Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

The guilter refrain that nineteen judges found them guilty is factually incorrect and could be construed as deliberately misleading, and I think we all agree on that.

Well I don't really subscribe with "deliberately", maybe not even with misleading since I think that some people's convincement was indeed reinforced because of the agreement expressed by so many judges. So I think many people in fact do believe that the 19 judges think they are guilt, by expressing that they "found" them guilty maybe they are at risk of a hasty and incorrect definition if taken technically, but could be sincere and not deliberately misleading, ratehr seen as the truth in rough terms.

However, the expression:
Two judges unanimously formed the opinion that Amanda and Raffaele were guilty, while seventeen judges formed the opinion that there was a prima facie case to answer

is also an incorrect summary. It omits the 8 members court and reports as if two judgs decided alone, and there would be possible misunderstanding if we suggest that there were seventeen judges who merely contributed to form the opinion that there was a case. The judges expressed quite clearly themselves in form of individual judgement stating their idea that the suspects were guilty on the basis of the evidence collcted, although they didn't do this in the definitive context of a trial. This is a bit more than just set the basis for a trial. I say this because, instead, sometimes the judges would actually just indicate the necessity of further investigation or to ascertain facts in a trial without expressing themselves in such terms on the evidence and on the guilt of the suspects.
So the "guilter's" description cannot be considered the only slanted one.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

correction to "was the Duke lacrosse case a conspiracy"

To all,

In comment 8621 I wrote of the three accused lacrosse players, "whose parents footed legal bills into the six figures by some estimates." This is modest. The estimates I actually heard were $1-2 million per defendant, with that estimate rising to $5 million had the case gone to trial.

 

[pilot padron]

Judges and the numbers

"There were 19 judges who looked at the facts and evidence over the course of two years, faced with decisions on pre-trial detention, review of such detention, committal to trial, judgment on criminal responsibility. They all agreed, at all times, that the evidence was overwhelming."

"This is the simplest and fairest criminal trial one could possibly think of in terms of evidence," said Stefano Maffei, lecturer in criminal procedure at the University of Parma. He has also lectured at Harvard Law School, has Ph.D in law from Oxford and is currently a guest lecturer at University of Pacific McGeorge School of Law.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/413244_knox15.html

http://www.maffeistefano.it/diritto_eng.php?id=8

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Mary, your concluding paragraph really ever so concisely summarizes the whole debate between colpevolsti and innocence believers
(my speed reading Instructor said always read last paragraph)

The colpevolsti actually believe that when a person becomes familiar with *all* facets of the case, i.e alibis, evidence both forensic and circumstantial, Judges Motivations for their verdict, as well as propensity to commit, based on past actions of defendants, theories, re-creations, and on and on, ad infinitum, the need for 'character assassination' becomes unnecessary, and actually more suited as tabloid fodder than anything valuable in determination of guilt.

If this were true, then I think it would follow that we'd never hear the guilters claiming that Amanda was a hard drug user, a narcissist, a liar, an anti-semite, that her previous brush with the law at a rowdy party was relevant, that she was jealous of Meredith, that it serves Amanda right that she has put on weight (I kid you not) or any of that sort of thing.

Yet while the guilter forums struggle to even understand the forensic evidence, they talk at length about these issues.

From this I conclude that your characterisation of the "colepvolisti" (I assume this translates as "people who think they are guilty"?) cannot be completely accurate.

Those believing innocence have widely divergent views (often well supported, presented, and researched) about any and all of the above factors.

I'm not sure I understand what you are claiming here.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

It is true that Amanda most likely does not think of Jewish people as a downtrodden minority. Once a minority group is secure in a position of power in society, facetious references to former prejudices are not intended to hurt, they are intended to show that the person speaking them understands they are prejudicial and discriminatory -- the message is, "Isn't it shocking, what people used to get away with saying?" It's parody, and as halides1 pointed out, it is common among college kids.

Some lines from The Godfather:

Jack Woltz: "Johnny Fontane will never get that movie. I don't care how many dago, wop, guinea, greaseball goombahs come out of the woodwork."
Tom Hagen: "I'm German-Irish."
Woltz: "Well, let me tell you something, my kraut mick friend. I'm gonna make so much trouble for you you won't know what hit you."

This scene is very funny to mimic, because the epithets are so "out there" in terms of modern American society, where Italians, Germans and Irish no longer have to fear oppression because of their ethnicity. I'm pretty sure Amanda feels the same way about Jews.

The problem with parody of that kind is that some people don't like to be ridiculed because of their ethnicity or their culture, even as a joke. I grew up in a part of the country largely populated with the descendants of Norwegian immigrants, and they like Norwegian jokes. But Norwegians have not been the victims of a mass-eradication program within living memory. No matter how assimilated or fully vested Jews have become in the US, we cannot shed the burden of history, nor should we try. But this is what kids go to college to learn, and part of the reason they study abroad.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

OK; would this be more accurate:

"All the pre trial judges based on their rather lengthy *independent analysis* stated that the evidence of guilt was 'overwhelming' enough to bring formal charges and subsequent trial."

At the trial, then again after lengthy deliberations, all 8 persons 'qualified and authorize to vote' (or whatever semantics please you), *unanimously* found them guilty.

Not really understanding how that carefully parsed seemingly nit picking distinction as I have constructed adds much to your case or even the discussion in general.

Whether or not you understand it isn't something I imagine I'll lose sleep over, but I think it adds a great deal. Two judges and six people we'd call jurors found them guilty, and everyone else just expressed an opinion based on far less evidence than we now have available to us.

It's painfully evident that we've got a better basis amongst ourselves for deciding on the case here and now than the judges and jurors at the actual trial did because Massei's writings on it are embarrassingly devoid of logic or common sense, as well as getting the science totally wrong on vital points.

So appealing to the authority of "nineteen judges", eleven of whom didn't find them guilty and eight of whom manifestly couldn't reason their way out of a wet paper bag is not only fallacious, but it's also hard to describe as anything other than deceptive if it's being appealed to by someone aware of the current state of play.

 

[pilot padron]

If this were true, then I think it would follow that we'd never hear the guilters claiming that Amanda was a hard drug user, a narcissist, a liar, an anti-semite, that her previous brush with the law at a rowdy party was relevant, that she was jealous of Meredith, that it serves Amanda right that she has put on weight (I kid you not) or any of that sort of thing.

Yet while the guilter forums struggle to even understand the forensic evidence, they talk at length about these issues.

From this I conclude that your characterisation of the "colepvolisti" (I assume this translates as "people who think they are guilty"?) cannot be completely accurate.



I'm not sure I understand what you are claiming here.

Maybe I need to explain more about clear cut difference between simple character assassination which is tabloid fodder, and a diligent jurist's inclusion of propensity to commit, based on past actions of defendants which is an integral part of any complete deliberation and evaluation of evidence ??

May I leave to the coiner of the term here, Mary, the duty to elaborate on 'colepvolisti' and how it sounds ever so much more sophisticated (befitting Mary) than the tired derogatory-implying 'guilters'.

My last sentence is just my attempt at summing up what I thought Mary implied that those believing innocence can and will reject, dispute, and admirably argue much, if not all of what the guilters accept as truth.

Your take on guilters discussing character traits implies little more to me, and carries little more significance than the fact that newspapers such as the NY Post and Daily news also sell lots more issues that the NY Times, Wash Post, and Christian Science Monitor.

Possible even more relevant People Magazine increases circulation while Newsweek goes belly up.

What others discuss around water coolers (like weight ? really) or on other Forums really is not pivotal here is it ??

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>I say this because, instead, sometimes the judges would actually just indicate the necessity of further investigation or to ascertain facts in a trial without expressing themselves in such terms on the evidence and on the guilt of the suspects.

This is pretty important information, very different from claiming that 19 judges found the pair guilty. Did the judges who agreed a trial should go forward have access to the defense's arguments before the trial?

 

[pilot padron]

Whether or not you understand it isn't something I imagine I'll lose sleep over, but I think it adds a great deal. Two judges and six people we'd call jurors found them guilty, and everyone else just expressed an opinion based on far less evidence than we now have available to us.

It's painfully evident that we've got a better basis amongst ourselves for deciding on the case here and now than the judges and jurors at the actual trial did because Massei's writings on it are embarrassingly devoid of logic or common sense, as well as getting the science totally wrong on vital points.

Yes, you are definitely correct that the evidence available to each of the pre trial judges is 'less than now available'.

But equally correct is that each of those judges independently and with appropriate diligence concluded that the evidence overwhelmingly justified continued incarceration and subsequent trial.

Just as the jurors stated how hard it was for them to send young people to prison, with fairness and respect for the gravity of what those pre trial judges were required to do, I simply place significantly more esteem toward them and their conclusions than you apparently do.

Ditto for the 427 page motivation Report which you (IMHO rather disrespectfully) repeatedly refer to as 'worthless'
This, whether capitalized or not seems contradictory to Counsellor Simon's entreaty and not conducive to helping Amanda, as opined by both her lawyers.

Edited to add:
Please spare me requests for citations about lawyer recent reaction to Italian system being repeatedly bashed by Moore on his Marriott scripted and arranged dramatic dog and pony TV diatribes.
We all are well aware of what Ghirga and the others said after that.
Besides, I'm still workin on Daydreamer's request to avoid the cooked crow entree.
I believe it came from one of the 3 books I read or from an Andrea Vogt article...workin on it

 

[Mary_H]

Yes, you are definitely correct that the evidence available to each of the pre trial judges is 'less than now available'.

But equally correct is that each of those judges independently and with appropriate diligence concluded that the evidence overwhelmingly justified continued incarceration and subsequent trial.

Just as the jurors stated how hard it was for them to send young people to prison, with fairness and respect for the gravity of what those pre trial judges were required to do, I simply place significantly more esteem toward them and their conclusions than you apparently do.

Ditto for the 427 page motivation Report which you (IMHO rather disrespectfully) repeatedly refer to as 'worthless'
This, whether capitalized or not seems contradictory to Counsellor Simon's entreaty and not conducive to helping Amanda, as opined by both her lawyers.

What exactly is it that Mr. Simon has said?

 

[HumanityBlues]

Yes, you are definitely correct that the evidence available to each of the pre trial judges is 'less than now available'.

But equally correct is that each of those judges independently and with appropriate diligence concluded that the evidence overwhelmingly justified continued incarceration and subsequent trial.

Just as the jurors stated how hard it was for them to send young people to prison, with fairness and respect for the gravity of what those pre trial judges were required to do, I simply place significantly more esteem toward them and their conclusions than you apparently do.

Ditto for the 427 page motivation Report which you (IMHO rather disrespectfully) repeatedly refer to as 'worthless'
This, whether capitalized or not seems contradictory to Counsellor Simon's entreaty and not conducive to helping Amanda, as opined by both her lawyers.

Where are you getting "appropriate diligence"?

 

[Mary_H]

Where are you getting "appropriate diligence"?

And "independently?"

 

[pilot padron]

What exactly is it that Mr. Simon has said?

C'mon Mary spare me...

Surely you know this, and have probably asked countess others the same question with your signature compulsory citation addendum

Mr Simon shortly after he received his half million buck retainer...
(which incidentally also caused him to do a stunning complete reversal on his earlier statements about "based on the evidence defense of Knox would be very difficult')
...said words to the effect that bashing the Italian system would accomplish little for Amanda, and should be curtailed.

Not statistically infallible, but to me there was a definite decrease in such remarks after the half million retainer man suggested easing up.

Also significant, even Amanda herself seemed to want to distance herself from Italy Bashinh when she stood up after the verdict and stated the proceedings were 'fair'

 

[pilot padron]

And "independently?"

Judges using 'appropriate diligence' when deciding a case is something you wish to debate, or need just assistance from Webster ??.

Mary, surely you are not questioning how the italian system requires *pre trial* judges to study available evidence *independently* and reach conclusions *independently* are you ??

As an after thought, I understand how this 'evidence based community' often expends inordinate effort on what many would consider hair splitting sometimes interesting, but often irrelevant differences in definitions.

With that in mind, may I toss out that I consider the pre trial judges to come to *conclusions* about need for incarceration and full trial rather than 'opinions'

Small point, akin to President Clinton suggesting the definition of the word 'is' would in some way lessen the predicament he placed himself in with "that woman", Ms Lewinsky

 

[Mary_H]

C'mon Mary spare me...

Surely you know this, and have probably asked countess others the same question with your signature compulsory citation addendum

Mr Simon shortly after he received his half million buck retainer...
(which incidentally also caused him to do a stunning complete reversal on his earlier statements about "based on the evidence defense of Knox would be very difficult')
...said words to the effect that bashing the Italian system would accomplish little for Amanda, and should be curtailed.

Not statistically infallible, but to me there was a definite decrease in such remarks after the half million retainer man suggested easing up.

Also significant, even Amanda herself seemed to want to distance herself from Italy Bashinh when she stood up after the verdict and stated the proceedings were 'fair'

Sorry, pilot, I am not being glib (or disingenuous, as "your people" like to say) when I ask what Ted Simon's alleged remarks were. Earlier today you claimed, "Finally, isn't this precisely what Mr Simon is suggesting be ceased and desisted from in deference to Italian Officials," and now you are referring to it again, but what the heck are you talking about?

I'd love to discuss it, but first I need to know if it actually happened. That goes for the half-million retainer, too, as well, quite obviously, as your claim that Amanda stood up and said the proceedings had been fair. This I gotta see.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Judges using 'appropriate diligence' when deciding a case is something you wish to debate, or need just assistance from Webster ??.

Mary, surely you are not questioning how the italian system requires *pre trial* judges to study available evidence *independently* and reach conclusions *independently* are you ??

As an after thought, I understand how this 'evidence based community' often expends inordinate effort on what many would consider hair splitting sometimes interesting, but often irrelevant differences in definitions.

With that in mind, may I toss out that I consider the pre trial judges to come to *conclusions* about need for incarceration and full trial rather than 'opinions'

Small point, akin to President Clinton suggesting the definition of the word 'is' would in some way lessen the predicament he placed himself in with "that woman", Ms Lewinsky

Give us a tangible example of what you mean by 'appropriate diligence'.

 

[pilot padron]

Good night

Hey guys, again appreciate opportunity to exchange thoughts, but definitely hittin the hay this time.

Will respond to best of my (limited) abilities upon logging back in, and do not mean to ignore anything or anybody

Best regards to all here

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yes, you are definitely correct that the evidence available to each of the pre trial judges is 'less than now available'.

But equally correct is that each of those judges independently and with appropriate diligence concluded that the evidence overwhelmingly justified continued incarceration and subsequent trial.

Even assuming this is true (you've already been asked for your evidence), so what? People concluded with appropriate diligence that continental drift was impossible. They were wrong because they didn't have information available to them that we now have.

Just as the jurors stated how hard it was for them to send young people to prison, with fairness and respect for the gravity of what those pre trial judges were required to do, I simply place significantly more esteem toward them and their conclusions than you apparently do.

That would be because we now know that they were wrong. Maybe they made the right call at the time and maybe not, but this isn't then. With the benefit of hindsight their decisions weren't correct, so on what possible basis can you hold their decision in esteem? How can it possibly be relevant to how we should judge the likelihood or otherwise of Sollecito and Knox's innocence today?

Ditto for the 427 page motivation Report which you (IMHO rather disrespectfully) repeatedly refer to as 'worthless'

I do take that back - it's been very useful to the pro-innocence cause it its own misguided way.

This, whether capitalized or not seems contradictory to Counsellor Simon's entreaty and not conducive to helping Amanda, as opined by both her lawyers.

I never cease to be amused by guilters "helping" Amanda by advising the people who think she is innocent to shut up... has that ever worked? Or even been taken seriously? I ask merely for facts on this point.

 

[capealadin]

Amanda Knox spoke to Walter Verini, an Italian MP saying " The trial was carried out correctly, my rights were respected". Telegraph, december 9th, 2009.

 

[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?

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


Not sure, perhaps you know of any case that the Italian prosecutors brought to the courts with exactly zero evidence to back up their accusations¹; then can compare like with like.

How about that case from early November 2007 where the prosecutors declared that a couple of students and another man murdered one of the students room mates when they had exactly zero evidence. Perhaps you've heard of it.

No, i'm sure there is evidence in that particular case.² There however seems to be some disagreement on what the evidence proves.

But please try again.

You seem to be pretty sure of yourself. Can you list any of that evidence against the trio that existed on November 6th which has not already been disproved?³

Now you are shifting the goal posts⁴

(1)You set the goal. (2)You made the claim. (3)I asked you to back it up. (4)Your claim of moving the goal posts has no legs.

Your avoidance of backing your claims appears deliberate. What's your game?