Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fiona]

Yeah.

A jury trial in Italy is called a Corte d'Assise. It consists of 2 professional judges and 6 "lay judges" selected from the populace. The lay judges have no legal or jurisprudential training. They serve essentially the same function as jurors, but in cases with widespread media attention there is no function analogous to sequestration as in the UK and US.

There is no sequestration in the uk. There is an extensive discussion about all this upthread a long way. You might like to read it because you don't seem to understand the issues

 

[Mary_H]

Skeptics, the reasoning here is so inherently flawed I'm surprised it's not jumped on. You don't need any context whatsoever or know anything about the case to tear this illogical syllogism apart. Where are you all hiding?

HB, I could see it, but I didn't know the rhetorical term for it.

 

[Mary_H]

What?

Aren't there police scanners in Italy? Where is your evidence that the only way the story became newsworthy was through the efforts of the Perugia authorities and not by the feeding frenzy of members of the media? Don't forget to itemise the 'scoops' that were actually releases by family members of the accused or their lawyers.

I did not claim the story became newsworthy through the efforts of the Italian police. I am sure the police recognized it as newsworthy immediately.

My concern was about why so much superfluous and prejudicial information was shared with the press. For example, what possible justification was there for leaking Amanda's diary?

 

[Fiona]

Incidentally, you didn't answer my question: Do you know of any stabbing cases committed by anyone whose past wasn't troubled in some way?

Maybe you and funk de fino can come up with some alternatives to what the lawyer said about stabbings, instead of just saying he's wrong.

I posted a link upthread which showed that quite a percentage of murderers have no previous convictions at all. What do you have to counter that with?

 

[Mary_H]

And Mary H is conveniently forgetting the one crucial step in this crescendo of lies. It was the moment at which her Italian boyfriend decided to cut her loose and hopefully save his own skin.

This happened at or after his interrogation. You can't claim he did it freely or spontaneously before the police gave him "information" he did not previously have..

 

[Mary_H]

I posted a link upthread which showed that quite a percentage of murderers have no previous convictions at all. What do you have to counter that with?

There was no claim made about murderers and prior convictions. The claim was that people who commit murder by stabbing have histories of "school yard fights, animal cruelty, brandishing weapons, unlawful threats, etc." In the "et cetera," I would include mental illness.

It would be great if you would be willing to provide the link or post number again, but if not, that's fine.

 

[Fiona]

Do people not get convictions for animal cruelty; brandishing weapons and unlawful threats, then?

 

[stilicho]

This happened at or after his interrogation. You can't claim he did it freely or spontaneously before the police gave him "information" he did not previously have..

Sheer speculation.

We had a considerable discussion here before on the ethics (or indeed the legality) of allowing the police to lie to a suspect (or witness in these cases) as a means to an end. I have little doubt (nevertheless speculative) that the interviewing officers did lie to both AK and RS.

My best counterexample is the use of undercover officers. They are not required to tell you they are with the police. They employ deception to gain the trust of an individual and gain information that way.

As I recall, the crowd was pretty evenly split on the issue. This was predictably along the lines of those who thought justice was served and those who didn't. Everyone did agree, though, that both RS and AK were incredibly ill-advised when they kept returning to the Questura without any legal representation. I came to wonder why Sollecito should have gone there at all without a lawyer: it wasn't his home; his alibi didn't depend on AK as much as hers relied on him.

The lesson to be learned is to "lawyer up" without hesitation if you are about to be questioned. It wouldn't have saved these three people from the verdict but it would have been advisable to prevent incriminating themselves beforehand.

 

[stilicho]

My concern was about why so much superfluous and prejudicial information was shared with the press. For example, what possible justification was there for leaking Amanda's diary?

Wasn't the diary originally released to the press by her own lawyers?

EDIT: Go back to Page 202. That's where the Telegraph link sourcing Ghirga as the leak was originally posted.

 

[Mary_H]

Do people not get convictions for animal cruelty; brandishing weapons and unlawful threats, then?

I don't think that's the point. Knife murderers may or may not have prior convictions. That was not argued. I have no problem with the argument that some murderers have no prior convictions.

The question I asked was whether anyone knows of any stabbing cases committed by anyone whose past wasn't troubled in some way. Many cases of animal cruelty, for example, are committed by children, for whom conviction records would not be available.

 

[Kestrel]

Get real.

They all barely had time to sit down and adjust their chairs before AK blurted out that Patrick had murdered Meredith.

Amanda was interviewed on November 2 (Friday), signing a statement at 15:30. On Saturday, there was another interview resulting in a statement at 14:45. Another interview on Sunday with a statement at 14:45. In all three of these statements, Amanda maintained that she spent the night with Raffaele.

On Monday, November 5 the police started talking to Amanda at 22:30, she signed a statement over 3 hours later at 1:45 the next morning. It doesn't take three hours or adjust chairs.

So how did they get Amanda to change her story?

It doesn't take more that one officer to interview a suspect. Perhaps two if you need a translator. But if the goal is to intimidate a suspect, it helps to have several.

How many people were involved in interrogating Amanda on the night of November 5 and 6?

 

[Mary_H]

Wasn't the diary originally released to the press by her own lawyers?

EDIT: Go back to Page 202. That's where the Telegraph link sourcing Ghirga as the leak was originally posted.

I checked but couldn't find it. I'll look again.

I am aware that Amanda's lawyer released some excerpts from the diary. Presumably he leaked parts that supported her innocence, while other leaks were made to support her guilt. This bolsters the claim that Italians try their cases in the media in addition to the courtroom.

 

[stilicho]

On Monday, November 5 the police started talking to Amanda at 22:30, she signed a statement over 3 hours later at 1:45 the next morning. It doesn't take three hours or adjust chairs.

Is this a new claim? Where did you get that from? When did they start talking to Raffaele then?

By the time everyone gets settled in for an interview and all the routine stuff is disposed of you might have had 15 minutes of tough questioning out of the one hour and forty-five minutes. That's assuming Amanda didn't need any of the translations repeated.

 

[stilicho]

I checked but couldn't find it. I'll look again.

I am aware that Amanda's lawyer released some excerpts from the diary. Presumably he leaked parts that supported her innocence, while other leaks were made to support her guilt. This bolsters the claim that Italians try their cases in the media in addition to the courtroom.

Here it is:

Miss Knox released another chunk of her prison diaries through her lawyer, Luciano Ghirga.

(Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1572744/Suspects-DNA-on-Meredith-Kerchers-clothes.html )

This bolsters the claim that Italians try their cases in the media in addition to the courtroom.

What? The Italian authorities have defendants' attorneys release private papers to the UK media to bolster the prosecution's case?

That's just silly.

 

[Kestrel]

I'm not very familiar with the store keeper. Did the defense object to his testimony? What questions did the defense ask him?

Marco Quintavalle was the shopkeeper who claimed to have seen Amanda outside his store on the morning after Meredith was killed. Claims to have recognized Amanda from seeing her in the news four days after the murder. But he didn't come forward at that time. He also didn't mention seeing Amanda when an officer came to ask questions about the crime a few days later. It was almost a year after the crime when he started telling his story.

An employee who was working at the store that day testified that Amanda wasn't there.

 

[nicole]

The store keeper was clearly important since his information was considered evidence. It was evidence since his testimony was heard in the trial. Therefore, it was indeed relevant.

And all white rabbits are called Tim Fulcanelli.

 

[Mary_H]

Here it is:

Miss Knox released another chunk of her prison diaries through her lawyer, Luciano Ghirga.

(Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1572744/Suspects-DNA-on-Meredith-Kerchers-clothes.html )

This bolsters the claim that Italians try their cases in the media in addition to the courtroom.

What? The Italian authorities have defendants' attorneys release private papers to the UK media to bolster the prosecution's case?

That's just silly.

Obviously the defendant's side releases documents in support of the defense while the prosecution releases documents in support of the prosecution.

 

[stilicho]

An employee who was working at the store that day testified that Amanda wasn't there she didn't see Amanda there but verified under oath that Quintavalle had asked her about it upon hearing about the murder investigation.

Fixed all that for you.

 

[shuttlt]

No, I'm saying exactly the opposite. Nobody seemed to have a problem with Amanda's account of things until the interrogation. Suddenly they changed their approach.

I thought Giobbi suspected her from day one? As for why they changed their approach just after her boyfriend said that his previous statements that provided her with an alibi were a load of ******** that she had convinced him to say....

 

[stilicho]

Obviously the defendant's side releases documents in support of the defense while the prosecution releases documents in support of the prosecution.

The diaries were released by Knox through her lawyer. What part of that don't you understand?