Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[loverofzion]

I was looking at Chris's suggestion not in terms of the judge losing his job or even the respect of his peers. I see it more as something that is simply unthinkable, something that would never even cross a judge's mind. It would be like a loyal political party member changing to the other party. I don't know how often they do that in Britain, but if a politician does it in the United State, it's huge news.

Someone who switches parties or otherwise turns his back on his colleagues had better have a plan in place for how it is going to benefit him in the long run. For example, if one of the judges in Perugia were to differ with the prosecutor or the other judges, it might indicate he had been offered a job in Rome, or was planning to retire for good, or something like that.

There must be a few occasions when judges disagree with the prosecution's case in first trials, but to do so in the public eye, for as famous a trial as this one, would be seen as a betrayal, because of the shame and distress that would result in the media.

The jurors all reached a unanimous decision as to AK's guilt.

Your "shame and distress...in the media" resulting from such a decision is pusre fantasy.

 

[Withnail1969]

Where can you see reasons to dismiss Antonella Monacchia and Nara Capezzali as witnesses? I can't see even the slightest.
I haven't understood what is the "mistake" you are thinking about. I don't understand your idea of how they mistook a scream of something else.
I don't understand your reasons at all.

Nara did not hear a scream because:-

1) It wasn't physically possible for a 70 year old to hear it through stone walls and closed windows even if the scream did happen. Any scream loud enough for her to hear would have resounded through the area at massive volume and there would have been dozens of witnesses.

2) Nobody else in the area apart from another dubious witness claimed to have heard anything even though there were people outdoors at the time such as the broken down car people.

3) She did not report the scream to police or neighbours at the time although she basically says she believed someone had just been murdered.

4) She made other claims such as hearing people shuffling through leaves which were simply not credible.

5) She claimed to have seen Raffaele and Amanda kissing and cuddling outside the cottage when in fact she could not have seen them in the position they were in from her apartment - she got this from the TV.


Nara's testimony, like Curatalo's, should be discarded - it's just false memory syndrome.

 

[Machiavelli]

Hmm. So we are expected to believe that Nara heard a blood-curdling scream, one that she was certain was the sound of someone being murdered close by - and it doesn't matter that she decided not to call the police, thus allowing the murderer time to complete his work and escape.

She heared a scream, not one that she was certain was the sound of someone being murdered (how can one be certain?).
Of course we are expected to believe her.
(and the police couldn't have done nothing: what do you think they would do? "ok in 15 minutes we will have drive around the area and look at the street"

Look at this video of a murder in Naples. Look what the people in the street do. Do they help? Do they call the police? Do you think they would testify by their own initiative? This murder in Italy had zero witnesses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTSsZHPIkAk&feature=related

 

[loverofzion]

I think the defense was pretty comfortable with the fact that they had discredited the reliability of her testimony. It was only at the end that they realized despite the problems with this witness that Massei was going to go with the reasoning that they could see no reason this witness would lie without considering the possibility that she just may have been mistaken and was shown to have been mistaken about several things she testified to. At the point they made this request, they must have understood that the judgment had already been decided.

The judicial decision wa that there was NO reason to disbelieve the witness who heard a blood curdling scream that she says she will never forget.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

where is the DNA

There was an overwhelming force, causing a prolonged restraint, not an extended violent struggle.

Machiavelli,

If Raffaele or Amanda had restrained Meredith as you indicate, then where is their DNA on her body?

 

[Withnail1969]

She heared a scream, not one that she was certain was the sound of someone being murdered (how can one be certain?).
Of course we are expected to believe her.
(and the police couldn't have done nothing: what do you think they would do? "ok in 15 minutes we will have drive around the area and look at the street"

Look at this video of a murder in Naples. Look what the people in the street do. Do they help? Do they call the police? Do you think they would testify by their own initiative? This murder in Italy had zero witnesses:



she described it as the sound of someone dying (grido de morte)?

it's ludicrous to suggest calling the police would have been pointless - there is a lot they could have done, including narrowing down the source of the scream with house to house enquiries, stopping suspicious people on the street, noting what cars were in the area, etc, etc. For all she knew, someone was lying bleeding to death in the street.

She didn't call them because she didn't hear a scream.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

there are two sets of experts, not one

That argument sucked. Badly lol. When "guilters" post their opinions about broken glass and such, it's just that, an opinion, and it's usually to counter all the opinions you guys throw out there. What they don't do is accuse experts of being incorrect and accusing them of doing their job incorrectly and prosecuting innocent people. That is the problem I have. Like I said once at PMF, I have no problem with people looking over the Massei report, looking over the evidence, and studying it. What bothers me is when people think that they can prove experts wrong based on google searches and guesses. So please, don't compare what we do to what you do, it;s not even close to comparable. Its ok to ask questions, but I think it's presumptuous to pretend that you know more than the people who studied many years and have worked many years in a certain field.

Solange305,

What you say in your first half of your message is an overgeneralization. Stilicho, for example, has claimed elsewhere that Dr. Hampikian left the case because the money ran out, but he offered not one scintilla of evidence. In the previous thread on this topic, Fiona turned up pseudo-evidence to suggest that the signers of the Johnson/Hampikian open letter had a vested interest that explained their involvement in the case.

In the second half of your message, you ignore the defense's expert witnesses and consultants, who (in the case of forensic DNA) have academic reputations and credentials, unlike Dr. Stefanonni, who does not publish any original research in the field (as far as I have been able to locate).

 

[Danceme]

Maybe you need to reread the comments?

In a case that is clearly high profile and the jury returns with a guilty verdict it would be political suicide to overturn the jury's decision. Basicly I'm agreeing with Massei's decision not to overturn the verdict, because even judges have their own form of politics within their ranks. If he would have overturned the verdict he would have disassociated himself from the rest of his peers.
So instead of overturning the verdict, Massei has to make the evidence fit as best he can in his report. I'm pretty sure every judge in Massei's position has to do this, and every judge has this exact dilemma. In their report they have to make the evidence fit the decision of the jury. Massei's task of trying to make sense of all the crap the prosecution fed the jury wasn't an easy task. You can see that by reading the Massei report and then looking at the appeals of Sollecito and Knox and see where they are attacking it at.

Or to answer your question.

He could have just committed political suicide within the judicial ranks and said not guilty. Losing his job would have been a possibility however most likely he would have lost the confidence and respect of his peers. Or do you think there would have been no repercussions if he said, "not guilty?"

Chris, unbelievable, simply unbelievable! Please back up these ludicrous claims because to me, you simply have zero understanding of a judge's role.

You guys crack me up!
ChrisC comes up with one of the most ridiculous statements I have seen so far:
<snip>
What planet are you on ChrisC?

I concur!!

I was looking at Chris's suggestion not in terms of the judge losing his job or even the respect of his peers. I see it more as something that is simply unthinkable, something that would never even cross a judge's mind. It would be like a loyal political party member changing to the other party. I don't know how often they do that in Britain, but if a politician does it in the United State, it's huge news.

Someone who switches parties or otherwise turns his back on his colleagues had better have a plan in place for how it is going to benefit him in the long run. For example, if one of the judges in Perugia were to differ with the prosecutor or the other judges, it might indicate he had been offered a job in Rome, or was planning to retire for good, or something like that.

There must be a few occasions when judges disagree with the prosecution's case in first trials, but to do so in the public eye, for as famous a trial as this one, would be seen as a betrayal, because of the shame and distress that would result in the media.

Not another one
You just can't make this stuff up......wait, you and Chris just did!!

 

[Withnail1969]

Chris, unbelievable, simply unbelievable! Please back up these ludicrous claims because to me, you simply have zero understanding of a judge's role.



I concur!!



Not another one
You just can't make this stuff up......wait, you and Chris just did!!

Chris's points seem very plausible to me. In the UK we have had two high profile cases where alleged IRA terrorists were convicted for bombings under circumstances of great public anger; namely, The Guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6.

In fact it turned out many years later that both groups were innocent and the forensic evidence against them was junk. Try watching the film 'In the Name of the Father'.

 

[Machiavelli]

she described it as the sound of someone dying (grido de morte)?

it's ludicrous to suggest calling the police would have been pointless - there is a lot they could have done, including narrowing down the source of the scream with house to house enquiries, stopping suspicious people on the street,

This is ludicrous.

I would have never called the police if I were in Nara's shoes.

 

[Machiavelli]

If Raffaele or Amanda had restrained Meredith as you indicate, then where is their DNA on her body?

I said somebody restrained Meredith (maybe Rudy).
Can you find his DNA on Meredith's face, where he allegedly pressed a hand with force leaving a series of bruises and lesions? Is the absence of DNA in that region an evidence he didn't do it?

You look for Raffaele and Amanda's DNA. On the bra clasp?

 

[Withnail1969]

This is ludicrous.

I would have never called the police if I were in Nara's shoes.

So you've just heard someone being killed within a few metres of you, and you just finish your cup of cocoa and tuck yourself into bed, dropping off to sleep because after all it's not your problem if some woman has been murdered?

 

[Amazer]

In some jurisdictions, I'm not sure about Italy, Nara herself would be prosecuted for failing to report a serious crime.

Alright

Also, may I say that you aren't adding anything by stating that the judges 'believed it' - that's a circular argument from authority. The question is whether they should have believed it.

Whether they should have believed it is rather irrelevant. The simple fact of the matter is that they did believe it. Unless compelling evidence is found to discredit the testimony from Nara, is see no reason to believe that the next set of judges (from the appeal) will reach a completely opposing view.

Btw, you might want to check your definitions for appeal to authority and for circular reasoning; both were not in play here.

 

[Withnail1969]

Alright


Whether they should have believed it is rather irrelevant. The simple fact of the matter is that they did believe it. Unless compelling evidence is found to discredit the testimony from Nara, is see no reason to believe that the next set of judges (from the appeal) will reach a completely opposing view.

Btw, you might want to check your definitions for appeal to authority and for circular reasoning; both were not in play here.

We already know the judges believed or claimed to believe Nara's testimony, despite logic, reason, and the laws of physics. This is the point which you keep restating again and again. Please stop doing so as it is redundant. I believe that the judges' decision is mistaken for the many reasons I have already given.

 

[Chris C]

Chris, unbelievable, simply unbelievable! Please back up these ludicrous claims because to me, you simply have zero understanding of a judge's role.

Basicly what your saying is its Ludicrous to believe that Judicial Politics exist?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Whether they should have believed it is rather irrelevant. The simple fact of the matter is that they did believe it. Unless compelling evidence is found to discredit the testimony from Nara, is see no reason to believe that the next set of judges (from the appeal) will reach a completely opposing view.

Btw, you might want to check your definitions for appeal to authority and for circular reasoning; both were not in play here.

That depends on whether you construe your earlier statement as having an unstated conclusion, something like "therefore her story is true" or "therefore her story should be believed". If you were not intending to imply anything of the sort then indeed it was neither an appeal to authority nor a circular argument.

"The judges believed it therefore you should believe it" would be a fallacious appeal to authority.

"It was true, which was why the judges believed it, and because the judges believed it then it must be true" would be a fallacious circular argument.

 

[Amazer]

That depends on whether you construe your earlier statement as having an unstated conclusion, something like "therefore her story is true" or "therefore her story should be believed". If you were not intending to imply anything of the sort then indeed it was neither an appeal to authority nor a circular argument.


"The judges believed it therefore you should believe it" would be a fallacious appeal to authority.

"It was true, which was why the judges believed it, and because the judges believed it then it must be true" would be a fallacious circular argument.

I think we can agree that since neither conclusion was stated that neither fallacy applies.

 

[colonelhall]

ChricC :"Maybe English is a Second Language for you or you failed to read the entire exchange.
So I'll give this to you in Captain Dummy Talk."

Do you really need to be so offensive? Your arguments really hold no water, with me and I have absolutely zero respect for your debating style. I stand by what I say and that remarks regarding the jury coming to a conclusion based upon fear of losing their jobs are laughable.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Machiavelli,

If Raffaele or Amanda had restrained Meredith as you indicate, then where is their DNA on her body?

The DNA tests on her person were limited to vaginal and rectal swabs (Rep. 12 and Rep 13), samples taken from underneath her fingernails (Rep. 15 and Rep. 16), and one swab of the large neck wound (Rep. 21), the last of which became the reference sample for her genetic profile. What was initially thought to be a hair specimen taken from her body near her external genitalia (Rep. 14) was not tested for DNA because a microscopic examination revealed that it was spun wool.

The only DNA found in any of these samples, besides Meredith's was Guede's y haplotype in the vaginal swab.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

ChricC :"Maybe English is a Second Language for you or you failed to read the entire exchange.
So I'll give this to you in Captain Dummy Talk."

Do you really need to be so offensive? Your arguments really hold no water, with me and I have absolutely zero respect for your debating style. I stand by what I say and that remarks regarding the jury coming to a conclusion based upon fear of losing their jobs are laughable.

Community pressure plays a major role in these cases. Don't ever kid yourself.