Maybe some are comfortable with fringe science being allowed in a courtroom. Personally I find the fact that this was even referenced pretty appalling. You can argue the forensics I suppose until the cows come home, it looks like no sides will agree on that. But handwriting analysis IS fringe science. It is not reliable or generally accepted. So the prosecution certainly admitted unreliable scientific evidence at least once.

That does not, in and of itself, render the rest of the Prosecution argument null and void, though.

I think you understand this, and your post doesn't seem to argue that it does. I just wanted to point it out for all the gymnasts in the thread


The problem for Amanda and Raf is the one simple question I keep presenting to their supporters:

Where was Amanda on the night in question?

The reason this question is so important is because Amanda has no credible alibi - and in attempting to answer, it opens a whole can of worms for Amanda and Raf.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Mignini and Junk Science

That does not, in and of itself, render the rest of the Prosecution argument null and void, though.

I think you understand this, and your post doesn't seem to argue that it does. I just wanted to point it out for all the gymnasts in the thread

No, your point is well taken and I realize that. And don't worry, you can take jabs at me. I quite enjoy a good argument.

But quite frankly, this is junk science and it does say something about the tribunal overseeing this case that garbage like this is even referenced in court. Do the police, Mignini and Comodi accept this garbage too? Stilcho, you better take back your thank you to them if that's the case

And in anticipation of the "xenophobe" card that callously gets thrown around: criticizing a court and its procedures, or any judicial body, or a government, is not xenophobia.

I started reading more about Mignini this week and I'm surprised people reference the Monster of Florence case so much because he's said some amazingly absurd things in THIS trial. From the point of a skeptic and someone who believes in universal notions of justice and fair play, I gotta say, this guy comes off like a total disgrace.

And why were people so adamant about dismissing an illegal wiretapping charge? I've heard some of the most amazingly apologetic and simplistic arguments on other websites and this one too in reference to this. "Oh he was desperately trying to solve a murder case...it's understandable if he broke the law". Cut it out people. Illegal wiretapping is not some sort of driving infraction. Apologizing for public officials breaking the law is not acceptable and only fosters an environment where people allow corruption by their apologizing for it.

Or the other reductive argument: "Yes but what does it have to do with THIS case?". Oh come on. That's an argument? You really want a justice system where prosecutors charged with spying on journalists and public officials are prosecuting crimes? A murder case at that. And those charges certainly haven't done the pro-guilty side any favors have they? You must admit it's put a little bit of a annoying little cloud over the entire proceeding that wouldn't have to be there if they had they just let the coprosecutor and someone else try the case. From my point of view it seems like you defend this guy simply because you have to, rather than just admitting it's bad policy (and you could still simoultaneously argue the evidence is strong I suppose). Regardless, indicted, and now convicted prosecutors trying murder cases...that's just a terrible and unconscionable policy in any country. Would you even get a passing grade for arguing otherwise on your sixth grade social studies exam (unless you got REALLY theoretical)? I'm all ears if you want to defend it. The guy got 16 month jail sentence. Over here we call that a felony, but I guess some people think that's not a big deal.

I started reading articles on the closing arguments again this week which I hadn't read in a while. Some of these statements by Mignini in closing are laughable:

""Amanda has the occasion to get back at that overly serious and moralizing English girl who she felt was too tied to the closed group of her English friends, and who accused her not too subtly of not being orderly or clean, and who criticized her for being too easy with boys," Mignini said." WHAT?! Before we start talking about alibis, where is the evidence for THAT? And this is the same person who is supposedly some genius able to put all the pieces of the puzzle together.

Here is an article about his summation. I'm sure there are many more, but seems just as complete as a lot of them: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/International/amanda-knox-summations-focus-break/story?id=9136104

Ok, so who is going to be the brave person to defend that sequence of events? That I would look forward to seeing.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I'll make a comment regarding closing arguments:

I would expect to see closing arguments close to what Mignini presented. Regardless of the complete veracity - he built a case, presented the evidence, and then narrated the scenario he felt best fit the evidence. Ultimately, the closing arguments are where it's all tied together, and I don't think it's unexpected for a Prosecutor (or the Defense) to use hyperbole - it's the last chance to drive the points/evidence/scenario home.

My understanding is that Comodi actually did most of the presentation of the Prosecution's side - FoA seized on Mignini's Florence of Italy problems and attempted (as with many other irrelevant bits) to use that to undermine the Prosecution.

Did Mignini perform any illegal actions during the prosecution of Amanda and Raf?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Ok well. Hyperbole is one thing. But you should only be able to work with the evidence you have. I don't care what system it is. There were points where he literally made stuff up. To say that Comodi handled most of the closing arguments doesn't excuse the fact that he suggested these ridiculous things. That is a fact. And btw, there are critical ways a good lawyer can work around it if he doesn't have certain evidence. Are you ok with him just making stuff up that wasn't even presented as evidence during the actual trial. He even at one point just threw in "probably using alcohol". There was no evidence that alcohol played any role here. He just made it up. Stick to the evidence.

You write: "then narrated the scenario he felt best fit the evidence". Ok. Then there is seriously something very flawed about the evidence or Mignini's ability to put evidence together because that scenario is for lack of a better word, absurd. Bobthedonkey (is the a shorter nickname you prefer btw? let me know), is this honestly the closest to an accurate sequence of events an intelligent person can up with? That's scary.

"Did Mignini perform any illegal actions during the prosecution of Amanda and Raf?". It's a meaningless question because it assumes that his integrity in this particular case is relieved or exonerated simply by virtue of the fact that he hasn't been accused of misconduct in this case. Perhaps we should just let Nifong try any case that doesn't have to do with the Duke Lacrosse case. Why can't we just let Nifong try murder cases, it's not like the charges against him meant anything anyways......

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Ok well. Hyperbole is one thing. But you should only be able to work with the evidence you have. I don't care what system it is. There were points where he literally made stuff up. To say that Comodi handled most of the closing arguments doesn't excuse the fact that he suggested these ridiculous things. That is a fact. And btw, there are critical ways a good lawyer can work around it if he doesn't have certain evidence. Are you ok with him just making stuff up that wasn't even presented as evidence during the actual trial. He even at one point just threw in "probably using alcohol". There was no evidence that alcohol played any role here. He just made it up. Stick to the evidence.

You write: "then narrated the scenario he felt best fit the evidence". Ok. Then there is seriously something very flawed about the evidence or Mignini's ability to put evidence together because that scenario is for lack of a better word, absurd. Bobthedonkey (is the a shorter nickname you prefer btw? let me know), is this honestly the closest to an accurate sequence of events an intelligent person can up with? That's scary.

But that scenario does fit what we know about Amanda.

We suspect that she's pulled rape pranks before. Regardless, I doubt anyone who believes in Amanda's guilt honestly believes she set out that night intending to kill Meredith. And as such, presenting that Amanda was attempting to scare Meredith, to get back at Meredith for taking her job, for criticizing her promiscuity, etc is not, really, all that extreme of a motive for what was intended. The murder was not, in my opinion, intended to be the outcome of the night. The situation got out of hand and Meredith was murdered. That is what Mignini presented, is it not?

So mistakes aren't allowed to happen? I mean, if I speed one time (even if it's an emergency/for a (relatively) good reason), I should never be allowed to become a Police Officer? That's a little short-sighted, don't you think?

Comparisons between Duke Lacrosse and Monster of Florence are a bit off. Duke Lacrosse was a case, apparently, of a Prosecutor looking to make headlines and to that end, tampering with the investigation. Mignini suspected the reporters of tampering with crime scenes and wiretapped them in an attempt to catch them. Now, Mignini did break the law, yes. But it's not exactly comparable to Nifong's actions. There is a difference in intent there, and that difference is important given what is being suggested - that Mignini should never be allowed to practice law again. A bit ridiculous, no?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Actually, Nifong was never charged criminally. He was disbarred. If you consider Amanda and Rafaelle convicted criminals (which so many of you are so quick to point out as part of your arguments) then you must also say the same about Mignini: he is a convicted criminal. What Mignini did was illegal--and illegal wiretapping for all intents and purposes is spying. Sure, it's not exactly the same, which I never claimed obviously. Both broke the law. It's inexcusable and yes, it does should put a huge stain on his integrity. Do you really think Mignini's excuse is acceptable? "I thought they were committing a crime, so I broke the law to catch them". It's not a legitimate defense. It's a pathetically desperate one.

What do you mean "we suspect she pulled rape pranks once"? Didn't Fulcanelli say earlier that came from a comment section of some obscure article on the case? You're really allowing yourself a lot of leeway on what constitutes reliable evidence.

Speeding is not tantamount to illegal wiretapping and doesn't carry up to a two year sentence. It's usually an infraction or oridinance violation. Illegal wiretapping is not some procedural defect where you get charged on some sort of technicality. Again, it is the same as spying. When public officials, especially prosecutors and police, impugn the integrity of their offices or duties by dancing around the law, they should not be allowed to be part of any police force, and should not be able to practice law.

These arguments "the situation got out of hand" are pretty funny. It's one of those simplistic things that when people actually say out loud they can't help but laugh at themselves.

But BTD, if you have some more nuanced nonridiculous scenario of the crime not based on 18th century notions of womanhood and evidence that is actually reliable (not some comment section statement as authority) let's hear you theory.

Edit: I actually found the supposed prank on Perugamurderfile.org posted by one of the moderators, Michael. In fairness to him, he said to make of it what you will. And with good reason, it's completely unreliable.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Actually, Nifong was never charged criminally. He was disbarred. If you consider Amanda and Rafaelle convicted criminals (which so many of you are so quick to point out as part of your arguments) then you must also say the same about Mignini: he is a convicted criminal. What Mignini did was illegal--and illegal wiretapping for all intents and purposes is spying. Sure, it's not exactly the same, which I never claimed obviously. Both broke the law. It's inexcusable and yes, it does should put a huge stain on his integrity. Do you really think Mignini's excuse is acceptable? "I thought they were committing a crime, so I broke the law to catch them". It's not a legitimate defense. It's a pathetically desperate one.

What do you mean "we suspect she pulled rape pranks once"? Didn't Fulcanelli say earlier that came from a comment section of some obscure article on the case? You're really allowing yourself a lot of leeway on what constitutes reliable evidence.

Speeding is not tantamount to illegal wiretapping and doesn't carry up to a two year sentence. It's usually an infraction or oridinance violation. Illegal wiretapping is not some procedural defect where you get charged on some sort of technicality. Again, it is the same as spying. When public officials, especially prosecutors and police, impugn the integrity of their offices or duties by dancing around the law, they should not be allowed to be part of any police force, and should not be able to practice law.

These arguments "the situation got out of hand" are pretty funny. It's one of those simplistic things that when people actually say out loud they can't help but laugh at themselves.

But BTD, if you have some more nuanced nonridiculous scenario of the crime not based on 18th century notions of womanhood and evidence that is actually reliable (not some comment section statement as authority) let's hear you theory.

I'm sorry, I could've sworn my notions of womanhood had nothing to do with this. Rather, what I presented fits the available evidence.

That you choose to regurgitate others' arguments concerning Mignini's closing statements and somehow apply them to me is very disheartening.



So, here we go again:
Where was Amanda on the night in question?

 

[HumanityBlues]

I'm sorry, I could've sworn my notions of womanhood had nothing to do with this. Rather, what I presented fits the available evidence.

That you choose to regurgitate others' arguments concerning Mignini's closing statements and somehow apply them to me is very disheartening.

So, here we go again:
Where was Amanda on the night in question?

Whose other's arguments are you speaking of? If anything you're exhibiting the same tired arguments in defense of this prosecutor for who knows what reason. You know most people hear that a prosecutor is accused of illegal wiretapping and take a step back. I notice that the new line of action of the pro-guilty is to try to "explain it" so that we can truly understand that there is more to the story. The problem is that this so called other side of the story says nothing about good or bad faith breaking of the law. I'm not regurgitating others arguments because I read them and liked them. I looked at the facts and noticed what seemed like obvious deficiencies and legitimate reasons to question the integrity of the lead prosecutor who was also in charge of the investigation. If other people see that too I'm glad to know that not everyone is such an apologist for prosecutors who abuse public office by illegally spying on people.

In fact it seems that you are using the same tired arguments: "What does that have to do with THIS case?". You went so far as to compare illegal wiretapping to a speeding ticket--so either you are totally misinformed on the seriousness of that kind of abuse or have a very dangerous view on the role of public officials and how they carry out their duties.

If others have argued that, maybe that's because they have common sense.
I would hope most people would not be comfortable with a prosecutor (now convicted) being part of a murder case where he is in charge of the investigation as well. Before you talk about evidence, or where Amanda was on the night of murder, it would be nice to know why you insist on staying with weird foolish talking points that don't help your argument anyway.

That the prosecutor has been indicted and convicted is not a valid concern really surprises me. Or the fact that he makes up evidence (and yes, it goes beyond hyperbole) does not bother people.

And you say "fits available evidence" as if that somehow makes your argument stronger. Does it really fit the available evidence? Your first part of the theory was based on evidence that wasn't even brought up at trial. It was from some comment about a prank on a comment section of some article---correct? Is that what you're basing your prank scenario on?

But on a lighter note, I didn't mean to attach Mignini's closing statements to you personally; however, it does seem that you actually believe this is a convincing theory. And since you seem to believe this evidence is strong and formidable, it surprises me that you think this is the best available scenario to come up with.

With respect to where Amanda was that night, I will throw the question back at you. How did all three of them come together and participate in the murder? I'm not asking this to put you into some trap where I have some already prepared reaction. But I do have to wonder about someone's ability of discernment with respect to this case when they imply a prank-gone-wrong based on hygiene, being demoted to flyer girl or whatever. Here is the basics of your theory as I understand it:

"We suspect that she's pulled rape pranks before. Regardless, I doubt anyone who believes in Amanda's guilt honestly believes she set out that night intending to kill Meredith. And as such, presenting that Amanda was attempting to scare Meredith, to get back at Meredith for taking her job, for criticizing her promiscuity, etc is not, really, all that extreme of a motive for what was intended. The murder was not, in my opinion, intended to be the outcome of the night. The situation got out of hand and Meredith was murdered. That is what Mignini presented, is it not?"

I'm assuming this is your basic theory as well?

I'll do you a favor. I'll assume Amanda was there and that she is guilty. Let's put her at the scene. I'm all for exploration on assumptions, even if I disagree with them.

Ok, so both her and Raffaelle find out they're free for the night. But you say she didn't go with the intent to kill Meredith. So what was her intent? Why did she bring the knife? Just to go and stab her as a prank? How do the other two come in the picture? Who had the other knife, that was imprinted on the bedsheet (and we'll assume that the other alleged murder weapon is valid evidence). And is this whole prank scenario based on some claim by an anonymous person in a comment section? Fill in the gaps for me. What do you think happened?

 

[Fiona]

It is interesting. Mignini is at this moment convicted of a crime. Perfectly true. That conviction may or may not stand at appeal. Just as the conviction of RS and AK may or may not stand.

I have no idea whether Mignini's account of the episode is correct or not. It seems it was accepted by the court of first instance. But he is a criminal at this moment, as are AK and RS. So either both are guilty and we accept the outcome of due process: or neither of them are and we continue to see both as innocent until the cases are at an end. I do not see that accepting the outcome of a trial is an "appeal to authority" if that is what you and Kestrel are getting at. For myself I generally do accept verdicts in court. There are certainly miscarriages of justice in all systems and all places. But I trust (as I must) that they are the exceptions: otherwise I do not see that the rule of law can be in place; nor the judicial system defended. The implications of that are profound.

I do not know the relation between sentence and severity of the crime in Italy. Anyone who was convicted of a crime which attracted a penalty of 16 months would in this country be debarred from practice I think. (I believe that a charge levelled which could carry such a sentence would lead to suspension of practice before any trial, in fact: though I may be wrong about that). That is clearly not the case in Italy. There are presumably reasons for that: do you happen to know what they are? I can guess but I do not know and I am not about to judge without definite knowledge. All that I have seen of the Italian system shows it has a lot of checks on the power of the prosecutors etc: more than we have in this country. The safeguards in place for the accused are better than we have here and better than they appear to be in America. Yet in face of that evidence we are asked to believe that a crazy prosecutor with a serious criminal conviction can do exactly as he likes. Curious. Implausible in the context of the structure of the law there, at least from my point of view. But of course we will all make our own judgements on that in the absence of an understanding of how the system works in theory and in practice. We will not make much headway there, I suspect

We are left with the evidence. The rules on admissability in Italy are not like those in this country. This was discussed upthread. It seems to me that all systems have similar aims and have to deal with similar competing principles. They all deal with those inescapable tensions in one way or another. The Italian system does it differently and it looks odd to those raised in common law systems. That does not make it flawed. It does not imply that their way of balancing those different pressures leads to worse outcomes and no-one has shown any evidence that it does. If it does then there is a case to answer in terms of what is admissable under the Italian system. I do not know if there are figures about the incidence of miscarriages of justice in each nation: I presume there must be. With all the usual caveats about the way statistics of this sort are gathered and evaluated and so forth, can we make even a broad comparison? I understand that international bodies rate different systems in terms of their committment to principles of law. Italy is seen as having a good record on this as does the UK and the US. At least that is my understanding. So what is it that tells you that Italy is not as careful of the rights of defendants as those other countries? Where is the criticism of their legal arrangements by international jurists etc? I do not deny it exists: I simply do not know. Do you?

The narrative presented has also been discussed. I do not personally like the necessity of narrative which goes beyond the facts which can be proved. But the demand for a story was very strong indeed in this thread at the outset. Indeed some almost went so far as to say that without one they would not be prepared to consider the defendants could be guilty. That was quite an eye opener for me: because life does not afford us the luxury of a narrative arc: that is something we impose because of the way we are made, I think. This must be a pressure on all prosecutors everywhere, presumably. Both an internal pressure because they are also human: and quite clearly an external one because of the attitudes just described.

Yet you seem to say that in America the prosecution do not offer such a narrative in their closing statements. That is very admirable, if it is true. I find it surprising because some of those demanding a story were american. But maybe the briefing they get in court helps them to drop that expectation at the start of a trial: or maybe the questioning of jurors weeds out those who have that mind set. We do not have that questioning in this country and there is nothing I know of in the instructions to juries which aims to dismantle that expectation. So to that extent we have the same problem here. Many of the cases which become very high profile have no such tidy story. Perhaps they become high profile because of that lack? Or perhaps we become aware of its absence only because they are high profile and we learn more about them. I suspect the latter but I do not honestly know. Very few are like the case of Harold Shipman: where motive is left completely open, so far as I can tell. But the motives attributed and accepted are often a matter of convention, and I do not think it is too strong to say "literary" convention. On examination they seldom make any sense at all except through familiarity. You may know more than I do and it may be that my perception is wrong: but I can see no more motive for Guede than I can for RS and AK. Not really. All I can see is a story which goes: no steady job or apparent direction in life => petty criminal => criminal type => probable burglar => rapist => murderer. On its face it is as ridiculous as any of the comparable narratives presented for the others. Yet many here appear to think it is in some sense stronger. The fact remains that rape and murder by opportunist petty thieves is very rare indeed. So rare as to render that account pretty laughable. Yet I do not see the same type of objection raised in his case. I wonder why that is? To me there seems to be an underlying notion that a criminal is not defined by what he does, but by who he is. For me criminality is not a state of being: it is entirely to do with what person actually does. But this appears to be a minority view in the current climate: and that is related to social stories not to courts of law. The idea is not always in the ascendant: but it is always present and it is fairly strong at present in this country. We see it in the discussion about whether someone who commits a crime is by definition a sociopath: and, oh, the path we travel when we unpick that.

I have no time to address your other points and to some extent this has led me into much wider musings than I originally intended. But I do not think your analysis holds as it stands

 

[HumanityBlues]

It is interesting. Mignini is at this moment convicted of a crime. Perfectly true. That conviction may or may not stand at appeal. Just as the conviction of RS and AK may or may not stand.

I have no idea whether Mignini's account of the episode is correct or not. It seems it was accepted by the court of first instance. But he is a criminal at this moment, as are AK and RS. So either both are guilty and we accept the outcome of due process: or neither of them are and we continue to see both as innocent until the cases are at an end. I do not see that accepting the outcome of a trial is an "appeal to authority" if that is what you and Kestrel are getting at. For myself I generally do accept verdicts in court. There are certainly miscarriages of justice in all systems and all places. But I trust (as I must) that they are the exceptions: otherwise I do not see that the rule of law can be in place; nor the judicial system defended. The implications of that are profound.

I do not know the relation between sentence and severity of the crime in Italy. Anyone who was convicted of a crime which attracted a penalty of 16 months would in this country be debarred from practice I think. (I believe that a charge levelled which could carry such a sentence would lead to suspension of practice before any trial, in fact: though I may be wrong about that). That is clearly not the case in Italy. There are presumably reasons for that: do you happen to know what they are? I can guess but I do not know and I am not about to judge without definite knowledge. All that I have seen of the Italian system shows it has a lot of checks on the power of the prosecutors etc: more than we have in this country. The safeguards in place for the accused are better than we have here and better than they appear to be in America. Yet in face of that evidence we are asked to believe that a crazy prosecutor with a serious criminal conviction can do exactly as he likes. Curious. Implausible in the context of the structure of the law there, at least from my point of view. But of course we will all make our own judgements on that in the absence of an understanding of how the system works in theory and in practice. We will not make much headway there, I suspect

We are left with the evidence. The rules on admissability in Italy are not like those in this country. This was discussed upthread. It seems to me that all systems have similar aims and have to deal with similar competing principles. They all deal with those inescapable tensions in one way or another. The Italian system does it differently and it looks odd to those raised in common law systems. That does not make it flawed. It does not imply that their way of balancing those different pressures leads to worse outcomes and no-one has shown any evidence that it does. If it does then there is a case to answer in terms of what is admissable under the Italian system. I do not know if there are figures about the incidence of miscarriages of justice in each nation: I presume there must be. With all the usual caveats about the way statistics of this sort are gathered and evaluated and so forth, can we make even a broad comparison? I understand that international bodies rate different systems in terms of their committment to principles of law. Italy is seen as having a good record on this as does the UK and the US. At least that is my understanding. So what is it that tells you that Italy is not as careful of the rights of defendants as those other countries? Where is the criticism of their legal arrangements by international jurists etc? I do not deny it exists: I simply do not know. Do you?

The narrative presented has also been discussed. I do not personally like the necessity of narrative which goes beyond the facts which can be proved. But the demand for a story was very strong indeed in this thread at the outset. Indeed some almost went so far as to say that without one they would not be prepared to consider the defendants could be guilty. That was quite an eye opener for me: because life does not afford us the luxury of a narrative arc: that is something we impose because of the way we are made, I think. This must be a pressure on all prosecutors everywhere, presumably. Both an internal pressure because they are also human: and quite clearly an external one because of the attitudes just described.

Yet you seem to say that in America the prosecution do not offer such a narrative in their closing statements. That is very admirable, if it is true. I find it surprising because some of those demanding a story were american. But maybe the briefing they get in court helps them to drop that expectation at the start of a trial: or maybe the questioning of jurors weeds out those who have that mind set. We do not have that questioning in this country and there is nothing I know of in the instructions to juries which aims to dismantle that expectation. So to that extent we have the same problem here. Many of the cases which become very high profile have no such tidy story. Perhaps they become high profile because of that lack? Or perhaps we become aware of its absence only because they are high profile and we learn more about them. I suspect the latter but I do not honestly know. Very few are like the case of Harold Shipman: where motive is left completely open, so far as I can tell. But the motives attributed and accepted are often a matter of convention, and I do not think it is too strong to say "literary" convention. On examination they seldom make any sense at all except through familiarity. You may know more than I do and it may be that my perception is wrong: but I can see no more motive for Guede than I can for RS and AK. Not really. All I can see is a story which goes: no steady job or apparent direction in life => petty criminal => criminal type => probable burglar => rapist => murderer. On its face it is as ridiculous as any of the comparable narratives presented for the others. Yet many here appear to think it is in some sense stronger. The fact remains that rape and murder by opportunist petty thieves is very rare indeed. So rare as to render that account pretty laughable. Yet I do not see the same type of objection raised in his case. I wonder why that is? To me there seems to be an underlying notion that a criminal is not defined by what he does, but by who he is. For me criminality is not a state of being: it is entirely to do with what person actually does. But this appears to be a minority view in the current climate: and that is related to social stories not to courts of law. The idea is not always in the ascendant: but it is always present and it is fairly strong at present in this country. We see it in the discussion about whether someone who commits a crime is by definition a sociopath: and, oh, the path we travel when we unpick that.

I have no time to address your other points and to some extent this has led me into much wider musings than I originally intended. But I do not think your analysis holds as it stands

Your points here are duly noted and well articulated--though we will obviously disagree on certain aspects. I'll respond after I can collect my thoughts here but it's obviously really late where I am.

On another note. Doesn't the sentencing report come out soon?

Edit: In my defense, I never asked for motive. But if someone is going to assert a motive, don't expect reasonable people to buy this garbage about housework, hygiene, job demotion, etc.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Yet you seem to say that in America the prosecution do not offer such a narrative in their closing statements. That is very admirable, if it is true.

<snip>

It isn't true. Perhaps less so in more mundane cases, but in the high profile ones opening and especially closing statements can approach theatrics by both the prosecution and the defense. No few lawyers specializing in criminal law have made their reputation as a result of their talent for drama.

 

[piktor]

You don't help your argument at all when the first thing you do is refer to authority as evidence as a way to counteract the notion that you do just that: "The defendants here are not the victims. They have been convicted of causing the savage death of a totally innocent victim."

And what is the point of emphasizing how long they had to prepare for trial? Are you implying that if any of the accused are innocent, they're not victims because they had time to prepare for trial?

You know, a lot of people with capable lawyers have been found guilty of crimes who later turned out to be innocent.

You state this has "nothing to do with authority" yet every argument you make on here does so.

I will certainly not get into a debate about my arguments, if they are "for" or "against" authorities and/or the defendants.

The prosecution speaks on behalf of the State and on behalf of the victim.

The prosecution's arguments convince me. I do not know the prosecutors, the investigators or the judges. What convinces me is the trial judges point to the investigation and the evidence to arrive to conclusions and then render a verdict.

The defence and the defendants have no explanation to cause them to be free of all charges. They have not presented exonerating proof.

The investigation, as is, proves the three defendants were involved and caused the death of the victim. This is as real and as true as the fact that the defendants are in jail as a result.

The three defendants were brought to court and could not disprove the investigation's findings. It all makes sense, except the defendants' ludicrous explanations. They put themselves where they are now.

The authorities did not put them in jail. The defendants put themselves in jail.

I will not apologize for my opinion or debate reality as it now stands.

The worst thing that could happen is to wrongfully put any person in jail for a crime not this person's responsibility. Maybe we should have a different process to find perfect culpabilty. But it does not exist.

Circumstantial cases like this one are imperfect more so, it is the nature of the beast.

 

[HumanityBlues]

It isn't true. Perhaps less so in more mundane cases, but in the high profile ones opening and especially closing statements can approach theatrics by both the prosecution and the defense. No few lawyers specializing in criminal law have made their reputation as a result of their talent for drama.

Ok, for the record, I am not saying lawyersdon't offer narratives in their closing arguments here. But you aren't allowed to make up evidence, or bring in new evidence in closing, such as the ridiculous handwriting/criminologist expert.

 

[lector]

I started reading more about Mignini this week and I'm surprised people reference the Monster of Florence case so much because he's said some amazingly absurd things in THIS trial. From the point of a skeptic and someone who believes in universal notions of justice and fair play, I gotta say, this guy comes off like a total disgrace.

And why were people so adamant about dismissing an illegal wiretapping charge? I've heard some of the most amazingly apologetic and simplistic arguments on other websites and this one too in reference to this. "Oh he was desperately trying to solve a murder case...it's understandable if he broke the law". Cut it out people. Illegal wiretapping is not some sort of driving infraction. Apologizing for public officials breaking the law is not acceptable and only fosters an environment where people allow corruption by their apologizing for it.

Or the other reductive argument: "Yes but what does it have to do with THIS case?". Oh come on. That's an argument? You really want a justice system where prosecutors charged with spying on journalists and public officials are prosecuting crimes? A murder case at that. And those charges certainly haven't done the pro-guilty side any favors have they? You must admit it's put a little bit of a annoying little cloud over the entire proceeding that wouldn't have to be there if they had they just let the coprosecutor and someone else try the case. From my point of view it seems like you defend this guy simply because you have to, rather than just admitting it's bad policy (and you could still simoultaneously argue the evidence is strong I suppose). Regardless, indicted, and now convicted prosecutors trying murder cases...that's just a terrible and unconscionable policy in any country. Would you even get a passing grade for arguing otherwise on your sixth grade social studies exam (unless you got REALLY theoretical)? I'm all ears if you want to defend it. The guy got 16 month jail sentence. Over here we call that a felony, but I guess some people think that's not a big deal.

Part of Mignini's defense was that the wiretaps were authorized, or at least known & tacitly approved, by his superiors, & therefore not illegal. This motion seens to have flown in the original trial & then been shot down in the first appeal. It may yet stand on the next appeal. At this stage, should that be enough to bar Mignini from practicing law? Apparently the Italian legal system doesn't think so.

Things are different in Italy; Tim Parks' books will give you a good sense of just how different, particularly when it comes to the world of officialdom.

 

[quadraginta]

Ok, for the record, I am not saying lawyersdon't offer narratives in their closing arguments here. But you aren't allowed to make up evidence, or bring in new evidence in closing, such as the ridiculous handwriting/criminologist expert.

"If it doesn't fit ... you must acquit!"

(We don' need no steenkin' expert. )