Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[HumanityBlues]

You obviously only want to hear from those who believe in AK's innocence. Enjoy talking amongst yourselves.

You've said that twice now. Maybe you should just stop saying it.

 

[Alt+F4]

And incidentally Amanda frequently used that term about herself.

I'm sure she does, it's just part of the "misunderstood kid" persona she and her handlers try to foist on the public. The defense of the Menendez brothers tried it too, in their trial for murdering their parents. Though they were 22 and 25 their lawyers constantly referred to them as "boys". Didn't work for them either.

 

[christianahannah]

I agree with Rose, I thought Massei said she was barefoot. So if he says she is barefoot, then in point of fact, he is admitting that a shoeprint can't possibly be hers.

I believe Massei was referring in terms of the clean up (Amanda/barefoot), however, I do not have access to the document or appeals today so I cannot state with certainty that is so.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Italy and Women

To all,

Here is an article in Newsweek on women in Italy. It seems as if Italy is behind other European nations in certain measurements of gender equality. I am unfamiliar with the author; maybe she is stealth-FOA.

 

[el buscador]

The following is from Andrea Voight's article:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/433944_knox22.html

"Knox's defense team named Sara Gino, Walter Patumi and Carlo Torre from the University of Turin, also respected geneticists who worked on her case during the first trial. Knox's stepfather, Chris Mellas told seattlepi.com in a courtroom break, however, that three additional experts -- two Americans and one woman living in Australia -- are also contributing behind the scenes."

Any idea who these 2 Americans and one Australian are?

 

[Withnail1969]

In the case of Megrahi no government rules were "bended". He was entitled to compassionate release under Scottish law. There is no evidence that any doctor involved in his case/treatment lied about his life expentancy. That's the thing about medicine, sometimes doctors just get it wrong.

They certainly do when you go doctor shopping until you find one who's willing to get it wrong. The majority of Scots and a greater majority of the British in general opposed the release of this terrorist.

 

[Alt+F4]

They certainly do when you go doctor shopping until you find one who's willing to get it wrong. The majority of Scots and a greater majority of the British in general opposed the release of this terrorist.

If I close my eyes and click my heels three times will Rolfe appear?

 

[komponisto]

After the trial, non obstante veredicto. A judge can determine that the jury could not possible have found the person guilty and reverse the jury.

It is a virtual certainty that, in any jurisdiction that allows such a thing, there are specific and severe restrictions on a judge's ability to do this.

This is the sort of thing on which states will differ from each other, and from the federal government. But even if there are places and circumstances where this is technically possible, it is so rare that I have never heard of it happening. (As opposed to, say, the prosecution withdrawing charges after the verdict, as in the Ted Stevens case, for example.)

There is a culture of ingrained respect for juries in the United States (the only exception being when people feel that a guilty person has been acquitted for silly reasons). Any judge who unilaterally overruled a conviction would have to worry about facing (at least metaphorical) pitchforks.

The thing that is really different though is that the vast majority of American cases are resolved via. a plea. IMHO that's really what went wrong here. The prosecution could never quite figure out what happened and couldn't put a juicy offer on the table to get a anyone to turn.

The fast-track trial option seems to be the closest analogue to a plea in the Italian system: the accused waives some of their normal rights in order to speed up the process, with the expectation of a lenient sentence if convicted.

 

[komponisto]

The following is from Andrea Voight's article:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/433944_knox22.html

"Knox's defense team named Sara Gino, Walter Patumi and Carlo Torre from the University of Turin, also respected geneticists who worked on her case during the first trial. Knox's stepfather, Chris Mellas told seattlepi.com in a courtroom break, however, that three additional experts -- two Americans and one woman living in Australia -- are also contributing behind the scenes."

Any idea who these 2 Americans and one Australian are?

I don't know the answer to that; however, I was able to find some information about Giuseppe Novelli, one of the experts named by the prosecution, including a video interview here.

The dean (preside) of the medical school at Tor Vergata University in Rome, he appears to be a respected scientist, like Conti and Vecchiotti. (He makes a point in the video to note that he's the first scientific researcher, as opposed to clinical practitioner, to serve as dean.) As such, I have a hard time believing he actually holds the opinion that Knox and Sollecito are guilty, let alone being willing to sign off on Stefanoni's shenanigans. My guess is that they selected him simply because he can be trusted to properly scrutinize Conti and Vecchiotti. (Andrea Vogt says that he "often represents the state".)

But I don't know for sure; I've been disappointed by prestigious people before.

 

[JREF2010]

I agree with Rose, I thought Massei said she was barefoot. So if he says she is barefoot, then in point of fact, he is admitting that a shoeprint can't possibly be hers.

I think that was another one of those early pro-guilt assumptions. No blood found on Amandas shoes, nothing corroborated that illogical assumption.

Throw that in the pile with CCTVclips, the nov 2 police calls, the Harry Potter book evidence, the washing machine, Kokomani, 3-knife theory, etc..etc..

The best friend for the defense is time, time to prove their case, time for point to point debate on each piece. They need it because the pile of accusations is piled high.

I find it interesting when these old "media hyped" false accusations popup.
It reminds me how crazy the slanderous statements in the press and forums were in the beginning.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

guessing game

The following is from Andrea Voight's article:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/433944_knox22.html

"Knox's defense team named Sara Gino, Walter Patumi and Carlo Torre from the University of Turin, also respected geneticists who worked on her case during the first trial. Knox's stepfather, Chris Mellas told seattlepi.com in a courtroom break, however, that three additional experts -- two Americans and one woman living in Australia -- are also contributing behind the scenes."

Any idea who these 2 Americans and one Australian are?

el buscador,

Based on all the information publicly available, one infers that Greg Hampikian is one of the Americans. Elizabeth Johnson is a possibility for the other American, but she has not been activel speaking out since about a year ago or slightly longer. So it could be someone else. The Australian is a tough one.

 

[Alt+F4]

This is the sort of thing on which states will differ from each other, and from the federal government. But even if there are places and circumstances where this is technically possible, it is so rare that I have never heard of it happening. (As opposed to, say, the prosecution withdrawing charges after the verdict, as in the Ted Stevens case, for example.)

There was a case about 10 years ago in California where a woman was convicted of second degree murder after her dog mauled a neighbor to death. The trial judge reduced it to manslaughter, later an appeals court reinstated the original conviction.

I can recall no other case, and even in this dog mauling case it didn't work.

 

[CDHost]

There is a culture of ingrained respect for juries in the United States (the only exception being when people feel that a guilty person has been acquitted for silly reasons). Any judge who unilaterally overruled a conviction would have to worry about facing (at least metaphorical) pitchforks.

The public have respect for juries the people who try cases not so much. But yeah I agree that jury verdicts are taken pretty seriously. My guess is that judges don't set aside verdicts much because after all mostly the police are right, and then if they are able to convince 12 jurors....

Its like the stories you hear of people being visited at nights by the ghosts of the people they killed. To do what Mignini or a Massei did is to take from Amanda or Raffaele everything they have and everything they ever will be. Its an awesome responsibility. But judges don't seem to get those visits I suspect juries may be why. The same way that there are 3 buttons which release the poisons during a lethal injection and none of the 3 people know which 2 buttons are duds and which one is real. Maybe the jury is how they shirk it, diffuse the responsibility.

But I wouldn't be an innocentisti if I had that sort of worship of juries. Over on PMF they giving Tausha Fields as an analogy. Fair analogy IMHO, Tausha lies a lot. She wants to plead to accessory after the fact they want to go for murder 1. The police have a highly circumstantial case. The murder names her as being involved to get a sentence reduction. Tausha has some motive but not much..... I wouldn't had a huge problem with accessory with a stiff sentence. Life on that case, its a travesty.

I really wish juries had to carry out the executions they ordered. Or look the children of the people they jail in the face and say "I took your mother/son/daughter away because I thought it was the right thing to do". I saw these 5 women juniors talk about how Tausha was a little less credible. I wonder if they would have taken their responsibility a bit more seriously if they had to look her daughter in the eye when the concluded a little less credible was why they were making her essentially an orphan.

The fast-track trial option seems to be the closest analogue to a plea in the Italian system: the accused waives some of their normal rights in order to speed up the process, with the expectation of a lenient sentence if convicted.

I get it. But its not the same thing. There is no deal struck other than "I'll cut costs and you'll cut a 1/3rd off my sentence". I think of it more like pleading guilty to the original charge but not like a plea bargain where you negotiate the prosecutor way down.

 

[Antony]

I don't have much to disagree with here. The question was why I care "so much" about this particular case, not why I care at all. I don't need much convincing that miscarriages of justice are a major problem; but I've never personally gotten "involved" with a specific case before.

The fact that I've taken a particular interest this case does not imply that other wrongful convictions are "not an issue" for me. Indeed, there are really too many of them for a single person to be equally passionate about all of them -- a fact which in itself is a serious problem.

OK that's fair enough now you make it clear. For me I'll freely admit that what keeps me following this case in particular is the sheer volume of polemic - it's baffling for me as to why there are so many people who stake such personal capital in upholding the frankly ludicrous accusations against Amanda and Raffaele. Amanda's personal qualities don't really come into it - I have also had an interest in the Lockerbie case, which is just as obviously a travesty of justice, though a very different story.

Incidentally I haven't forgotten your PMs etc - I'll reply when I get to it.

 

[babycondor]

el buscador,

Based on all the information publicly available, one infers that Greg Hampikian is one of the Americans. Elizabeth Johnson is a possibility for the other American, but she has not been activel speaking out since about a year ago or slightly longer. So it could be someone else. The Australian is a tough one.

Julian Assange?

 

[LondonJohn]

OK that's fair enough now you make it clear. For me I'll freely admit that what keeps me following this case in particular is the sheer volume of polemic - it's baffling for me as to why there are so many people who stake such personal capital in upholding the frankly ludicrous accusations against Amanda and Raffaele. Amanda's personal qualities don't really come into it - I have also had an interest in the Lockerbie case, which is just as obviously a travesty of justice, though a very different story.

Incidentally I haven't forgotten your PMs etc - I'll reply when I get to it.

I'm kind of with you on all this. I find it curious and perverse that some people have correlated a belief in Knox's and Sollecito's guilt with "true justice for Meredith" - and on that point I also find it distasteful and unpleasant that most of those same people correlate any argument for Sollecito's/Knox's acquittal with some sort of "insult to Meredith's memory".

Oh and BTW, I'm also with you on the unease about the Lockerbie convictions. I believe that it's far more likely that a splinter Palestinian group carried out the bombing, sponsored and supported by elements within the Syrian and/or Iranian governments. I believe it was far more politically expedient to shift the blame to Libya, and that the Hague trials of Fimah and Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi were something of a travesty. But that's probably for a whole other thread

 

[Alt+F4]

Julian Assange?

Heheheh.

 

[LondonJohn]

Julian Assange?

Hehehehe

I think he has other issues on his mind right now

 

[Alt+F4]

I believe it was far more politically expedient to shift the blame to Libya, and that the Hague trials of Fimah and Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi were something of a travesty. But that's probably for a whole other thread

There is at least three of them. I think most of them are not active now. Maybe in another five years when Megrahi dies there might be some new information.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I think this is more along the lines of how this will be resolved if it requires a political answer. I think the Italian Courts are on their own here.

Sure. American politicians have no desire to interfere with the internal affairs of a US ally. They are hoping the Italian court system will get this right. At the same time, the US Senate is a collegial environment. Cantwell wouldn't have made her statement without vetting it. She has broad support, but for now, it is quiet support.

If you look at people like Megyn Kelly on FOX, or Peter van Sant on CBS, they are a good indicator of where the well-informed US public stands on this case. We Americans are not going to sit on our hands while Amanda Knox serves a 26 year prison sentence. Our elected leaders will, if they must, impose a tangible political and economic burden on Italy in an effort to extract Amanda from the vise of a wrongful conviction. But it is a last resort.