• 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.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
pilot padron said:
<snip>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
Click to expand...


This topic relates to your citations above, about Stefano Maffei. I have wondered in the past whether Andrea Vogt attributed those comments to the wrong legal scholar. In the article you linked, Ms. Vogt links the reader to Maffei's blog, writing, "Maffei has posted more extensive comments on his Web site in an essay titled 'Fair Trial, Powerful Evidence, Mild Sentence: Myth and Reality of the Knox Case.'"

If you go to his blog, though, you don't find that essay or any comments. Instead, Maffei directs you to the interview he did with Andrea Vogt for the Seattle P-I, but it's a completely different article, in which Maffei is quoted at length describing the Italian justice system. From that article, you are left with an impression of Maffei as a man who would not make the kind of comments you cited above, about the evidence and the judges. It's very mysterious. Either Vogt got the name wrong, or Maffei deleted the other essay.

Anyway, in the article about Maffei in which he talks about the Italian Justice system, he says, "The prosecutor is a powerful figure in Italy connected to the judiciary, not elected or appointed. While there is a career separation between judges and prosecutors, the qualifying examination and training are common, That has made judges and prosecutors close both culturally and professionally."

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/412696_knox30.html

From this and from the collusion we have seen among the prosecutors and the judges, e.g., Claudia Matteini's early report and Massei's motivations, I find it highly unlikely that the judges are independent from one another.
 
Mary_H said:
This topic relates to your citations above, about Stefano Maffei. I have wondered in the past whether Andrea Vogt attributed those comments to the wrong legal scholar. In the article you linked, Ms. Vogt links the reader to Maffei's blog, writing, "Maffei has posted more extensive comments on his Web site in an essay titled 'Fair Trial, Powerful Evidence, Mild Sentence: Myth and Reality of the Knox Case.'"

If you go to his blog, though, you don't find that essay or any comments. Instead, Maffei directs you to the interview he did with Andrea Vogt for the Seattle P-I, but it's a completely different article, in which Maffei is quoted at length describing the Italian justice system. From that article, you are left with an impression of Maffei as a man who would not make the kind of comments you cited above, about the evidence and the judges. It's very mysterious. Either Vogt got the name wrong, or Maffei deleted the other essay.

Anyway, in the article about Maffei in which he talks about the Italian Justice system, he says, "The prosecutor is a powerful figure in Italy connected to the judiciary, not elected or appointed. While there is a career separation between judges and prosecutors, the qualifying examination and training are common, That has made judges and prosecutors close both culturally and professionally."

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/412696_knox30.html

From this and from the collusion we have seen among the prosecutors and the judges, e.g., Claudia Matteini's early report and Massei's motivations, I find it highly unlikely that the judges are independent from one another.
Click to expand...

Mary, Maffei definitely said those things. I remember reading them on his website after the verdict. I don't know what happened to the essay.
 
Kevin Lowe: I conclude from this : Amanda told Walter Verini, an Italian Mp " The trial was conducted fairly, and my rights were respected". Seems clear enough to me..
 
pilot padron said:
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'
Click to expand...

I'm sure she didn't want another 6 years tacked onto her sentence for criticizing any aspect of the proceedings.
 
Lets 'clear the air' a bit about the 'citations' fetish

Your pride in considering yourself an 'evidence based community' on the surface seems as unassailable as Mom and/or apple pie.

But looking a bit deeper consider these examples that make the pie inedible:

A) Mary says she doubts that Amanda ever stated that she had been treated fairly. ( I actually take her on her word, but find it hard to conceive that a person with her exposure to the case could have missed that, and sincerely needs 'proof'
Another poster quickly and unequivocally provides undeniable proof.

What Happens next:
Mr Lowe jumps in to ask the proof provider " What they conclude from what Amanda did (now undeniably) in fact state.

HUH ???
I conclude that you deem the hard evidence you literally had shoved down your throat as something to wave off and now lets play Dr Phil about what to conclude about what Amanda said.

Quite frankly, after reading:
1) her complete diary,
2) her "award winning" rape story
3) her completely convoluted, disjointed dance around the question two day heavily defense lawyer 'saved' testimony,
4) her 'gift' written statement to police after she had breakfast
5) her 'best she could remember' truth E-Mail to friends
and on and on,

I plumb just would not even begin to try and conclude a single iota of Amanda's "meaning" from any of the above to include the now sufficiently proven 'fair treatment statement'

B) Your (frankly IMHO *sly*) excessive requests for 'citations' seems primarily and overly directed only at the rare guilter poster here.

One example: One of the party line people very recently makes an almost unbelievable patently pathetic statement that "all the Prosecution witnesses cannot be trusted about anything because they were all coached".

Do I hear a peep about a citation for that bunch of opinionated biased BS ?? ???

Nooooo; too busy badgering the guilter for proof that Simon got a half million retainer
 
HumanityBlues said:
Mary, Maffei definitely said those things. I remember reading them on his website after the verdict. I don't know what happened to the essay.
Click to expand...


Thanks, HB. I have looked for it a few times in the past but could never find it.
 
Lets 'clear the air' a bit about the 'citations' fetish (2)

Mary, you have my respect for thoroughly reading the two citations I provided for the 19 judge statement.

However, if after receiving that you still need more, you just become the ideal reference I need as proof of what I am saying in post (1) above.

As my final cow tow to the Board's select few's 'citation fetish', here are three (3) that IMHO very sufficiently substantiate my positions about detrimental effect of Moore's bash Italy type diatribes, as well as again quoting Amanda's saying she got a fair shake

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/AmandaKnox/amanda-knox-murder-trial-correct/story?id=9290666&page=1

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/15/how-amanda-knox-s-supporters-could-doom-her.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...reciate-American-reaction-doesnt-help-me.html
 
Last edited:
Lets 'clear the air' a bit about the 'citations' fetish (3)

After spending literally hours researching all *twenty eight* computer pages of just the links to Daily Beast articles about Knox, as well as contacting the friends I passed on the 3 full books I had read on the case to begin thumbing pages there for requested 'citations', I literally am at the point of no return.

The statements I make in a humble yet conscientious effort to make meaningful contributions here are the result of nearly 3 full years of very close following nearly everything written about this case.

To be required (as a proponent of the wrong way of the one way direction here) to research and document every single statement I make is a game I choose to no longer play.

Whether or not Simon got $500K retainer really amounts to less than the proverbial hill of beans in the real question of guilt or innocence

To demand documentation of that from the guilter while totally accepting with absolutely no reference the party line guy saying "all witness for one side are worthless", and "all Police cannot be trusted" is just a bit much for my well worn teeth to prepare for swallowing.

I thank you for the lengthy reading on this subject that I feel gets to the heart the ability to conduct a worthwhile exchange of ideas.

Additionally, I trust that this effort to 'clear air offends and/or violates anyone or anything
 
Last edited:
pilot padron said:
Your pride in considering yourself an 'evidence based community' on the surface seems as unassailable as Mom and/or apple pie.

But looking a bit deeper consider these examples that make the pie inedible:

A) Mary says she doubts that Amanda ever stated that she had been treated fairly. ( I actually take her on her word, but find it hard to conceive that a person with her exposure to the case could have missed that, and sincerely needs 'proof'
Another poster quickly and unequivocally provides undeniable proof.

What Happens next:
Mr Lowe jumps in to ask the proof provider " What they conclude from what Amanda did (now undeniably) in fact state.

HUH ???
I conclude that you deem the hard evidence you literally had shoved down your throat as something to wave off and now lets play Dr Phil about what to conclude about what Amanda said.

Quite frankly, after reading:
1) her complete diary,
2) her "award winning" rape story
3) her completely convoluted, disjointed dance around the question two day heavily defense lawyer 'saved' testimony,
4) her 'gift' written statement to police after she had breakfast
5) her 'best she could remember' truth E-Mail to friends
and on and on,

I plumb just would not even begin to try and conclude a single iota of Amanda's "meaning" from any of the above to include the now sufficiently proven 'fair treatment statement'

B) Your (frankly IMHO *sly*) excessive requests for 'citations' seems primarily and overly directed only at the rare guilter poster here.

One example: One of the party line people very recently makes an almost unbelievable patently pathetic statement that "all the Prosecution witnesses cannot be trusted about anything because they were all coached".

Do I hear a peep about a citation for that bunch of opinionated biased BS ?? ???

Nooooo; too busy badgering the guilter for proof that Simon got a half million retainer
Click to expand...

pilot,

1) Everyone gets asked to back up specific and significant assertions with evidence, usually in the form of cites.

2) Witnesses for both the prosecution and defence should be coached by the respective lawyers, to ensure that there are few surprises or mishaps when they are actually on the witness stand. The issue with Curatolo, Quintavalle and Capezzali is not about whether they were coached, but whether their stories stand up to scrutiny.

3) Do you have any evidence to support your *ever so* specific claim that David Marriott (or his firm) was paid half a million dollars by the Knox/Mellas family for his assistance?

I hope you finally manage to get some sleep - looks like you've been up half the night. Personally, I can't make do with fewer than 7 hours per night........
 
pilot padron said:
Your pride in considering yourself an 'evidence based community' on the surface seems as unassailable as Mom and/or apple pie.
Click to expand...


There are people here from three points of view, pilot -- pro-innocence, pro-guilt and neutral. Incidentally, Kevin Lowe said evidence-oriented community, not evidence-based.

But looking a bit deeper consider these examples that make the pie inedible:

A) Mary says she doubts that Amanda ever stated that she had been treated fairly. ( I actually take her on her word, but find it hard to conceive that a person with her exposure to the case could have missed that, and sincerely needs 'proof'
Another poster quickly and unequivocally provides undeniable proof.
Click to expand...


I didn't say I doubted it; I asked you to cite it. The fact is, I know Amanda did not stand up after the verdict and say she thought she had been treated fairly. She stood up after the closing arguments and clearly said two or three times that the prosecutors "do not understand." She cried after the verdict. What I was really hoping was that if you looked for the citation, you would find that none exists.

What Happens next:
Mr Lowe jumps in to ask the proof provider " What they conclude from what Amanda did (now undeniably) in fact state.
Click to expand...


capealadin did not provide a cite for your claim. She provided a "look in this direction" for a completely different claim -- the claim that what's-his-name who visited Amanda in her cell made about how he interpreted what Amanda said in response to a question he asked. No offense, but I'm not sure you guys are being challenged enough in your regular habitat. Both of these issues are, as some people like to say, moles that have long since been whacked.

<snip>B) Your (frankly IMHO *sly*) excessive requests for 'citations' seems primarily and overly directed only at the rare guilter poster here.

One example: One of the party line people very recently makes an almost unbelievable patently pathetic statement that "all the Prosecution witnesses cannot be trusted about anything because they were all coached".

Do I hear a peep about a citation for that bunch of opinionated biased BS ?? ???

Nooooo; too busy badgering the guilter for proof that Simon got a half million retainer
Click to expand...


Just because people ask you for citations doesn't mean you have to provide them. It's not a rule; it's just a recommended way of supporting and winning your argument. If the citation does what you want it to do, that is in your favor.

Opinions are welcome, and are expressed often. A poster can choose to support his opinion with facts or not. Factual information is not subject to opinion, though. Whether Simon received a $500,000 retainer is not a matter of opinion; it's either a fact or it isn't. Whether Mignini has a fragile ego or the witnesses were coached are speculative opinions that can't be verified by facts, only supported by anecdotal evidence. You can still ask for citations to support them, though, if you want.
 
L J you are one *ever so* meticulously observant and admirably cogent individual.
Any detective background, per chance ??

Appreciate the also astute observation about sleep patterns.
Got a few other irons in the fire and just caught a few power naps that even the US FAA suggests as beneficial for 'pilots' on the back side of their body clocks.

No, I cannot provide an off the cuff documentation for Marriott, and in fact I accept your assertion, in lieu of my memory, that I even ever actually said that.

My recalled reference was to Simon's $500K retainer which was definitely reported (somewhere).
 
Mary_H said:
There are people here from three points of view, pilot -- pro-innocence, pro-guilt and neutral. Incidentally, Kevin Lowe said evidence-oriented community, not evidence-based.




I didn't say I doubted it; I asked you to cite it. The fact is, I know Amanda did not stand up after the verdict and say she thought she had been treated fairly. She stood up after the closing arguments and clearly said two or three times that the prosecutors "do not understand." She cried after the verdict. What I was really hoping was that if you looked for the citation, you would find that none exists.




capealadin did not provide a cite for your claim. She provided a "look in this direction" for a completely different claim -- the claim that what's-his-name who visited Amanda in her cell made about how he interpreted what Amanda said in response to a question he asked. No offense, but I'm not sure you guys are being challenged enough in your regular habitat. Both of these issues are, as some people like to say, moles that have long since been whacked.




Just because people ask you for citations doesn't mean you have to provide them. It's not a rule; it's just a recommended way of supporting and winning your argument. If the citation does what you want it to do, that is in your favor.

Opinions are welcome, and are expressed often. A poster can choose to support his opinion with facts or not. Factual information is not subject to opinion, though. Whether Simon received a $500,000 retainer is not a matter of opinion; it's either a fact or it isn't. Whether Mignini has a fragile ego or the witnesses were coached are speculative opinions that can't be verified by facts, only supported by anecdotal evidence. You can still ask for citations to support them, though, if you want.
Click to expand...

Mary, your measured calming words are indeed a pleasure to behold

However, if Capes, HB's, and my additional 3 references that do exist are not enough to satisfy you, may we agree that you are I guess insatiable
(nice straight man lead for some of your quick wit with the 'double entendre)

Thanks for the tactful distinction between "evidence oriented and evidence based.
May I expand that as something to in fact bolster the point I made earlier about definitions here, and the example of the word 'is' ?
 
Last edited:
pilot padron said:
Mary, you have my respect for thoroughly reading the two citations I provided for the 19 judge statement.

However, if after receiving that you still need more, you just become the ideal reference I need as proof of what I am saying in post (1) above.

As my final cow tow to the Board's select few's 'citation fetish', here are three (3) that IMHO very sufficiently substantiate my positions about detrimental effect of Moore's bash Italy type diatribes, as well as again quoting Amanda's saying she got a fair shake

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/AmandaKnox/amanda-knox-murder-trial-correct/story?id=9290666&page=1

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/15/how-amanda-knox-s-supporters-could-doom-her.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...reciate-American-reaction-doesnt-help-me.html
Click to expand...


pilot, thanks for the citations, and I mean that sincerely. I guess when you said Amanda stood up after the trial and said she had been treated fairly, you actually were referring to the visit in her prison cell, after which Walter Verini told the press his impressions of what Amanda had said. I apologize for my confusion.

I still disagree that Amanda said she was treated fairly, and I could support it, but I will spare you, this time. :)

Some of Amanda's advocates, including me, feel they have to be sticklers when it comes to evidence. We can't let even small misunderstandings go unchecked, because they might make a big difference for Amanda's future.
 
pilot padron said:
<snip>
thanks for the tactful distinction between "evidence oriented and evidence based.
May i expand that as something to in fact bolster the point i made earlier about definitions here, and the example of the word 'is' ?
Click to expand...

Very amusing. :D
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
pilot, thanks for the citations, and I mean that sincerely. I guess when you said Amanda stood up after the trial and said she had been treated fairly, you actually were referring to the visit in her prison cell, after which Walter Verini told the press his impressions of what Amanda had said. I apologize for my confusion.

I still disagree that Amanda said she was treated fairly, and I could support it, but I will spare you, this time. :)

Some of Amanda's advocates, including me, feel they have to be sticklers when it comes to evidence. We can't let even small misunderstandings go unchecked, because they might make a big difference for Amanda's future.
Click to expand...

Your attention to detail is also admirable, and something I will make more of an effort to emulate.

My opinion probably is based on a belief that what we say or do not say here benefits primarily those of us who enjoy discussing with others of comparable interest, a very complex and very controversial pattern of events that is indeed tragic primarily for the loss of a young life, but also as the jurors mentioned the loss of youth through incarceration.

Overall, the impact of our musings here and elsewhere in cyberspace compared to the Courtroom, IMHO goes back to my favorite analogy of the Arkansas hill of beans

See, I even had second thoughts about including "what the jurors mentioned" because of my reluctance to have to dig for that 'citation'.
Your beneficial effects have been immediately implanted.
 
Mary H said:
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?
Click to expand...

It is fairto say that they all agreed, at all times, that the evidence was overwhelming.

Obviously the amount of evidence (both defense's arguments and accusation's argument) was limited in comparison to evidence at the trial, where there is no time limitation, this is an obvious fact otherwise there would be no purpose in having a trial. The limitation is not on the access to the defense arguments, it is both on defense and accusation arguments, both for Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy Guede. The judges accessed all useful defensive arguments that already existed by the time.
 
Kevin Lowe said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is very humble, said by someone who didn't directly hear a single word from withesses and experts and didn't put a single qustion to them.
All your knowledge of the case comes trough the court's opinion documents and through the defence's opinion documents. There is no direct knowledge of the people involved and of the context, no systematic analysis of items of evidence (like pictures), and not even a scientific background in the literature fields before searching and assessing scientific topics.
 
One can't help wondering why, if there are so many good arguments for guilt, we keep having to read bad arguments for guilt (such as have been argued over in the last few pages) as well. Wouldn't the cause of the so-called "guilters" be better served by skipping over the gossip, innuendo and outright falsehoods and concentrating on the evidence?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom