Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris C]

"The jury panel made its decision, but that decision is now being challenged by a lot of people for a lot of good reasons. Steve Moore's appearances are part of that challenge, and I would think the pro-guilt camp would want to counter that, if they could."

Mary, with all due respect. If I may give an example. When Steve Moore comes up with statements such as "There are those who believe that the police fabricated evidence" It would not be hard to ask for evidence of this or to ask who these people are.

There are so many examples of the likes of Steve More or the Knox family making misleading statements that could easily be challenged.

If evidence was lied about, mislead about, or withheld. Is that not fabricating or manipulating evidence?

 

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by Mary_H View Post
Obviously, I meant someone with credentials. The New York Times and The Christian Science Monitor both have published pro-innocence op-ed pieces. Where are the counterparts on the pro-guilt side? Where is the pro-guilt contingent's answer to Steve Moore?

I don't know and I don't particularly care either. The debate in the USA about this case is irrelevant.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to get a feel for the debate in Italy. I had posted an article that seemed to me to indicate that there was a lot of doubt in Italy about the fairness of the trial in which Amanda and Raffaele were convicted. That two hour show that aired just before the trial may provide some clues for those that are able to understand Italian. Frank is Italian and he certainly has a lot of doubt.

Perhaps some written opinion pieces could be found in the Italian media that are not just news stories and a translation provided. I use an Italian filter with e-mail alerts to search the Italian news for updates. For example, I got an alert on the case of Sarah Scazzi and what may be an important clue just found.

http://translate.google.com/transla...-09-2010/articolo-id=476797-page=0-comments=1

The British media seem to have a lot of pro-guilt type pieces, but that would be of similar relevance to the American ones if I understand you correctly.

 

[christianahannah]

Rose,

Interesting. I believe I have seen the interview before but did not pick up on the "the morning after the weekend for the dead" (I will view later). Is it this interview that is mentioned in Raffaele's appeal (I believe there is mention of an interview and Quintavalle)?

 

[RoseMontague]

Rose,

Interesting. I believe I have seen the interview before but did not pick up on the "the morning after the weekend for the dead" (I will view later). Is it this interview that is mentioned in Raffaele's appeal (I believe there is mention of an interview and Quintavalle)?

I believe it is and was allowed to be shown in court. I am not sure this is the entire interview that was shown.

 

[RoseMontague]

Interesting comment from Frank in the comments section of his lates post answering some questions about the "slander" trial:

Is it common for defendants to be sued for slander in Italy?

-Yes.

Is fear of slander charges the reason that Lumumba denied what he was quoted as saying about the police beating him up?

-What do you think?

Are you being ironic when you say that the 4 policemen testifying are highly recommended to do so?

-Of course...

Can you give any insight into why (the police or Mignini) are pursuing this slander charge, and how they are going to prove it without a tape?

-Mignini said 'for defending police reputation'. If you want my opinion, it would be too long.
They don't need to prove their version. Amanda would need the tapes to prove her version. But they say there were no tapes.

Will anyone believe the police without a tape?

-Between police and defendant the judge believes the police...

Do Italians believe Amanda lied?

-I don't think so.

October 3, 2010 4:58 AM

(bolding mine)

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7877520352483689941&postID=7205746633452708484

 

[Amazer]

Unfortunately, it is difficult to get a feel for the debate in Italy. I had posted an article that seemed to me to indicate that there was a lot of doubt in Italy about the fairness of the trial in which Amanda and Raffaele were convicted. That two hour show that aired just before the trial may provide some clues for those that are able to understand Italian. Frank is Italian and he certainly has a lot of doubt..

Like you, I find it difficult to get a feel for the debate in Italy. Of course the fact that I don't speak or write Italian is a contributing factor there. I'm hesitant to rely on machine translators like Google; those always change the meaning of any given text to a very large degree.

Perhaps some written opinion pieces could be found in the Italian media that are not just news stories and a translation provided. I use an Italian filter with e-mail alerts to search the Italian news for updates. For example, I got an alert on the case of Sarah Scazzi and what may be an important clue just found.

I commend you on your dedication to this case. I unfortunately do not have the time for such pursuits.

The British media seem to have a lot of pro-guilt type pieces, but that would be of similar relevance to the American ones if I understand you correctly

Well, in an ideal world even the debate in Italy, as it occurs outside the courtroom, wouldn't be very relevant either. But as it stands I think indeed that the debates in the USA and the UK are irrelevant to a greater degree then the one that might be going on in Italy.

 

[Amazer]

Interesting comment from Frank in the comments section of his lates post answering some questions about the "slander" trial:



(bolding mine)

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7877520352483689941&postID=7205746633452708484

It's about what you can prove. And the sad, simple fact is that Amanda doesn't have any evidence that backs up her accusation.

 

[Mary_H]

It's about what you can prove. And the sad, simple fact is that Amanda doesn't have any evidence that backs up her accusation.

Does anyone know what the actual violation is? On the Seattle P-I blog, Michael(UK) wrote, "Calunnia, correctly defined, is to accuse a person or persons of crimes during the course of a criminal investigation, when you know those accusations to be false."

If that is the case, then it would be up to the plaintiff to prove that the defendant knew the accusations to be false.

But he also wrote: "And if you falsely accuse people of a crime it is not up to others to prove that you are lying, it is up to you to prove your accusations are true. If you cannot prove your accusations, then you don't make them," which is similar to what you wrote, Amazer.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's about what you can prove. And the sad, simple fact is that Amanda doesn't have any evidence that backs up her accusation.

You mean stuff like a video or audio recording of her interrogation on the 5th/6th?

 

[Dan O.]

How many times in Italy have the police/prosecution made claims that someone committed a crime and failed to prove it in court? How often have the police/prosecutor been sent to jail for those false claims?

 

[Antony]

(msg #8564)
To quote wikipedia :"Knox's family engaged the services of David Marriott, of Gogerty Stark Marriott, a Seattle-based public relations firm, to handle the public relations aspects of their campaign."

So the "Knox P.R. machine" consists of a single hired consultant?

It's regrettable that a family in the desperate situation that the Knox family are in, faced with a grotesque injustice against their daughter, should find it necessary to take such a step. The reason it was necessary was the appalling campaign of character assassination directed against Amanda, and aimed by the prosecutor at influencing the outcome of the trial.

The existence of such websites as PMF and TJMK shows that there does exist some serious examination of the case.

In that case why do they not operate from a position of impartiality?

The fact of the matter is that Knox was found guilty.

Inasmuch as this is a "fact", it is a report of the opinion of the panel of judges who tried the case. Just because it is an opinion with legal force and an official description ("the verdict"), doesn't make it any less of an opinion, nor give it the objective status of a "fact".

The theme of this forum is that the verdict was wrong. If you are taking the opposite view, then you cannot support your arguments by continually referring back to the verdict (as some on your side are fond of doing). That is no more than circular thinking.

However, in the U.K. in any case, they usually appear alongside a spokesman who is willing to support the verdict.

I don't know what you are referring to here; I'm from the UK and all I have seen are a few newspaper editorials. I haven't seen or heard it discussed in broadcasts.

The CBS coverage is absolutely disgraceful and i seriously fail to understand how it is allowed on air.

Based in the UK I can't make a judgement on CBS, but I will say that making a claim of "a total absence of serious questioning" implies that this exists across the media spectrum, not just on a single news channel.

 

[christianahannah]

Interesting comment from Frank in the comments section of his lates post answering some questions about the "slander" trial:

Do Italians believe Amanda lied?

-I don't think so.

(bolding mine)

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7877520352483689941&postID=7205746633452708484

I do think it speaks on Amanda's behalf that she wrote of the hitting, cuffing, what-have-you, in her November 6 memorandum (and not six months or a year later, etc.). Barbie Nadeau has also said she finds Amanda's account believable.

 

[Justinian2]

Chris C: "Have you considered the possibilty that the prosecution doesn't want to get in a debate with the those claims because they will lose."

Have you considered the possibilty that the Knox family agrees to appear on television and fill airtime on the understanding that nobody supporting the prosecution is invited?

No recent case in America, or perhaps the world, has had this vicious an attack on an accused woman. I remember black men getting this treatment during the 1950's in America. Fortunately, America has outlawed this type of prejudice and media bias.

About the new movie being made on this subject:

And given the ongoing legal proceedings, director Michael Winterbottom is adamant the big screen release will not focus on the verdict.

He tells Britain's Daily Telegraph, "The idea would be that ultimately there isn't an answer, it's all a puzzle. We are certainly not going to be saying, 'This person is innocent or this person is guilty'. But we will be asking, 'Is this (a) system of fair justice?'"

 

[LondonJohn]

Incidentally, it appears to me that in respect to T(lag) times, some people are having a very hard time understanding the meaning of the term "average". They seem not to understand that there is a deviation on either side of the average, which can either be expressed in terms of standard deviations away from the mean or percentiles away from the mean (in both cases, this defines the slope of the deviation either side of the average).

I think it's worth bringing up the height analogy again, since most people can find this intuitively easier to understand. Suppose that the average adult male height in a given population is 5ft10, that the 75th percentile is at 6ft1, the 95th percentile is at 6ft4 and the 99.5th percentile is at 6ft8.

Supposing that the police knew (somehow) that a crime had been committed by an adult male who was at least 6ft5 tall. This is analogous to knowing that Meredith was still alive some 150 minutes after starting her pizza meal.

Now, knowing the probability distribution curve for adult male height, we can say with a high degree of confidence that if the criminal was over 6ft5 tall, then he was very likely to be something between 6ft5 and 6ft8 tall (and, in fact, most likely to be either 6ft6 or 6ft7). There is a very, very small possibility that he was over 6ft8 tall, and a virtual certainty that he was not over 7ft2 tall (since there are only a handful of people in the entire world who are that height).

This is all analogous to the situation with Meredith's stomach contents and her time of death. Just as there are plenty of adult males above the average of 5ft10, and there are quite a few above 6ft5, so there are plenty of people with T(lag) times above 82 minutes, and quite a few above 150 minutes. But, similarly, just as there are only a tiny, tiny number of adult males over the height of 7ft2, so there are a tiny, tiny number of people with T(lag) of over 240 minutes.

I don't understand how it can be so hard to understand how things like height and T(lag) time differ either side of the average in a bell curve fashion, such that a small deviation from the mean is very likely, but a large deviation from the mean is virtually impossible. When I see things written such as "well, if the average T(lag) is 82 minutes, then if people say that 150-170 minutes is possible, why not 180 minutes. And if 180 minutes, why not 200 minutes, or 300 minutes, or 400 minutes", I am astonished and saddened. This - to me - shows a complete lack of understanding of basic statistical analysis.

And, i repeat, if anyone can find a credible scientific or medical source which has found a moderate-sized mixed-ingredient meal to be still completely present in a healthy adult stomach over five hours after ingestion, then I will be amazed and impressed. I can't help thinking that some people have been spending quite a lot of time and effort trying to find such evidence, but I think they will be looking for a very, very long time......

 

[loverofzion]

The stories about "Knox is innocent, says former FBI agent" got a lot of coverage, which other news agencies no doubt covet. The only reason competing media outlets that don't have access to Amanda's family don't put somebody on to say "Knox is guilty" is because they can't find anybody who will do that.

They cannot find one single professional a la Moore to claim she is guilty?

Edited by Gaspode: 

Removed breach of Rule 0

 

[loverofzion]

So the "Knox P.R. machine" consists of a single hired consultant?

It's regrettable that a family in the desperate situation that the Knox family are in, faced with a grotesque injustice against their daughter, should find it necessary to take such a step. The reason it was necessary was the appalling campaign of character assassination directed against Amanda, and aimed by the prosecutor at influencing the outcome of the trial.



In that case why do they not operate from a position of impartiality?



Inasmuch as this is a "fact", it is a report of the opinion of the panel of judges who tried the case. Just because it is an opinion with legal force and an official description ("the verdict"), doesn't make it any less of an opinion, nor give it the objective status of a "fact".

The theme of this forum is that the verdict was wrong. If you are taking the opposite view, then you cannot support your arguments by continually referring back to the verdict (as some on your side are fond of doing). That is no more than circular thinking.



I don't know what you are referring to here; I'm from the UK and all I have seen are a few newspaper editorials. I haven't seen or heard it discussed in broadcasts.



Based in the UK I can't make a judgement on CBS, but I will say that making a claim of "a total absence of serious questioning" implies that this exists across the media spectrum, not just on a single news channel.

The verdict of the court I am sorry to inform you is indeed considered by society to be an objectively proven fact; in so far as human beings can be trusted to accomplish this feat.

It is not simply an "opinion", as say, yours or mine is.

If everyone in the civilized world treated court verdicts as no more than an "opinion" then where would be today.

 

[loverofzion]

I do think it speaks on Amanda's behalf that she wrote of the hitting, cuffing, what-have-you, in her November 6 memorandum (and not six months or a year later, etc.). Barbie Nadeau has also said she finds Amanda's account believable.

The Italian press is overwhelmingly of the belief that Amanda was rightfully convicted of the murder of Meredith Kercher.

 

[Amazer]

How many times in Italy have the police/prosecution made claims that someone committed a crime and failed to prove it in court?

I'm sure that has happened a fair number of times. Just as it happens the world over.

How often have the police/prosecutor been sent to jail for those false claims?

Not sure, perhaps you know of any case that the Italian prosecutors brought to the courts with exactly zero evidence to back up their accusations; then can compare like with like.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The verdict of the court I am sorry to inform you is indeed considered by society to be an objectively proven fact; in so far as human beings can be trusted to accomplish this feat.

It is not simply an "opinion", as say, yours or mine is.

If everyone in the civilized world treated court verdicts as no more than an "opinion" then where would be today.

If this were true we wouldn't have appeals.

 

[loverofzion]

I do think it speaks on Amanda's behalf that she wrote of the hitting, cuffing, what-have-you, in her November 6 memorandum (and not six months or a year later, etc.). Barbie Nadeau has also said she finds Amanda's account believable.

Why is a fabrication more believable if offered immediately than if offered after several months?
She already knew she was guilty WHILE she was being questioned by the police; she was clever enough to come up with "the police hit me" to explain why she accused Patrick of assault and murder, and why she claimed to have been present at the murder, covering her ears from Meredith's screams..(Now how did she know there were screams?)

She acted coldly and quickly; "They hit me" lets her squirm free.
Or so she thought.