Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Katody Matrass]

I believe you may have missed my point entirely. ("The whooshing sound you hear is ...")

I'm not making any claims about the similarity of the cases, or about the characters involved. I have no interest in advocating Anthony's innocence or guilt.

No claims but one, that is. My point is very simply that the same sort of arguments and appeals which are offered here in Knox's defense could be just as easily be used to argue for Anthony's.

How persuasive those arguments might be would depend largely on the mindset and preconceptions of the listener, as can also be seen here.

The same? Are you sure? You mean there is a simple and very well supported explanation for the crime that's an alternative for the convoluted and hanging on strings Rube Goldberg contraption pushed by the prosecution?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

point taken

And to answer my own question, without being specific, I can attest to being guilty of 5 of those 6 choices.

Malkmus,

I am just going to mutter something about youthful indiscretions.

 

[el buscador]

I wonder, if one were to take a poll, how many people on this forum have:

A) Used marijuana/cocaine
B) Received a ticket from the police
C) Carried a pocketknife
D) Watched pornography of a perverse nature (some might even deem all pornography as perverse)
E) Been characterized as shy/introvert

Oops. Forgot to add:

F) made a racial/ethnic slur

As far as I remember, about five of these. But you know how those narcotics affect your memory, but regardless A for sure, but not the coke. That was before my time. If I remember right.

 

[quadraginta]

Both you and Katody just go for me personally here with no content to the posts. It's getting very tiresome when we are actually in debate on this board on these issues. Sniping happens all the time but if someone's actually on the board, could you please stick to argument?

SA,

You made a personal attack on LondonJohn. If you don't want your personal attacks mocked, then don't make them in the first place. Could you explain what LJ's country of residence has to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher? You attempted to bring a typical PMF tactic over here, derailing the thread, and it backfired. Such ridiculous endeavors embarrass not only you and PMF, but everyone here as it mocks the integrity of this forum and those who participate in it.

<snip>

I will await your response to my bolded question.

I don't know that it is perfectly clear just who brought what over here from PMF. You seem to be certain that it was SomeAlibi who initiated the recent contretemps in this thread about LJ's country of residence. Perhaps you could link to the post of SA's which you think was that cause.

I concur most heartily with your opinion that the subject is completely unrelated to any discussion of the question of Knox's guilt or innocence, and agree that it was a meaningless derail of the sort which we all should want to discourage, but I'm not as sure as you are that your question in bold is being directed at the right individual.

You might have to look at recent additions to AAH to track down the real source of your irritation. Start with the posts from New Year's Day. That will probably save you some work.

 

[Malkmus]

No claims but one, that is. My point is very simply that the same sort of arguments and appeals which are offered here in Knox's defense could be just as easily be used to argue for Anthony's.

How persuasive those arguments might be would depend largely on the mindset and preconceptions of the listener, as can also be seen here.

Not knowing a whole lot about that case, I don't think Amanda ever did anything as egregious as Casey in not reporting her own daughter missing for a month. The worst decision Amanda made was implicate Patrick, and we have strong evidence that this was due to coercion. Is there any explanation for Casey's behavior? I could be completely wrong on this as I've not followed that case, so please enlighten me if that information was found to be wrong. I have always been interested in comparing the circumstantial evidence in the Kercher case to others.

 

[quadraginta]

Not knowing a whole lot about that case, I don't think Amanda ever did anything as egregious as Casey in not reporting her own daughter missing for a month. The worst decision Amanda made was implicate Patrick, and we have strong evidence that this was due to coercion. Is there any explanation for Casey's behavior? I could be completely wrong on this as I've not followed that case, so please enlighten me if that information was found to be wrong. I have always been interested in comparing the circumstantial evidence in the Kercher case to others.

Whoosh!

 

[Malkmus]

I don't know that it is perfectly clear just who brought what over here from PMF. You seem to be certain that it was SomeAlibi who initiated the recent contretemps in this thread about LJ's country of residence. Perhaps you could link to the post of SA's which you think was that cause.

I concur most heartily with your opinion that the subject is completely unrelated to any discussion of the question of Knox's guilt or innocence, and agree that it was a meaningless derail of the sort which we all should want to discourage, but I'm not as sure as you are that your question in bold is being directed at the right individual.

You might have to look at recent additions to AAH to track down the real source of your irritation. Start with the posts from New Year's Day. That will probably save you some work.

Quadraginta,

If you look at my original post it was not even directed at SA. I made a general point about the LJ debate. It was SA who responded and personalized it against himself. I don't really care who started it, I just know that SA made a HUGE deal out of knowing LJ's true country of residence and I find it ironic that he would tell me then not to make personal attacks - so obviously he takes responsibility for perpetrating the debacle.

Anyway, probably shouldn't dwell on it too much as this post will surely end up in AAh anyway.

 

[Malkmus]

Whoosh!

Quad,

You said:

My point is very simply that the same sort of arguments and appeals which are offered here in Knox's defense could be just as easily be used to argue for Anthony's.

and I explained why I disagree, citing a specific example. If you don't feel like responding to it because it wasn't your overall point, fine. But your above point still stands and I would like to hear others compare the circumstantial evidence in this case to others. I notice that it happens rarely and I feels like it's because the circumstantial evidence in this case is rather weak compared to others.

 

[shuttlt]

The persuasiveness of the argument should be based on whether the argument is logical, rational and valid. Someone who is truly interested in listening dispassionately will be persuaded by logic, reason and facts -- mindset and preconceptions be damned.

This isn't reducable to logic operating on "facts" though. Is your impression of Amanda's character and what she would and would not do reducable to logic, is mine? There aren't enough published studies to free us from having to make judgements based on our own experience of the world. On what basis can we say that injected-false-memories (or whatever) are a likely, or unlikely explanation other than on the basis of what we happen to find plausible? This is one detail in the case amongst many that the same could be said of.

Presumably one or the arguments for having a jury is to include these midsets and preconceptions in a controlled way into the decision making process.

If this debate and all of the debates about this case were fact-checked, moderated and evaluated by expert judges, the debate would have been over long ago. It is only because there is some reward for each of the participants in this free-form style of engagement that it endures.

Certainly. Courts are of course some kind of an attempt at this. Clearly the results so far of the officially moderated process aren't universally accepted.

 

[quadraginta]

Quad,

You said:



and I explained why I disagree, citing a specific example. If you don't feel like responding to it because it wasn't your overall point, fine. But your above point still stands and I would like to hear others compare the circumstantial evidence in this case to others. I notice that it happens rarely and I feels like it's because the circumstantial evidence in this case is rather weak compared to others.

Regarding your specific example, I have actually addressed that in response to a similar post by LJ. Maybe you missed that, but it doesn't really matter, because ...

My "overall point" is the point. Taken in detail and in isolation, feasible (if not plausible) exculpatory accounts can be fabricated hypothesized for most of the evidence amassed against Anthony. Once we toss in the possibility likelihood of malfeasance, conspiracy, and incompetence on the part of LE and the prosecutors the rest can be rationalized away explained.

Don't forget, the threshhold is not whether we are convinced of her actual innocence, but rather whether "reasonable doubt" can be created demonstrated.

Whether or not you can unearth a detail or two which are not perfectly analogous between both cases is quite irrelevant to the point I was making.

 

[SomeAlibi]

Quadraginta,

If you look at my original post it was not even directed at SA. I made a general point about the LJ debate. It was SA who responded and personalized it against himself. I don't really care who started it, I just know that SA made a HUGE deal out of knowing LJ's true country of residence and I find it ironic that he would tell me then not to make personal attacks - so obviously he takes responsibility for perpetrating the debacle.

Anyway, probably shouldn't dwell on it too much as this post will surely end up in AAh anyway.

I have no clue what you are talking about. What I said was that I couldn't care much and I said why not go out and take the pictures to end this pointless and long debate in one fell swoop, which LJ then did. I actually offered up the solution to stop the irrelevancies on the board and bring it back on topic. How do you make a great victory out of someone following my advice?

 

[LondonJohn]

This isn't reducable to logic operating on "facts" though. Is your impression of Amanda's character and what she would and would not do reducable to logic, is mine? There aren't enough published studies to free us from having to make judgements based on our own experience of the world. On what basis can we say that injected-false-memories (or whatever) are a likely, or unlikely explanation other than on the basis of what we happen to find plausible? This is one detail in the case amongst many that the same could be said of.

Presumably one or the arguments for having a jury is to include these midsets and preconceptions in a controlled way into the decision making process.


Certainly. Courts are of course some kind of an attempt at this. Clearly the results so far of the officially moderated process aren't universally accepted.

It's not even a question of how "likely" or "unlikely" certain things (such as internalised false confessions) are in this case. It's a question of whether such things are a reasonable possibility. If every element of the case has an alternative reasonable explanation which does not involve Knox and/or Sollecito being culpable, this should count extremely heavily towards the case as a whole being one where there is reasonable doubt.

I come back (yet again) to my simplistic (but useful) analogy: if I accuse my housemate of stealing £100 from my wallet, it's entirely incumbent upon me to prove that he did so before it becomes generally accepted that he is the thief. He has no onus or obligation whatsoever to prove that he didn't take the money - and indeed in this instance it's highly unlikely that he would be able to supply proof positive.

And it's the same in this case. Only perhaps four people know whether Knox and Sollecito were truly involved in the death of Meredith Kercher. One of these four is dead; another of the four claims they were there - but changed his story and is a proven liar in most other details of the case; and the other two - Knox and Sollecito themselves - deny that they had any involvement.

Therefore, in order for Knox and Sollecito to correctly stand convicted of the murder, the court must be satisfied that it has received proof that they were involved, to a standard where all reasonable doubt has been excluded. It is not - and never will be - Knox's or Sollecito's job to prove that they were not involved. It is merely their job, and that of their respective legal teams, to try to show that there is not sufficient proof to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore there is a huge inequality in the levels of certainty or proof that each side needs to attach to its position. And rightly so - as my previous analogy tries to illustrate.

 

[SomeAlibi]

You are correct, I knew I had read that in a diary but I was thinking Raffaele.

As far as the appeal, what would they appeal? It is not mentioned in the Massei report as part of the judges Motivation. All the comments I have seen seem to indicate Mignini was engaged in quite a bit of fanciful speculation during his closing and most people understand that to be the case. The other cite you gave turned out not to be a good one. I had thought I had seen this before but it could have indeed also been some posters idle speculation or just a poor article reporting something that was not the case as in the other cite you mentioned. I did look for a cite for the LSD and checked the one on the cocaine as well as I had told Mary I would try to pin that one down. Perhaps you can something find on this.

Better primary source needed it appears, yes. I think it's in one of the books as well but I'd need to check.

I have to say, you certainly have the appeal point incorrect in terms of seriousness and why the defence would challenge it. You can't have a prosecutor impinge the reputation of a defendant baselessly by alleging the taking of two class A drugs (in UK parlance), the act of which is criminal and rightly thought to be more serious than smoking dope. That reduces the reputation and standing of the defendant in the eyes of the jury and would be an absolute home run if you could land it against the prosecutor at the time or in appeal that they made a claim about prior criminal conduct without evidence or testimony.

Bias, exaggeration and a false claim of criminal conduct would be massive to going to prove a wider defence contentions about the prosecution. So no, you'd absolutely go for it if you could.

Absence of appeal is absence of appealability in this regard, logically.

 

[quadraginta]

Quadraginta,

If you look at my original post it was not even directed at SA. I made a general point about the LJ debate. It was SA who responded and personalized it against himself. I don't really care who started it, I just know that SA made a HUGE deal out of knowing LJ's true country of residence and I find it ironic that he would tell me then not to make personal attacks - so obviously he takes responsibility for perpetrating the debacle.

Anyway, probably shouldn't dwell on it too much as this post will surely end up in AAh anyway.

Sorry. My bad.

You see, when you began a post by prefacing it with the address,

"SA,"
​

followed by the statement,

"You made a personal attack on LondonJohn."
​

and shortly after that,

"You attempted to bring a typical PMF tactic over here,"
​

and concluded with,

"I will await your response to my bolded question."
​

I was misled into thinking that you were making the assertion that SA had brought over claims from PMF and you were demanding an explanation from SA.

You can understand my confusion, I hope.

 

[LondonJohn]

BTW, in case anyone was wondering, there's no photographic/video evidence of a mop at Sollecito's apartment. For the simple reason that there was no mop at Sollecito's apartment. So anyone who might have thought they'd seen such a photograph would be mistaken.

PS: SA's illuminating theory about the mop (including photos!!*) was posted on 17th August 2010 at 12.12am........

* but not, of course, photos of any mops inside Sollecito's apartment

 

[Malkmus]

I have no clue what you are talking about. What I said was that I couldn't care much and I said why not go out and take the pictures to end this pointless and long debate in one fell swoop, which LJ then did. I actually offered up the solution to stop the irrelevancies on the board and bring it back on topic. How do you make a great victory out of someone following my advice?

That it was a debate at all is the problem.

I apologize if you weren't the one making a big deal of it, but you have to admit that what was confusing was your response to my post which didn't even name you, but you took as a personal attack on yourself. I made a general statement about those accusing LJ of not being British and you responded that I was attacking you personally. If you hadn't said I was talking about you when referring to those making the accusations then I wouldn't have thought you were a part of it.

 

[colonelhall]

'ullo John! .... but what if your friend had said that he had invited in someone who he knew from various drug parties and that that friend ran off with the money, but then he changed his story saying that the friend was never there and neither was he, because he had been round another mate's house playing "Call Of Duty" but then that mate said that this was not so and in any case the computer showed that nobody had been using it and then your friend said that his memory was a bit off on that day and that he might have imagined the whole thing, but that he was sure that he hadn't and in any case this was the best truth that he could think of?

 

[Malkmus]

Sorry. My bad.

You see, when you began a post by prefacing it with the address,

"SA,"
​

followed by the statement,

"You made a personal attack on LondonJohn."
​

and shortly after that,

"You attempted to bring a typical PMF tactic over here,"
​

and concluded with,

"I will await your response to my bolded question."
​

I was misled into thinking that you were making the assertion that SA had brought over claims from PMF and you were demanding an explanation from SA.

You can understand my confusion, I hope.

I was confused as well, but by SA's confusing response to my statement about those making the accusation.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Treehorn,

Karl Fontenot gave a false confession within two hours of being questioned. You have been given this information before (it can be found Grisham's The Innocent Man).

This book is well worth reading for those who want to understand the case in Perugia. Its focus, however, is the Debbie Carter murder case, in which the men convicted eventually got out when DNA evidence exonerated them. Fontenot, along with Tommy Ward, were convicted in a different case (the Denise Haraway murder) involving the same prosecutor. Robert Mayer wrote a book called The Dreams of Ada describing what happened to these unfortunate men, who are still in prison for a murder they certainly did not commit.

 

[LondonJohn]

'ullo John! .... but what if your friend had said that he had invited in someone who he knew from various drug parties and that that friend ran off with the money, but then he changed his story saying that the friend was never there and neither was he, because he had been round another mate's house playing "Call Of Duty" but then that mate said that this was not so and in any case the computer showed that nobody had been using it and then your friend said that his memory was a bit off on that day and that he might have imagined the whole thing, but that he was sure that he hadn't and in any case this was the best truth that he could think of?

My point was to illustrate the need for the prosecution/court to prove guilt, and to illustrate that conversely there was no requirement for the defendant to prove innocence. I made my example deliberately simplistic for that reason.

If all the events you've listed took place, then they might certainly count as signs pointing towards guilt for my erstwhile friend. But whether they would, in and of themselves, constitute sufficient proof that he took the £100 (or at least participated in its theft), I'm far from certain. I think the only things that might constitute proof would be things like my friend depositing £100 cash into his bank account the day after the theft, or my friend mentioning to someone that he'd recently come by £100, or perhaps my friend paying off a debt that he had previously been unable to pay, or perhaps my friend going out on an uncharacteristic night out, where he spent around £100.

By the way, isn't it strange to see the former communist firebrand Alexei Sayle settling into a comfortable establishment existence of TV light entertainment and Radio 4 quiz shows?