• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jungle Jim said:
I would add that sleeping on a tiled floor during a cold night is illogical.
Click to expand...

It's one of a very long string of red herrings. We could have an entire feast of Red Herring Filet Supreme from this thread alone.

@Dan O: In the Italian, where do you see any reference to sleeping on the floor? Which phrase is translating that way? Is it simply the inaccurate interpretation of "dormendo"? There is nothing in the Italian that refers to sleeping on the floor so please tell us what's translating that way via Google.
 
Hi all. Glad to see some interesting debate going on here, with less of the - shall we say - obsessional emotionalism that seems to be the norm for other forums dedicated to this case...

I have a somewhat nuanced view of this case: I believe that AK, RS and RG all most likely DID have something to do with the murder, but I think that AK and RS in particular may have been wrongly convicted based on the evidence. It's perfectly possible, both in law and in ethics, to argue simultaneously that "on balance" a certain person committed a certain crime, but that they cannot and should not be convicted since sufficient reasonable doubt remains. Such a position is an unfortunate outcome in many ways (and certainly distressing to the victim's family), but that's the way that a good criminal justice system should work.

I'm reminded very much of the case here in the UK of Barry George, who was accused, then convicted in the Old Bailey, of the gunshot murder of popular TV personality Jill Dando on her own doorstep in 1999. Here's a short precis for anyone who's unfamilar with this case:

In some interesting parallels, the Dando case was all over the media here from the very beginning, putting the police and prosecutors under a lot of pressure to arrest and convict. Local oddball Barry George ticked all the boxes for the police (although they took a good few months to come across him), and he reportedly changed his alibi and other details while being questioned. He also had previous form for sexual harassment and non-violent sexual assault. When the police searched his flat they found a couple of magazine clippings featuring Jill Dando (among thousands of clippings of various female personalities), and uncovered some pictures of George dressed up as a bogus SAS counter-terrorist operative, complete with imitation handgun. They quickly painted a picture of George as a gun-obsessed maniac with a dangerous and violent fixation on Jill Dando, and this image was the one presented to the jury and the general public. The one piece of forensic evidence - which turned out to be vital - was a single microscopic particle of gunshot residue that was found in the pocket of one of George's overcoats. The police/prosecutors contended that George had worn this overcoat on the day of the shooting (contradicting various eyewitness reports), and that the murder weapon had been placed in the pocket post-shooting, thereby transferring the residue. Since George had always denied ever handling live rounds, the prosecutors presented the gunshot particle as evidence that George was trapped in a lie that more-or-less proved his guilt on its own.

George was duly convicted unanimously and sent down for life. However, on his second appeal it was shown that not only was the single particle of gunshot residue insufficient to link George to the crime (it was found a full year later and too small to really be significant), it also turned out that the police had lied about the circumstances of George's arrest. The police had stated that George was arrested by unarmed officers (negating contamination arguments), but a video then surfaced showing armed police storming into George's flat as part of his arrest. These armed officers then actively participated in the search of the flat. Oops! The coat had also been photographed by the police in a studio where firearms had also been discharged.

The court of appeal threw out the conviction on the grounds that the gunshot residue evidence was not only unsafe, but that had a jury heard the proper arguments about this crucial evidence, there was a reasonable likelihood that they would have acquitted. A retrial was ordered, and George was indeed subsequently acquitted.

The parallel extends to the area of judicial guilt versus likelihood of actually having committed the offence. The police have never looked for anyone else in connection with the Dando murder, and most people in law enforcement believe that George most likely DID commit the crime (and, though it's less relevant, I believe the same thing). But in a civilised system of justice, police and prosecuting authorities have a very high burden of proof in order to gain a conviction. If there's not enough credible evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, then it's perfectly legally correct (if unsatisfactory) to acquit prime suspects.

Unfortunately, in this context it's FAR from unknown for police, in particular, to think early on that they've definitely "got their man" (often correctly as it happens), but to then engage - either subconsciously or willfully - in some form of confirmation bias in their investigations. Whether this is the case in the Meredith Kercher case, we may find out during the upcoming appeals, although one must also not forget that appellate courts are implicitly criticising their own current and former colleagues - and to a degree their own justice system - if they reverse or set aside prior verdicts. For example, most miscarriage of justice cases in the UK have had to go through many different appeals over many years before a reversal - even when there have been obvious and demonstrable flaws in the original trials.
 
Doing some Googling....I just stumbled onto a picture of the ground below Filomena's window I've never seen before. It's from some other message board I clicked onto. Unfortunately I still can't post links so I'll try this with spaces

farm2. static. flickr. com/ 1313/ 4599515146_b3458d661a_o. jpg

It definitely looks as though it would be easy to see any footprints in the dirt and any glass that would have fallen. Also the concrete wall must be further from the house than it appears in other photos when looked at obliquely.
 
Last edited:
Danceme said:
Doing some Googling....I just stumbled onto a picture of the ground below Filomena's window I've never seen before. It's from some other message board I clicked onto. Unfortunately I still can't post links so I'll try this with spaces

farm2. static. flickr. com/ 1313/ 4599515146_b3458d661a_o. jpg
Click to expand...

Doesn't work for me.
 
stilicho said:
The article is written by someone explaining why the accused and their representation took certain steps after their arrests to protect themselves. The author is apparently a lawyer although I've never read anything else he's written.

What exactly "sucked" about the article?

@Bruce Fisher: The article did not concern the backgrounds of any of the three accused.
Click to expand...

No, the article explains why the author THINKS the accused and their representatives took certain steps after their arrests. The fact that they actually took those steps is not established.

I will contain my objections to two main points. The first point considers how the author starts his piece, trying to claim credibility for the verdicts by virtue of the following facts:

"Most people in Italy believe the two trials ended correctly because they have been exhaustively reported-to throughout.

"Also they have been able to follow the machinations and the twists and turns of the three defendants and defenses in real time. And the court documents and transcripts are all issued in Italian, and some are officially posted on the Internet.

"The media coverage in Italian in Italy exceeds the media coverage in English in the UK and USA by a factor of five or ten. And there have been a number of very highly rated and balanced TV talk-shows on the case, in the course of which the defenses were not able to muzzle or slant the discussions - even if they ever considered doing such a thing."

The author is claiming that most people in Italy believe the verdicts were correct because the trials were exhaustively covered in the news. Never mind that this extensive news coverage could be slanted or even false. When he does mention bias, it is in reference only to how the defense might do such a thing. Also, he suggests that Italian news coverage is better than U.S. news coverage because there is more of it.

The illogic of these claims is stunning. Even the sleaziest American lawyer wouldn't imply, much less state outright, that people believe the verdict is correct because they have read about it a number of times in the newspapers.

This is just more evidence that Italians try their cases in the media as well as the courts.

Second, his entire argument rests on the claim that the three defendants were involved in a complex dance of accusing and counter-accusing each other of the crime in their prison diaries. At one point, he bases his claim on this evidence:

"Doesn’t all this sound like a reciprocal veiled accusation? Why would two people accused of murder, with exactly the same fate, write down their doubts about the innocence of their presumed accomplice?"

He quotes from the prison diaries extensively without once mentioning the extremely important fact that Amanda and Raffaele are reflecting on information that was given to them by the police. The author turns their spontaneous accounts of their bewilderment into calculated strategies guided by their lawyers to implicate each other in the crime. Yet, the words he quotes were written in the first week after the arrests -- long before the attorneys would have had time to plot strategies and instruct their clients in how to carry them out.

Basically, it's just more of the same nonsense of people looking with a microscope at what Amanda and Raffaele wrote about the lies the police told them, then using their own words against them, meanwhile ignoring all the rest of what they wrote that supports their innocence.

Not a very effective argument.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php
 
The illogic of these claims is stunning. Even the sleaziest American lawyer wouldn't imply, much less state outright, that people believe the verdict is correct because they have read about it a number of times in the newspapers.
Click to expand...

A number of people in this very thread started out from the position that the verdict was incorrect because they heard about it a number of times in the media. What is the difference?
 
Fiona said:
A number of people in this very thread started out from the position that the verdict was incorrect because they heard about it a number of times in the media. What is the difference?
Click to expand...

There is no difference. Reading about something in the newspapers is not a good way to know the precise facts.
 
Mary_H said:
No, the article explains why the author THINKS the accused and their representatives took certain steps after their arrests. The fact that they actually took those steps is not established.

.....

He quotes from the prison diaries extensively without once mentioning the extremely important fact that Amanda and Raffaele are reflecting on information that was given to them by the police. The author turns their spontaneous accounts of their bewilderment into calculated strategies guided by their lawyers to implicate each other in the crime. Yet, the words he quotes were written in the first week after the arrests -- long before the attorneys would have had time to plot strategies and instruct their clients in how to carry them out.
Click to expand...

Wrong. They were playing a game of "oh-my-memory-might-just-come-back-any-time-now" and not deliberately implicating one another. There's a pretty big distinction.

The analysis made a lot of sense since RG had not been captured and, not being able to read minds, neither the accused nor their lawyers could possibly have known if or when that was ever going to happen.

In the meantime, as the author indicates, either one of them could have gone ahead and explained exactly what happened to therefore win the opportunity of getting the least amount of jail time. In a way, that's precisely what RG did by opting for the fast track with a not guilty plea.

You're also mistaken about the sources of information. Very little of that came from the police; it came from their families and the lawyers after their arrests. Just as the contents of the 'diaries' came through those routes.

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

I don't disagree with your points about the opening. He is trying to portray the Italian media as objective but that can't true since even the much-maligned Ms Nadeau argued that journalists were instantly divided into opposing camps. If he's talking about the Marriott PR juggernaut then he should confine himself to its machinations.
 
Mary H said:
No, the article explains why the author THINKS the accused and their representatives took certain steps after their arrests. The fact that they actually took those steps is not established.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, but it's alright when YOU assert things, that's different..YOUR assertions have authority, right Mary?

Actually, the person who wrote that article is an Italian lawyer..he knows what he's talking about.

Mary H said:
The author is claiming that most people in Italy believe the verdicts were correct because the trials were exhaustively covered in the news. Never mind that this extensive news coverage could be slanted or even false. When he does mention bias, it is in reference only to how the defense might do such a thing. Also, he suggests that Italian news coverage is better than U.S. news coverage because there is more of it.
Click to expand...

No, he's saying that Italians were well served by their media who kept them accurately informed of all the facts, evidence and arguments. In contrast, US media coverage was exceptionally poor (quality rather then quantity) and the US public were very poorly informed. Also, Italians also understand their own system.

Mary H said:
He quotes from the prison diaries extensively without once mentioning the extremely important fact that Amanda and Raffaele are reflecting on information that was given to them by the police. The author turns their spontaneous accounts of their bewilderment into calculated strategies guided by their lawyers to implicate each other in the crime. Yet, the words he quotes were written in the first week after the arrests -- long before the attorneys would have had time to plot strategies and instruct their clients in how to carry them out.
Click to expand...

He has it bang on.
 
Mary_H said:
There is no difference. Reading about something in the newspapers is not a good way to know the precise facts.
Click to expand...

And where have you gotten YOUR 'facts' Mary? That's right...from the newspapers...oh and the FOA ;)

And indeed, isn't your favourite place to post in the ...wait...comments section of a 'newspaper'?
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
There is no difference. Reading about something in the newspapers is not a good way to know the precise facts.
Click to expand...

No **** sherlock.

If there is one thing apparent from this thread and those of the 'truthers' over in the conspiracy section, it is that the media is piss poor at reporting things accurately, or at least as accurately as their reports need to be if they are then dissected by earnest little Internet sleuths for any confirmation of their preconceived position.

Interestingly, those who believe in the innocence of AK and RS appear to depend alot on the news reporting for their 'facts' and ignore where this is contradicted by the court transcripts if it fails to conform to their narrative.
 
LondonJohn said:
I have a somewhat nuanced view of this case: I believe that AK, RS and RG all most likely DID have something to do with the murder, but I think that AK and RS in particular may have been wrongly convicted based on the evidence.

....

I'm reminded very much of the case here in the UK of Barry George, who was accused, then convicted in the Old Bailey, of the gunshot murder of popular TV personality Jill Dando on her own doorstep in 1999. Here's a short precis for anyone who's unfamilar with this case:
Click to expand...

There are no parallels between that case and this one.
 
uk_dave said:
Interestingly, those who believe in the innocence of AK and RS appear to depend alot on the news reporting for their 'facts' and ignore where this is contradicted by the court transcripts if it fails to conform to their narrative.
Click to expand...

Or cherry-picking the judges' reports a la NIST/911 Commission Report cherry-picking. The only thing missing on this thread is nano-thermite although we have an equivalent: the basketball player.
 
LondonJohn said:
Hi all. Glad to see some interesting debate going on here, with less of the - shall we say - obsessional emotionalism that seems to be the norm for other forums dedicated to this case...
Click to expand...
Oh, this thread has plenty of "obsessional emotionalism" going on.

Welcome to the JREF.
 
Bruce or Charlie,
In the diagram of the cottage with red and blue dots indicating foot/shoe prints found, can you tell me which are right feet and which are left feet as they pertain to Rudy. Did he have blood on the bottoms of both shoes or just the one? I find it hard to see how the prints in the small corridor by Meredith's room could be so far apart while those closer to the front door are so close together.
Also, if these prints were in dried blood I also can't see how people walking over them in dry shoes the next day would be able to cancel them out.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom