Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[treehorn]

How exactly does this argument work?

1. I can cherry-pick and creatively interpret various incidents, while selectively ignoring others, so they are consistent with Knox being mentally ill.
2. Therefore Knox is mentally ill.

I don't quite see how (2) follows from (1). I think you could do (1) with almost any human being alive, if you were motivated to do so for some reason.

Ah! Well, hello! The MD from Down Under Lives!

Good to see you're still around. Busy times at the hospital?

Alas, I'm sorry to say that it seems you're putting words in my mouth.

It would be more accurate to characterize my argument as follows:

1) SOME of Knox's behavior, prior to the murder, appears to be consistent with the notion that she was beginning to show the signs and symptoms of, inter alia, antisocial PD.

2) Therefore, doubt-free claims that Knox was not "mentally ill" and/or not capable of instigating/ participating in a drug and alcohol-fueled "rape prank"/ hazing run amok are not reasonable.

To wit, I am most decidedly NOT claiming that Knox was (or is) mentally ill. It does not behoove you to suggest that I am.

 

[Mary_H]

No court?!

No conviction?!

That demonstrably FALSE.

The Seattle Municipal COURT'S record is clear - you have not posted the Court's finding.

Would you like a link to the Court's website?

You can view the record, online, for free during business hours (Seattle time).

Knox was CONVICTED by the COURT and PENALIZED.

I have a link to the Court's website, thank you. I would like a link to whatever record it is you are referring to. If you don't have a link, a copy of the report will suffice. I would like nothing better than to see this demonstration you are offering.

 

[Mary_H]

Let me get this straight:

Mignini has no "talent or initiative" but managed to garner a unanimous guilty verdict in the trial of Raffaele Sollectio (son of a wealthy doctor with political connections and the last Prime Minister's star lawyer)?!

(I'm inclined to think that at least SOME modicum of talent and initiative are required to defeat million dollar defense teams led by star lawyers.)

A lack of prosecutorial talent and initiative...

Who knew?!

If talent and initiative garnered him the guilty verdict, what will a loss at appeal indicate?

 

[treehorn]

You seem to believe a civil infraction is a conviction when it has been clearly pointed out to you that it is not. Your continued insistence that Amanda received a criminal conviction from the Seattle court is skating very close to libelling Amanda.

Clearly you've never so much as set foot in a school of law (or you are Jose Baez).

FYI, the criminal code is not the only statute under which you can be "convicted" of an offense.

In a common law jurisdiction, "civil law" encompasses legal proceedings as between private parties (real and artificial persons, generally, but government organizations can also be parties to actions of this kind).

To wit, 'civil law' encompasses torts, the law of contracts, trusts, etc..

You appear to be conflating civil law with 'public law', writ large.

 

[Withnail1969]

Clearly you've never so much as set foot in a school of law (or you are Jose Baez).

FYI, the criminal code is not the only statute under which you can be "convicted" of an offense.

In a common law jurisdiction, "civil law" encompasses legal proceedings as between private parties (real and artificial persons, generally, but government organizations can also be parties to actions of this kind).

To wit, 'civil law' encompasses torts, the law of contracts, trusts, etc..

You appear to be conflating civil law with 'public law', writ large.

A civil infraction is emphatically not a crime and your use of the words 'crime' and 'conviction' in relation to Amanda Knox's noise ticket are, I believe, prima facie libellous.

 

[treehorn]

I have a link to the Court's website, thank you. I would like a link to whatever record it is you are referring to. If you don't have a link, a copy of the report will suffice. I would like nothing better than to see this demonstration you are offering.

Well, have you looked up the COURT record using that link?

Just enter Knox's name in the field labeled "DEFENDANT" - the site provides a guide as to what the various 'codes' mean in respect of the Court's ruling.

I'm curious to know why you referred to the officer's notes as though they were tantamount to a record of the Court's conviction of Knox.

 

[treehorn]

A civil infraction is emphatically not a crime and your use of the words 'crime' and 'conviction' in relation to Amanda Knox's noise ticket are, I believe, prima facie libellous.

Knox WAS, in point of DEMONSTRABLE fact, "convicted" of an offense under the very statute you just quoted.

It is the truth simpliciter (which, BTW, is a "complete" defense to a defamation action).

You appear to be throwing around legal terms without having a clue what they mean. As I understand it, JREF isn't the place for that.

 

[Withnail1969]

Knox WAS, in point of DEMONSTRABLE fact, "convicted" of an offense under the very statute you just quoted.

It is the truth simpliciter (which, BTW, is a "complete" defense to a defamation action).

You appear to be throwing around legal terms without having a clue what they mean. As I understand it, JREF isn't the place for that.

I know what the terms mean. A civil infraction is not a crime, in fact it's defined as not being a crime.

conviction
n. the result of a criminal trial in which the defendant has been found guilty of a crime.

If you were simply telling the plain truth about this you would, certainly, be immune from a libel action. I would be grateful if you could point me to some citations where the word 'conviction' is used in relation to a civil infraction. That should help clear up the confusion.

 

[Mary_H]

Well, have you looked up the COURT record using that link?

Just enter Knox's name in the field labeled "DEFENDANT" - the site provides a guide as to what the various 'codes' mean in respect of the Court's ruling.

I'm curious to know why you referred to the officer's notes as though they were tantamount to a record of the Court's conviction of Knox.

I referred to the officer's notes because that is the only record that exists of the transaction.

I'm curious to know why you never provide a link to a record you suggest will prove your case. It raises serious doubts about your claim.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Raffaele's family figured it out before Rinaldi or Vinci entered the picture, but you are right, the news came out in January rather than December. On January 10, Raffaele's father appeared on an Italian TV show and explained what the family had discovered:

http://www.video.mediaset.it/video/matrix/servizio/41595/sollecito-innocente.html

And the next day, the world learned of the DNA trace on the bra fastener:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1575287/DNA-link-in-Meredith-Kercher-case.html

Thanks for the links, Charlie. I have just read something from the TELEGRAPH report you linked and am wondering whether I am the only one that did not know this:

''....However, the fastener was not from the bloody bra which was discovered near Miss Kercher's body, and which allegedly bears traces of Guede's DNA on its strap.''


Can someone shed any light on this for me, please? Is the above true? Was it from ANOTHER Bra then?

 

[treehorn]

What?

In Italian justice, the sentencing report ("motivazione") is explicitly meant to set out the reasoning whereby the judicial panel came to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (or non-guilt, as the case may be). Therefore, the report is meant to show why the judicial panel either agreed with the prosecution's version, or the defence's version, or came up with its own version.

The whole point of the report, in other words, is to get inside the collective minds of the judicial panel. To articulate their reasoning process. To try to help ensure, in fact, that a proper, balanced reasoning not only took place, but was seen to take place. And to just say things tantamount to "we believed the prosecution" (or, indeed "we believed the defence") is to completely negate the whole point of the sentencing report. Everybody knows that a finding of guilty (or not guilty) has been reached. The report is designed to show WHY that finding was reached.

That was an interesting explanation of what the "sentencing report" ought to be "in Italian justice."

Are you schooled in the Civil Law tradition? (A tad unusual - sacrilegious, even - for someone living in London!)

Alas, I know only the common law. As such, I am accustomed to trial verdicts limited to either one word ("Guilty") or two words ("Not guilty").

Of course, where an accused has elected trial by judge alone, the trial judge will offer a few more words, but they routinely take the form that you've objected to ( 'the Court notes the testimony of both X and Y but finds X more persuasive/ credible').

Articulate, doctrinaire ratios are the stuff of appellate court decisions and, unlike the Italian system, the issues addressed therein tend to turn on questions of law rather than of fact.

In the result, I find the Italian Court's "sentencing report" a REMARKABLE document - even without benefit of most if the trial testimony/ transcripts, exhibits, reports, statements, etc., that it draws from/ references.

An accused in the common law system can only dream of that kind of attention to detail in his/her trial of first instance.

 

[Withnail1969]

Alas, I know only the common law. As such, I am accustomed to trial verdicts limited to either one word ("Guilty") or two words ("Not guilty").

Don't common law cases such as those dealt with by the Supreme Court (USA) or House of Lords (England) involve long and detailed speeches by the judges giving their reasoning for their decision?

How would any case law be established if all there was was 'guilty' or 'not guilty'?

May I respectfully ask if you are an attorney or just have an interest in law?

 

[treehorn]

I referred to the officer's notes because that is the only record that exists of the transaction.

I'm curious to know why you never provide a link to a record you suggest will prove your case. It raises serious doubts about your claim.

You want me to wait, what, 5 hours for the Seattle Municipal Court's records to become accessible, then take a screen shot, set up a photobucket account, post the screen shot there, and come back with a link to it just for you?!

Hey, doubt me/ call me a liar if you wish. I don't care.

The fact remains:

the record of Knox's conviction is available on the Seattle Municipal Court's website during business hours. Free of charge.

 

[treehorn]

Don't common law cases such as those dealt with by the Supreme Court (USA) or House of Lords (England) involve long and detailed speeches by the judges giving their reasoning for their decision?

How would any case law be established if all there was was 'guilty' or 'not guilty'?

May I respectfully ask if you are an attorney or just have an interest in law?

Read the rest of my post.

Look for the phrase "Articulate, doctrinaire ratios are the stuff of appellate court decisions..."

 

[Mary_H]

You want me to wait, what, 5 hours for the Seattle Municipal Court's records to become accessible, then take a screen shot, set up a photobucket account, post the screen shot there, and come back with a link to it just for you?!

No, I want you to do it for the sake of your argument, because it's the only way you are ever going to get anyone to believe you.

 

[Withnail1969]

Read the rest of my post.

Look for the phrase "Articulate, doctrinaire ratios are the stuff of appellate court decisions..."

I see it now. I skipped the rest of your post due to its verbosity. An error on my part. Now if you could just provide those citations as to a civil infraction being a conviction, I would be deeply grateful.

 

[treehorn]

May I respectfully ask if you are an attorney or just have an interest in law?

Ordinarily, I'd be happy to tell you, but Kevin Lowe has argued that revealing whether or not he's got a MD could compromise his 'safety' or some such (I don't think 'privacy' is an issue for him since he appears to be using his actual name and location).

Now, I don't understand his rationale, but that's no reason to doubt him.

So here's the deal:

I'll tell you whether I've got a JD when Lowe tells me whether he's got a MD.

 

[treehorn]

No, I want you to do it for the sake of your argument, because it's the only way you are ever going to get anyone to believe you.

You really think I'm making it up?!

That there's NO court record of Knox's conviction for "Residential Disturbance"?!

That I would do that when it's so easy (and free) to check, online, from the comfort of your own office or home?!

Whatever.

 

[treehorn]

You don't necessarily need to know what the facts are to spot a flawed argument...

Famous last words.

 

[Withnail1969]

I've decided "verbiage" may be my ticket to the JREF prize for best post.

May I take it that you are unable to provide any citations for your contention that it is appropriate to refer to civil infractions as 'convictions'?

I find myself baffled that a veritable Titan of the court such as yourself appears unable or unwilling to do so. I confess myself to be disappointed, Sir.