Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[platonov]

Pick & Mix civil liberties

platonov,

I did not say that waterboarding was touchless coercion, and in fact I would use different terminology to discuss it.

I did say that if the two independent experts ask for the electronic data files, I will only then believe that they are serious, but I should have inserted the words "probably." I do not know that they are serious yet.

False halides1
Completely and utterly False
HERE is where you made the outrageous claim

HERE is where I responded and asked you to justify it....

Or does this new definition arise from its recent 'legal' use by US forces. You hardly 'invented'* the term just to try and dignify the FOA lies spread by the likes of Moore or did you ?

HERE is where you ducked the issue/refused to justify it on the basis.....

There is nothing else in your comment or related to your comment that is worth discussing.

HERE is where I summed up your argument.

As I said before ...This concern for civil liberties etc is a more complex and nuanced position than I was led to believe.

I am not surprised that you now seek to disown this mendacious argument - It casts a certain light on your selective concern for prisoners rights.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I think this is a bit cynical. I'm sure there are members of the Italian judiciary who are interested in looking objectively at whether the evidence in this case (and in any other case) proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and I see no reason at this point not to think that Hellmann may be among them. Perhaps he isn't, but I don't see how it's possible to say that at this stage.

I'll get all happy and gooey-eyed the day Amanda and Raffaele walk out of prison. Until then, I'm gonna be a flaming *******. It's not skepticism, it's my religion. Plus it's what I do best.

 

[nopoirot]

Some fascinating stuff in that trial transcript. Like when Amanda's own lawyer reads into the record excerpts from transcripts of conversations she had with her parents on 11-10 and 17. Lets see here: "I was there. I can't lie about this. I'm not scared of the truth." "It would be stupid to lie about this because I know I was there" (audioclip 7, again.) I'm sure Mary will be quick to point out that Amanda explained (with a laugh) that "there" refers to Raf's place.

About time the "doubters" had a little fun here.

 

[Mary_H]

Some fascinating stuff in that trial transcript. Like when Amanda's own lawyer reads into the record excerpts from transcripts of conversations she had with her parents on 11-10 and 17. Lets see here: "I was there. I can't lie about this. I'm not scared of the truth." "It would be stupid to lie about this because I know I was there" (audioclip 7, again.) I'm sure Mary will be quick to point out that Amanda explained (with a laugh) that "there" refers to Raf's place.

About time the "doubters" had a little fun here.

Massei doesn't argue against it:

"Then, with regard to the intercepted conversation with her mother and father, in which she said, "I was there I have no interest in lying, I’m not afraid of the truth," and "It’s stupid, I can’t say anything but the truth, because I know I was there, I mean, I can’t lie there’s no reason to do it," she explained that the reference to the fact that‚ she was there meant that she was in Raffaele’s apartment." (page 71-72, Massei)

 

[platonov]

<snip>

Here's my million dollar challenge attempt: I think it's nigh certain that Curatolo's testimony will go down like a sodium submarine. I think it's nigh certain that any competent, independent and rational review will have Stefanoni's DNA results on the bra clasp and knife laughed out of court. I think it's unlikely to be chance that Hellmann homed in on these points of evidence out of all the available data points to examine, therefore I think it's likely he is of the view that those three data points together are potentially decisive. So I think odds are well above 50% that Amanda and Raffaele go free based just on these issues, and rest of the case remains unexamined unless there is the political will for a full inquiry, as there should be.

Can we see the numbers on this before we hold you to a wager.

I don't want to bring up bad memories but some of your arguments involving the application of stats (and maths generally) have been found wanting when subjected to even a cursory examination

 

[colonelhall]

Thanks Mary. Looks like we agree here.

Supporters of Knox believe that the police lie about every single detail of the case that does not confirm their own. Knox and Sollecito always tell the truth, apart from those times when they are confused,, and in any case they are only confused because of police behaviour.

That is exactly how I see the case for innocence.

However, being of reasonably sound mind. I believe it to be nonsense.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Is there any undisputed evidence to refute the inference that Raf and / or Amanda, having somehow made it possible for Guede to get at Meredith, realized they faced a spectacular scandal, and tried to cover their tracks? No? I thought not.

Hi and welcome, nopoirot!

It would be nice if you presented that inference in more detail.
What do you mean by somehow made it possible to get at Meredith? How do you imagine it? I understand you want to present a theory that Guede killed Meredith on his own? Then what kind of evidence would there be that they somehow made it possible?

 

[platonov]

Thats exactly what I was thinking when I read his reply, and he's stated that before as well. I don't blame him either, when the examination comes back, there are 4 possible results and only one favors Amanda and RS and even if that result is returned, and it not likely, it still may not be enough to free them.

I don't think its quite that simple but I would agree with your general take.

The knife may get dropped* or assigned [I'm guessing here] a lesser weight on legal grounds based on the novel aspect of the 'science' but the braclasp seems very secure despite what you may have heard from the resident experts here.
[More so than some of the RG DNA evidence as I understand it]
With Curatolo - he has to be completely discredited.

* On its own you probably certainly ? couldn't convict [although the match was good with no other profiles found ! and you have RS's 'lie'] but there is lot of other evidence which taken as a whole is sufficient.
And this is not a lay jury in the adversarial system which may make a difference on this point.

Very hard to see it being overturned even without the knife - the initial** euphoria seems wildly misplaced but the Foaker arguments were never grounded in reality.

** I was going to post this in response to an earlier post but its not serious.....
He does look more confident than AK - perhaps these Italians are as corrupt as is claimed and the fix is in. Have you noticed that the retests, if favorable, might work in RS's favour but not AK's - RS gets off and the 2 foreigners take the rap ?

 

[Mary_H]

I don't think its quite that simple but I would agree with your general take.

The knife may get dropped* or assigned [I'm guessing here] a lesser weight on legal grounds based on the novel aspect of the 'science' but the braclasp seems very secure despite what you may have heard from the resident experts here.
[More so than some of the RG DNA evidence as I understand it]
With Curatolo - he has to be completely discredited.

* On its own you probably certainly ? couldn't convict [although the match was good with no other profiles found ! and you have RS's 'lie'] but there is lot of other evidence which taken as a whole is sufficient.<snip>

Care to share what the other evidence is?

 

[platonov]

Care to share what the other evidence is?

No, its a secret.

 

[Mary_H]

No, its a secret.

Well, unless Pratillo Hellman has applied for the mind-reading position here on JREF, the team with the most secrets is out of luck.

 

[Antony]

Here's my million dollar challenge attempt: I think it's nigh certain that Curatolo's testimony will go down like a sodium submarine. I think it's nigh certain that any competent, independent and rational review will have Stefanoni's DNA results on the bra clasp and knife laughed out of court. I think it's unlikely to be chance that Hellmann homed in on these points of evidence out of all the available data points to examine, therefore I think it's likely he is of the view that those three data points together are potentially decisive. So I think odds are well above 50% that Amanda and Raffaele go free based just on these issues, and rest of the case remains unexamined unless there is the political will for a full inquiry, as there should be.

It's hard to disagree with any of this. If this happens, then ironically it will mean that the guilters are let off the hook, because they will think themselves able to fall back on the malicious gossip that has characterised much of their approach to this case. Even if the outright accusations of involvement in the murder are silenced, there will still be those blaming Amanda and Raffaele for bringing suspicion on themselves by their alleged behaviour and statements in the days following the crime.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Here's my million dollar challenge attempt: I think it's nigh certain that Curatolo's testimony will go down like a sodium submarine. I think it's nigh certain that any competent, independent and rational review will have Stefanoni's DNA results on the bra clasp and knife laughed out of court. I think it's unlikely to be chance that Hellmann homed in on these points of evidence out of all the available data points to examine, therefore I think it's likely he is of the view that those three data points together are potentially decisive. So I think odds are well above 50% that Amanda and Raffaele go free based just on these issues, and rest of the case remains unexamined unless there is the political will for a full inquiry, as there should be.

I'm guessing Hellmann will invite a thorough and exhaustive review of the bra fastener and the knife that will take months and consume the attention of the public and the media. Then on a hot Friday afternoon in July, he will declare that the knife is out, the bra fastener is unresolved, but the verdict stands because of all the other evidence, which they never got around to examining. Then the Supreme Court will take up the subject in a leisurely way, eventually concluding that the evidence is compelling, but not quite good enough to sustain the conviction. Amanda and Raffaele will go free after spending at least five years in prison.

 

[Antony]

Watch the videos.. she is obviously not being held for the photographers.


I guess in Italy they just don't let convicted murderers wander around.



Hair splitting. "physical assault (by a policewoman)". It is obvious what I am arguing, I am not going to repeat it.

Actually, I would rather censure the Italian police for not restraining convicted murderers more securely.

It is these sort of lame objections that really make it hard for me to take the innocent side seriously.

To paraphrase: Amanda was manhandled into court and not allowed to walk unrestrained to her seat because she is a convicted murderer. You're not going to take any notice of a photograph showing her being held with her arms pinned for the photographer because you've seen video which doesn't include this moment. And innocentesti appeals for her dignity to be allowed in public are "lame objections" which give you an excuse not to take seriously the overwhelming evidence of a miscarriage of justice.

I see. All of this says more about you than it does about the case.

 

[shuttlt]

Funny, isn't it, how the truth seems now to have dawned on some people that the knife is very likely to be thrown out. And in response, the new mantra (that word seems to be gaining traction....) is that the knife is of low importance to the case against Knox. I don't recall this being the position amongst the "pro-guilt" group some months ago, but hey - what does that matter anyway?!

None of this stuff is new. People have been saying that all the evidence was about to thrown out and that the truth was dawning since the beginning of the first trial and probably before that.

 

[shuttlt]

Those on the innocent side certainly feel there is reasonable doubt and those on the side of guilt do not. In terms of the courtroom the jury would have hung many moons ago or in Italy given a majority decision. But it is not the courtroom and the debate and discussion continue.

But the jury selection is very different to the selection of people like ourselves who choose to post day after day on the same issue. It could be that, were we to randomly choose 12 people off the streets of Seattle, stick them on a jury and retry the case, they would convict. Or it could be that they would acquit. You really can't make any kind of judgement on this by comments posted on the internet.

 

[Fine]

Amanda's OTHER Memorandum

Charlie,

Would you be willing to share with us another document? We know from her court testimony that Amanda wrote another memorandum, which was written on November 7 (2007)---one day after her arrest--- when in Capanne Prison. Amanda in court acknowledges writing it, her attorney, Ghirga, confirms that he has a copy of it, and Patrick's attorney, Pacelli, asks Amanda about statements she made in this memorandum.

///

 

[shuttlt]

1. Cartwheels - actually she was doing yoga which she often did to relieve stress

Not that I have any desire to talk about the cartwheels, but aren't you just arbitrarily taking one explanation here and ignoring the others? There are a number of different accounts supposedly based on the authority of access to Amanda. Why choose the account you do and claim it is definitive?

 

[colonelhall]

London John, I think that you will find that those people who are sickened at the way that the Knox P.R. machine has attempted to distort the facts of this case, have never climed that the DNA evidence is the main plank of the argument. All along they have pointed to the fact that DNA is just one element of a pile of evidence against the pair and that even if they were to be discarded there is evidence enough to convict.

As for your comment: "the truth seems now to have dawned on some people that the knife is very likely to be thrown out" I fail to see where you get this idea.

The recent decision to have a review of the DNA seems to have been hailed by Knox supporters as a major victory. Once again, this is an example of the media being manipulated. There is just as much chance of this being a major disaster for Knox.

 

[shuttlt]

However, I have still not heard a coherent account of the murder involving the three of them that makes sense to me. To me the simplest explanation is that the Rudy killed her, for reasons unknown, and that Amanda is simply a young girl who was smoking weed with her boyfriend. It's fairly easy to get pressured into saying all kinds of ridiculous things by the police. Without a video of her interrogations I don't think it should be admissible (video would be fine because context would be obvious).

People kept goading for this. Eventually I gave a minutes thought to it and provided one. There was one comment which missed the point. Now a while later we are back to people claiming that they have never heard a coherent narrative. As far as I can see people aren't interested in discussing a coherent narrative and would far rather discuss the DNA on the knife, or this silly picture of Amanda.