Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[TomCH]

The idea of having the victim be represented is meretricious

Nonsense, it's a GREAT system.

Unfortunately it lacks in some more 'civil' countries (particularly those with 'common law' legal systems).

You don't like it? Fine, don't ever commit crimes in countries that allow it.

 

[Alt+F4]

TomCH,
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/06/perugia200806?currentPage=all
In Vanity Fair Judy Bachrach wrote, “In December, when the decision to keep Amanda in jail until trial came down, Mignini was so thrilled he actually embraced the lawyer for Meredith’s family. ‘It was a home run,’ Maresca tells me, contented. ‘It meant all the evidence was good.’”

I will leave it to someone else to deal with how good the evidence actually was in December 2007. My main issue with this story is the fact that Mr. Maresca and Mr. Mignini embraced. In effect Mr. Maresca became the bad-cop prosecutor in this case. He asked one of Amanda’s friends (Andrew Seliber, IIRC) if he could tell the court about Amanda’s sex life in Seattle.* Mr. Seliber, who was never Ms. Knox’s boyfriend, declined to answer.

The idea of having the victim be represented is meretricious. It sounds like a good idea at first, looks more questionable upon examination, and fails abjectly in practice, if this case is representative.

*I find this question irrelevant and inappropriate

I agree that allowing the victim to be represented in the trial is a bad idea, for many reasons. However, that's the Italian system that the defense has to work with. I'm sure many in Italian law enforcement find it ridiculous that in the American system a jury doesn't have to provide their reasoning for a verdict.

In the article you linked it said, "when the decision to keep Amanda in jail until trial came down,..." I was under the impression that it was Mignini himself that decided to keep Amanda in jail, that he did not have to ask permission from other judges.

The sex questions are irrelevant and inappropriate which brings me back to the Lifetime movie currently being filmed in Rome. From the press release by the production company:

With its foreign locale and attractive defendants and victim, bizarre crime involving sex and drugs, and an All-American girl at its center, Knox’s case was long expected to get the Hollywood treatment.

Do you really think this movie is going to portray Amanda as a virginal Catholic school girl? Have Amanda's family and/or supporters tried to get any editorial control over this mess?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the movies

Alt+F4,

Everything I have heard from Amanda's supporters is that they don't like the whole notion of having any movies while the appeals process is ongoing. To the best of my knowledge, that is also Amanda's position. I am under the impression that the family has no control over the films.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

two requests

Nonsense, it's a GREAT system.

Unfortunately it lacks in some more 'civil' countries (particularly those with 'common law' legal systems).

You don't like it? Fine, don't ever commit crimes in countries that allow it.

TomCH,

I would ask two things. First, make the case for this representation in general terms. Second, respond to my criticisms of it in this case. Saying that it is a great system but giving no specifics is not a convincing argument.

 

[Katody Matrass]

At the risk of being rapidly shot down...


Whose phone evidence? Has something come to light recently? I thought their phones where off at the crucial period, there was some evidence that Amanda had gone out at one point earlier on and Meridith's phone had a broken off call to the bank and so on.

Hello, shuttlt,
That some evidence that Amanda had gone out^*) of Raffaele's place became also evidence that she was at Raffaele's. It's quite funny actually, look it up in Massei's Motivation.

Meredith's phone activity started with an unconnected call to her mother around 21:00. There is no attempt to redial or any other activity for an hour, then the nonsensical broken connections take place. This together with other clues, like the fact that she was still in her street clothes and shoes, no traces of any usual activity after returning home, her stomach contents and Rudy's feces left in the toilet strongly indicate that she was attacked directly after returning home, around 21:00 by Guede who was already inside.

According to Massei AK and RS finished watching "Amelie" at 21:10. Defense argues there is evidence of another movie watched at 21:26. Not long before the appeal they also filed additional documentation arguing that activity and error logs on Raffaele's computer were not taken into account while analyzing drive contents. Those logs (containing occurrences of screensaver activation and probably various system messages) allegedly indicate that the PC was used interactively most of the night. They call for "real experts" analysis of that data - so far the only one accepted by the court was authored by the same people that fried the other drives.


*) Actually it's her phone connecting to a certain cell both on Nov 1 and the next day.

 

[Antony]

I apologize for the lack of a reply yesterday, Justian2. I was out much of the day.

The way I see this article is that Mr. Kercher is whining about a lack of sympathy from the Knox family and then goes on to say that the Knox girl is guilty, guilty, guilty. This is also after the Kercher's through their lawyer took an adversarial position in court against the Knox girl and fought along with the prosecution to keep the Knox girl in jail.

My opinion on this is that the Knox family has shown remarkable restraint on this subject. If it were my daughter I would be telling Mr. Kercher exactly where he could stick his sympathy.

That is a perfectly respectable POV, but one that will no doubt draw howls of outrage from the guilters, who have already shown themselves ready to equate sympathy for the Kerchers with unquestioning support for the conduct of the Perugia police and prosecution, and the complicity of the court that returned the original verdict.

It is actually quite unusual for the victim's family in cases like this to go against the wrongful accusation or conviction - the only exception I can think of is Jim Swires, whose daughter died in the Lockerbie bombing. My view is that they can be excused for finding it too painful to examine the facts of the crime that led to their personal tragedy. The guilter crowd, arguing against science, facts and common sense in order to bolster their appetite to see someone punished, have no such excuse.

 

[Antony]

I remember the confusion over this issue 20,000 posts ago. Really though, it's only important if one of them claims the other left for a couple of hours and came back covered in blood. Two people accused of a murder providing one another with an alibi is no kind of alibi. After all, they would say that, wouldn't they?

Only if there is real evidence against each of them, which in this case there is not. If this principle were accepted, then the prosecution could break any alibi whatsoever by charging the person giving the alibi.

Actually, this is very much what they did against Raffaele on November 6. At the time they had nothing that could conceivably be described as evidence against him.

 

[Alt+F4]

Alt+F4,

Everything I have heard from Amanda's supporters is that they don't like the whole notion of having any movies while the appeals process is ongoing. To the best of my knowledge, that is also Amanda's position. I am under the impression that the family has no control over the films.

I don't know much about this but can a production company just decide to make a movie about someone's life without their consent? Or maybe they are are just making the movie based on what is in the public record? Then again, how can they use her name and story without her permission?

 

[TomM43]

I don't think we are in opposition here - if you have court/professional experience you have an obvious edge on me.

But in a high profile case the experts are somewhat constrained by the quality of the opposition and not wanting to be made fools of/pushing it too far.
Hence my emphasis on the word 'emphasis'.
I suspect [I could be wrong] Introna & co pushed it as far as they had [or needed] to in the trial.

***
ETA As it happens, according to RS' father, water can be made to run uphill - with enough money.
Probably true all over the world.

.

I agree with what you said about constraints inherent in high profile cases. Genuine experts are of two types. One type is intellectually honest and faithful to the expert's field of study. Such experts will have the same opinions irrespective of which side hires them . The other type "will work with you" and approach their work in much the same way an attorney advocates for a client.

An attorney is not supposed to make false representations of fact to the court; however, an attorney is not required to disclose facts that are harmful to the client's position. And the attorney's sworn duty is to zealously represent the interests of the client and make the best case possible from the known facts.

Some experts do the same, selecting those facts that support an alternative conclusion that is more helpful to the client. If cross-examined, they will concede what they must and not lie about principles in their area of learning. But if the other side had hired them first, they would express a completely different set of conclusions, but for them, water does not run uphill.

 

[Kaosium]

I'll reread, but doesn't that break their alibi at a time when the prosecution don't claim the murder was going on? Clearly breaking it at all isn't great for the defense, but I'm confident it can be dealt with if the statements at the police station etc... can. Perhaps they were innocently walking the streets and were foolish enough to lie about it?

I believe what Platonov is getting at is information I think I read from Machiavelli on another site. That if Curtatolo breaks their alibi, he cannot establish another one for them. That doesn't make much sense to me, but I believe that was what was said. I have also read that even if they cannot prove Amanda and Raffaele participated in the murder, if they can 'prove' they were lying about their alibi they would still be held 'responsible' for the murder and could be convicted. Apparently this is not uncommon under Italian law.

Regarding Curatolo, here is something Frank said from Perugia Shock regarding his testimony, and if you go out to the main article you will find what he reported about the computer logs:

"November 9, 2010 6:30 AM
Anonymous Frank Sfarzo said...

I can confirm that the big discotheques are closed on November 1st, and there weren't buses.
As is natural, since the discotheques work on the pre-holiday, not on the holiday, and to be filled they need a town full of students, not with the 80% of them gone home.
But Sollecito's team will bring documentation for it.

Btw, I remember to have asked Toto, at the beginning, why he remembered the masks and didn't remember the buses. He thought that he HAD to remember the opposite, so at the trial he didn't mention the masks but he mentioned the buses.

So, more than one year after our previous talk I congratulated to him for his testimony and I asked him why he remembered the buses.
At that point he understood that the buses were wrong too (but too late). And he answered that he was confused with the city buses....

But all this is useless. The truth is that people believe what they want to believe..."

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7877520352483689941&postID=4395963183670383910

 

[LondonJohn]

That is a perfectly respectable POV, but one that will no doubt draw howls of outrage from the guilters, who have already shown themselves ready to equate sympathy for the Kerchers with unquestioning support for the conduct of the Perugia police and prosecution, and the complicity of the court that returned the original verdict.

It is actually quite unusual for the victim's family in cases like this to go against the wrongful accusation or conviction - the only exception I can think of is Jim Swires, whose daughter died in the Lockerbie bombing. My view is that they can be excused for finding it too painful to examine the facts of the crime that led to their personal tragedy. The guilter crowd, arguing against science, facts and common sense in order to bolster their appetite to see someone punished, have no such excuse.

I think that John Kercher is perfectly entitled to express his point of view. Nobody but those close to him really knows whether he's examined the case in such detail - from all points of view - to reach his conclusion on the veracity of the court's findings. I would agree that it's a real possibility that he might have contented himself with Maresca's distilled viewpoint - but again, that's entirely his prerogative. Frankly, the important point is this: it makes no difference to the situation whatsoever if Knox's family shouts her innocence from the rooftops, or if John Kercher shouts Knox's guilt from the rooftop. None of that should affect the judicial process.

And in regard to John Kercher's observations and complaints about the media focussing on Knox rather than discussing his daughter: whether we collectively like it or not, the media historically focus on perpetrators (and alleged perpetrators) rather than victims. I would imagine that John Kercher, a newspaper man, would know this, but again, of course, he's completely entitled to complain anyhow. However, out of interest, I wonder if he (or most people) in the UK could name any of Peter Sutcliffe's (The Yorkshire Ripper's) 13 victims? I wonder how the families of those 13 victims would feel about that?

They're having quite the collective breakdown on PMF this evening. Howls of self-righteous indignation and loudly-professed anger and revulsion, mixed in with deeply unedifying personal attacks. I think perhaps they all need to take a very deep breath, and ask themselves why they are all feeling (or claiming to feel) such extreme "emotion by proxy" on behalf of a victim and her family with whom they have no direct connection. I wonder if they're all also getting worked up daily on behalf of - for example - any of the families of soldiers killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan - or, for that matter, the families of the innocent Afghan women and children murdered by allied forces in Afghanistan. Or the family of Linda Norgrove, the captured aid worker in Afghanistan who was killed during a bungled rescue mission by a grenade thrown by a US soldier, who then tried to cover it up until film showed what had happened? Funny how irrational grief by proxy for strangers can have totally arbitrary boundaries, isn't it?

 

[Katody Matrass]

I don't know much about this but can a production company just decide to make a movie about someone's life without their consent? Or maybe they are are just making the movie based on what is in the public record? Then again, how can they use her name and story without her permission?

You think Barbie Nadeau or Fiorenza Sarzanini asked for permission when they creatively used her name and story?

 

[Machiavelli]

After comparing details of Nara's balcony from the CBS interview with the row of flats viewed from the Spheron camera on the back porch of the cottage, I have reached the conclusion that this is Nara's flat:


This conclusion is counter to Machiavelli's attack on my earlier analysis of the sound propagation:


(..)

Where is the counter argument?
If you are not able to see evidence like the position of a window, that's not my problem. If you don't like the truth, who cares. That is the fact and that wil remain.

 

[Chris C]

Not my perspective, but OK.


From memory, is this the visitor who knocked on the door, or the phone log?


Is this new evidence known, or just hinted at by the lawyers?


I thought there was only an alibi until 9:26pm?

The alibi is a combination of things. Witness at door, conversation with Sollecito's father, another video being watched starting at 9:26 that lasts roughly 20 minutes. At some point you would hope people would start using some common sense when looking at the facts of this case.

 

[Chris C]

Raffaele's appeal is making the claim that an episode of Naruto was accessed at 21:26 on November 1.

Now here's why I don't think this is going to fly in the appeal. Neither Raffaele or Amanda ever mentioned anything about watching Naruto that evening. Why wouldn't they have told their lawyers or their families this very important piece of information. So which is it, they were lying then or they are lying now?

Yep, as soon as they hand over the interrogation tapes I'm sure they will be able to prove Sollecito never mentioned it. Then again, can you remember everything you accessed on your computer in a given day?

 

[Alt+F4]

You think Barbie Nadeau or Fiorenza Sarzanini asked for permission when they creatively used her name and story?

I don't know, that's why I'm asking. Did they?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

It is actually quite unusual for the victim's family in cases like this to go against the wrongful accusation or conviction - the only exception I can think of is Jim Swires, whose daughter died in the Lockerbie bombing. My view is that they can be excused for finding it too painful to examine the facts of the crime that led to their personal tragedy.

Jeannette Popp became an anti-death-penalty activist after she realized Ochoa and Danziger were innocent in the death of her daughter. Mark Byers, stepfather of one of the victims in the West Memphis Three case, was aggressive and very public in denouncing the WM3, but he now realizes they are innocent and he is among their supporters.

 

[Machiavelli]

Wasn't it journalists rather than private investigators who persuaded Monacchia to come forward? (going on the appeal documents: "nulla si dice circa il fatto che abbia raccontato dell’urlo alla Procura dopo un anno dall’omicidio perché incalzata dai giornalisti" / "nothing is said [by Massei] about the fact that she [Monacchia] recounted the scream to the Prosecutor a year after the murder because [she was] pursued by journalists"). I did have a look to see if there was another source on this which mentions private investigators (for example, perhaps she was originally found by PIs, but only decided to come forward after journalists got wind of it), but couldn't find one; unfortunately, as the appeal quote suggests, Massei doesn't mention this issue at all.

Yes it was journalists, and one in particular did the job. Must clarify that in jargon the kind of journalists that were involved in this task in Italian are called segugi, which is the same term used to indicate private investigators (not professional detectives, but let's say semi-professional). In that particular newspaper in that context they used that term. So we would call them with a term meaning private investigators working for a newspaper. They are journalisits, my translation was improper. They were not journalists with cameras and notebook and press buisness card, however, they were people acting informally almost as private detectives.

 

[Chris C]

I don't know, that's why I'm asking. Did they?

Well considering they didn't get any money out of the deal, I'm sure they didn't give permission.

 

[Machiavelli]

Apart from that I think that inconsistencies and errors in Nara's account cast enough doubt on her testimony and any test would be only a last nail in the coffin.

She heard 3 people running directly after the scream. But who was running? Someone (Rudy?) was "tending" to Meredith's wounds with towels. Someone was cleaning himself in the bathroom. And wasn't the murderous duo butt naked and barefoot according to Massei? They ran like that?

And didn't Nara see the murder in the newspapers "the next morning"? IIRC she saw also AK and RS hanging around the parking lot watching the police the next day?

And all this is not what makes a witness unreliable. What makes a witness unreliable is lies, inconsistencies. not this trivial mistakes on routinary data.