Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Kestrel]

Once more, for clarity (since what I thought were clear statements of my opinion seem to have mysteriously become incomprehensible): I think that Amanda Knox's own lawyer(s) made mistakes by seemingly not advising her to say and write nothing at all pertaining to the case. They compounded their mistake in my view by choosing to release her diary to the media.

So what makes you believe that Amanda had the benefit of legal counsel before talking to the police or writing her statement?

Or for that matter that it was Amanda's lawyers that released the first excerpts from her diary to the media?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

There will be two more appeals heard. Nothing much more than that. The best Sollecito and Knox can hope for is an eight year reduction in their sentences.

stilicho should have begun his opinion with "in my opinion"

stilicho has no idea how the first appeal will go. If there is a need for a second appeal, stilicho has no idea how that appeal will go either. None of us do.

Amanda and Raffaele are already convicted and not much is going to occur during the two appeals according to stilicho, so why is stilicho here talking about it? It's obviously over.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

When Amanda states: The police asked me the same questions, the exact sequence of events, and I TRIED TO GIVE THE SAME INFORMATION as I had before: The truth is not hard to recall, no matter how many times it is asked. It is what it is. Why TRY?? Because, when you lie, you have to try and remember what your lies are. That is why the police ask the same questions over and over again. The liars will trip themselves up, and get anxious, and make mistakes. If you have nothing to hide, the same story will come out, and the truth doesn,t diminish, no matter how many times it is told. I think that because it was the middle of the night, and Amanda was tired, it was harder for her to remember all the lies. For an Honour student, her use of the English Language leaves a lot to be desired. And it shows more when she IS lying. When she talks about spending the whole night with Raffaele, she says: And we GENERALLY spend the whole night at ...It doesn,t ring true at all, and obviously wasn,t.

What you are saying sounds very logical. I always had the exact same feeling about people slipping up during interrogations. Then I did the research. Take some time and research the topic. You will be amazed an the things that very intelligent people will say during interrogations. The truth is, interrogations often bring nothing more than unreliable information.

 

[Amazer]

Then show us what you know about statistics. What do you need before you can compute the false positive rate?

Check with Mary... she's the one making claims about what the statistics would show.

So either she's making up stuff (what surprise that would be) or she has the data that you need. I'm sure the two of you can figure that one out between yourselves.

 

[capealadin]

Mary, Amanda had PERFECT recall as to what she did before, and after. Just conveniently, not during. If Amanda didn,t know, or couldn,t remember anything to do with Meredith,s relationships, or habits, that probably would have been acceptable. After all, that info could have been gleaned from friends of Meredith, and family members. WHAT I WAS DOING BEFORE all this happenned? That shouldn,t be difficult at all. It was Halloween, Amanda gave great detail as to what happened. Amanda was not that traumatized, Mary. As to **** happens, eating pizza instead of attending the vigil, sayingin Court, she didn,t know Meredith for a long time, she wants to get on with her life. I don,t know about you, Mary, but If my roommate, whom I called friend, had just been viciously murdered, I would never be smooching, talking about raunchy sex, THE NEXT DAY. And, what was so hard to remember? Problem was, the facts didn,t line up. The truth is easy. Taliking about worrying about questions at school, losing the rent, finding a new place to stay, would not have been my list of priorities. After all, if innocent, nothing to worry about. Amanda had basically been staying at Raff anyway.And Amanda laughingly said in Court, that she couldn,t remember if there was class that day, but she was going on her day trip. As Raff said: Amanda lived for the moment, but WAS OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY!

Edited by LashL: 

To properly mask profanity. Please see Rule 10 and the explanatory notes to same re: the auto-censor

 

[Mary_H]

I am, as you will possibly know, suggesting that AK's own lawyer made errors in the advice they gave her regarding statements and writings. I already said further up on the board that her own side were responsible for releasing the diaries - or did you choose to overlook that? The word "except" seems to suggest that you did choose to overlook it.

Once more, for clarity (since what I thought were clear statements of my opinion seem to have mysteriously become incomprehensible): I think that Amanda Knox's own lawyer(s) made mistakes by seemingly not advising her to say and write nothing at all pertaining to the case. They compounded their mistake in my view by choosing to release her diary to the media. You may disagree with all or part of that opinion, but I think you'd find that the vast majority of criminal lawyers would agree with my opinion.

Without saying that Amanda's lawyers were wrong, per se, I would guess her family was probably as surprised as the rest of us at the differences between the Italian and the U.S. legal systems.

As someone -- was it you, LondonJohn? -- pointed out, the amount of information that was leaked to the press about the trial would have been unheard of in the United States. Many commentators have suggested that Italians try their cases in the media as well as the courts. Cesare Beccaria, who wrote the truejustice article we discussed briefly, lends credence to that claim by using the media coverage of the trial as his opening argument to justify Italians' opinion of the verdict.

Another difference, of course, is the automatic appeal system, which is now culturally entrenched to the point that I doubt anyone in the Italian legal system thinks in terms other than giving each case three chances instead of one. Lawyers have much less riding on a win in the first trial than they do in the United States. Also, there is a financial incentive for allowing trials to take as long as possible.

When Amanda's family added an American lawyer, Ted Simon, to the defense team, it said a lot about how they might like to see things done a little differently this time.

 

[stilicho]

Amanda Knox's own lawyer(s) made mistakes by seemingly not advising her to say and write nothing at all pertaining to the case.

How do you know their deliberate actions were mistakes? What qualifies you to make this assertion? What do you know that AK's lawyers don't know?

Oh, and I'll be reporting you to the moderator for your latest undignified, unwarranted and nasty little attack on me from a little further up the board. I hate to resort to this, but you really need to be put in your place regarding common courtesy and basic decency. Bye for now.

Thank you for your concerns. You misrepresented your position immediately, were called on it, and cannot support it. There was no "blank slate".

Ermmm....surely the best they can hope for is either new evidence or discrediting of existing evidence, resulting in a reversal of the verdict. I'm not suggesting that this is actually going to happen, but it's the extreme point at one end on the sliding scale of possibilities. The next best they can hope for is a sentence reduction, and the worst they can hope for is an increase in the verdict if the mitigating factors are thrown out. To say at this point that the appeals are more-or-less a formality is a little simplistic.

Why do you think that an increase is possible? What do you know that their lawyers and their supporters don't know?

 

[stilicho]

When Amanda's family added an American lawyer, Ted Simon, to the defense team, it said a lot about how they might like to see things done a little differently this time.

Her family has consistently interfered with the legal process and choosing Ted Simon is merely clutching at the final straw. I agree with you that the Knox/Mellas clan are simply ignorant of Italian law and have allowed their ignorance to extend to tampering with the chances of seeing their daughter outside of prison any time soon.

Basically, Amanda's family is just as stupid as she is. The only difference is that they haven't murdered anyone yet.

 

[LondonJohn]

So what makes you believe that Amanda had the benefit of legal counsel before talking to the police or writing her statement?

Or for that matter that it was Amanda's lawyers that released the first excerpts from her diary to the media?

I never contended that AK had access to legal counsel "before talking to the police or writing her statement" (I presume you're referring here to the police interview of 5/6 Nov and her written statement that same night, but please clarify if my assumption here is incorrect). I contended that AK had access to legal counsel before her first court appearance on 8 November, during which she made a long and somewhat rambling statement that did her very little good. I also contended that AK had access to legal counsel during the time when she was writing her prison diary, and that her mother had had access to AK's legal counsel before she visited AK in prison and conducted the fateful "phone call" discussion.

AK's mother, Edda Mellas, flew over to Perugia on, I think, the 7th, and she arranged a lawyer prior to visiting AK in prison. Among the very first things that AK's lawyer should have said to Edda Mellas, even before he'd met AK herself, was something along the lines of: "When you visit your daughter in prison, do NOT discuss anything related to the case, other than allowing her to tell you if she's innocent". I don't believe this happened. I then don't believe that AK's lawyer instructed her to say nothing beyond "I'm innocent of these charges" when he saw her in advance of her first court appearance on the 8th. I contend that his duty to protect his client required him to do both of these things - that he seemingly did not do them resulted in demonstrable damage to his client.

Regarding the release of the diary, I think it's reasonably well-established (but I might be wrong) that AK's legal team brokered the deal regarding publication, although it appears that their original agreement (probably along the lines of selectively publishing those parts of the diary that placed AK in a positive light) went wrong, resulting in the damaging salacious parts being published too - hence the consequent damages case. If AK's lawyers truly were involved in allowing - even perhaps encouraging - AK's diary to be made public, then I'd argue that this was another major shortcoming in their duty to protect their client.

Your post seems to suggest that other parties first released (or authorised release of) portions of AK's diary to the media. Is that the case? If so, please provide details and I'll stand corrected.

 

[stilicho]

What you are saying sounds very logical. I always had the exact same feeling about people slipping up during interrogations. Then I did the research. Take some time and research the topic. You will be amazed an the things that very intelligent people will say during interrogations. The truth is, interrogations often bring nothing more than unreliable information.

Have you ever accused your boss of murder when you knew he wasn't involved? Amanda did. That's not really a slip-up--is it?

 

[Mary_H]

Mary, Amanda had PERFECT recall as to what she did before, and after. Just conveniently, not during. If Amanda didn,t know, or couldn,t remember anything to do with Meredith,s relationships, or habits, that probably would have been acceptable. After all, that info could have been gleaned from friends of Meredith, and family members. WHAT I WAS DOING BEFORE all this happenned? That shouldn,t be difficult at all. It was Halloween, Amanda gave great detail as to what happened. Amanda was not that traumatized, Mary.

Well, okay, I'm willing to go along with saying Amanda had perfect recall; the deatil of her e-mail is impressive. I am also willing to go along with saying, "Amanda had PERFECT recall as to what she did before, and after. Just conveniently, not during."

To me, that says a lot more about the circumstances of what was going on "during" than it says about Amanda.

There is still no evidence she changed her story prior to the interrogation. As christianahannah so accurately put it, "she was telling the police the same account as she had in prior interviews but they didn't believe her and wouldn't accept her answers."

As to "**** happens, eating pizza instead of attending the vigil, sayingin Court, she didn,t know Meredith for a long time, she wants to get on with her life. I don,t know about you, Mary, but If my roommate, whom I called friend, had just been viciously murdered, I would never be smooching, talking about raunchy sex, THE NEXT DAY. And, what was so hard to remember? Problem was, the facts didn,t line up. The truth is easy. Taliking about worrying about questions at school, losing the rent, finding a new place to stay, would not have been my list of priorities. After all, if innocent, nothing to worry about. Amanda had basically been staying at Raff anyway.And Amanda laughingly said in Court, that she couldn,t remember if there was class that day, but she was going on her day trip. As Raff said: Amanda lived for the moment, but WAS OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY!

This more inflammatory part of your post illustrates that you are not here to debate the evidence. You are here to express disapproval of Amanda and her lifestyle, facts be damned.

By the way, it wan't Halloween, it was November 1st.

 

[capealadin]

Actually, Bruce, I HAVE ben amazed at what intelligent people will say during interrogations!! And my feelings have been: They REALLY think the cops are going to swallow that? The Rabbi who murdered his wife comes to mind immediately. The police first get their ducks in a row when there are lies. Ask any cop. I think even you, Bruce, as fervently as you believe in Amanda.s innocence, must accept that something smelled in Denmark. I must tell you, that if G-d forbid, any one of my children were in Amanda,s position, and it unfolded as this case has, as much as I would want to believe they couldn,t, wouldn,t have done something like this..it would be impossible to believe they had nothing to do with it. Do I blame Amanda,s family for wanting to save their child? Absolutely not. But their way of going about it hasn,t helped, IMO, and in fact has harmed Amanda.

 

[Mary_H]

Her family has consistently interfered with the legal process and choosing Ted Simon is merely clutching at the final straw. I agree with you that the Knox/Mellas clan are simply ignorant of Italian law and have allowed their ignorance to extend to tampering with the chances of seeing their daughter outside of prison any time soon.

Oh, yeah, I said that -- not.

 

[capealadin]

Mary: WAIT!! Have you seen the and heard the publicity on the Casey Anthony case? And that in Forida, documents are made public?? The Italian Court is practicing Omerta in comparison,

 

[43degreesNorth]

yes, I think her legal team were falling down on their duty to her by letting her write and say all these things. A lawyer's first duty is to protect and represent his/her client. Even monsters deserve proper and professional legal representation from the moment of arrest. Of course, it's possible that her legal representatives DID give her this advice, but that she chose to ignore it. On the face of it, I doubt that though. Her court statement, for example, went on for some time, and I didn't hear her lawyer try to intervene to shut her up (as he absolutely should have done if he'd previously advised her to say little or nothing).

So you think her lawyers failed her, or were over-ruled by Amanda and family? So if the latter was the case, you think Amanda assumed her court statement and diaries would be enough to have her declared innocent? In the appeal, is it likely she will say nothing this time?

I know this is only opinion, but I cannot imagine anyone being accused of murder in a foreign country, receive advice from their lawyers to remain schtum and then decide, and parents agree, to talk and talk and write and write until the cows come home. The lawyers must have had their reasons to think this was a good strategy at the time.

 

[stilicho]

Among the very first things that AK's lawyer should have said to Edda Mellas, even before he'd met AK herself, was something along the lines of: "When you visit your daughter in prison, do NOT discuss anything related to the case, other than allowing her to tell you if she's innocent".

What qualifies you to second-guess AK's representation? How do you know they didn't say this to Edda? What precise evidence do you have to support your continued rambling assertions?

If AK's lawyers truly were involved in allowing - even perhaps encouraging - AK's diary to be made public, then I'd argue that this was another major shortcoming in their duty to protect their client.

There is no "if". Ghirga released her 'diaries' at least on two occasions. What qualifications do you possess to judge this as a "major shortcoming"?

Provide your credentials.

 

[Mary_H]

So you think her lawyers failed her, or were over-ruled by Amanda and family? So if the latter was the case, you think Amanda assumed her court statement and diaries would be enough to have her declared innocent? In the appeal, is it likely she will say nothing this time?

I know this is only opinion, but I cannot imagine anyone being accused of murder in a foreign country, receive advice from their lawyers to remain schtum and then decide, and parents agree, to talk and talk and write and write until the cows come home. The lawyers must have had their reasons to think this was a good strategy at the time.

Obviously, her lawyers were not overruled by the family. IF the lawyers released the diary, it wasn't because the family wanted them to, because as Americans, no doubt with American consultants, they would know that putting all that private information out there would not be helpful to their case.

IF the lawyers thought it was a good strategy, it was because they thought it would work in Italy.

 

[Mary_H]

What precise evidence do you have to support your continued rambling assertions?

Provide your credentials.

Shut up, stilicho, or provide your own.

 

[capealadin]

Inflammatory? Yes, I do disapprove of Amanda,s charachter. As I would if my own children behaved in such a way if one of their friends was killed. Indeed, I would be heartbroken. Let us say, that Amanda was innocent. If my child showed such abherrant behaviour, I would seek help, not go into denial. I mean Mary, for G-ds sake, not being able to kill a spider? Not be able to trample a FLOWER?? without "spilling a tear"? It strains one,s crediblity too far. As to lifestyle, I pass no judgement. Having lovers, smoking dope, is the norm in College. And actually, rather tame to some of the drug taking going on. & lovers is probably not a lot either. I grew up in a different time and culture. And I can,t honestly say that I would have not done the same. And Amanda was going to college, and interested in learning new languages, and furthering her education. Which makes this case even sadder.

 

[LashL]

Everyone, please remember your Membership Agreement. Be civil, do not engage in name-calling, and do not personalize your arguments.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL