Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[babycondor]

...<snip>
nick pisa wrote-
Murderer Rudy Guede was identified by police after his bloody fingerprint was found on a cushion at the scene of the crime.

The 21-year-old Ivory Coast national had given his fingerprints when he applied for an Italian identity card several years earlier.

He was known to police after being stopped and searched several times and was known as a petty thief and small time drug dealer.


...

It should at least be noted that the Perugia Flying Squad deserves commendation for their fine police work in connecting Rudy to Meredith's murder by matching his bloody fingerprint from the crime scene.

 

[Alt+F4]

According to this article she has already had the baby.

Ah, thanks. Article said she had a difficult pregnancy so who knows when she might be back. I also thought it was interesting that her husband is an American.

 

[christianahannah]

Ah, thanks. Article said she had a difficult pregnancy so who knows when she might be back. I also thought it was interesting that her husband is an American.

True. It could be the slow start to the trial is in benefit of Bongiorno. Other than the appointing of the independent experts and giving them the go ahead for the start of testing and completion; the additional witnesses to testify on both sides to the disco buses which were or were not running on November 1, not much has occurred other than procedural issues.

I think Raffaele would want Bongiorno to be there representing him when the actual appeal gets underway as to questioning, etc. I also think Hellmann will do all he can to accommodate the defendants requests and give them a fair appeal trial.

 

[daydreamer]

I was taking a look back at some old Frank Sfarzo's posts on Perugia Shock. In the post titled "Testimony Fever" dated November 24 2008, Frank discusses problems with the prosecution’s theory of MK's murder. The last paragraph reads as follows:

"We could go on, I could seriously get into details but, as we can see as far, this theory doesn't work. And I hope to be allowed to just raise some doubts without being arrested."

In light of that, I think Frank is taking a very heroic stance and it explains his reluctance to discuss various topics/details in recent posts. I find it hard to believe that suppression of ideas and opinions still exists in our society. It's scary !

 

[Alt+F4]

I was taking a look back at some old Frank Sfarzo's posts on Perugia Shock. In the post titled "Testimony Fever" dated November 24 2008, Frank discusses problems with the prosecution’s theory of MK's murder. The last paragraph reads as follows:

"We could go on, I could seriously get into details but, as we can see as far, this theory doesn't work. And I hope to be allowed to just raise some doubts without being arrested."

In light of that, I think Frank is taking a very heroic stance and it explains his reluctance to discuss various topics/details in recent posts. I find it hard to believe that suppression of ideas and opinions still exists in our society. It's scary !

Why would Frank fear being arrested? Because Amanda's parents have been sued by the police?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I think Guede is still relevant because Amanda and Raffaele were convicted under a theory that they did the crime with Rudy. A key question in the case is whether Rudy acted alone.

The highest court in Italy have confirmed that Guede’s conviction and sentence, I am not sure whether a lower court has the judicial power to challenge the confirmation of the highest court in Italy, obviously we the public will not know the official outcome of Guede’s final appeal until the motivational report is published.

Why do you believe that he would not testify if called by either side?

Guede’s legal team have got his 30 year sentence down to 16, his sentence is confirmed so there is no benefit for him in testifying his time served can now only be influenced by his own behaviour in prison. In addition, witnesses can be called but I believe they are not compelled to answer.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a possible reason

Why would Frank fear being arrested? Because Amanda's parents have been sued by the police?

Alt+F4,

You might want to go to this link, and note the 5th paragraph from the bottom, previously quoted by yours truly on page 83.

 

[Alt+F4]

Alt+F4,

You might want to go to this link, and note the 5th paragraph from the bottom, previously quoted by yours truly on page 83.

Is Frank a professional journalist or just another Internet blogger? The stuff he writes is very pro-innocence and I'm sure there are others doing the same in Italian only. Who in this case has been threatened with more than a lawsuit?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I find it hard to believe that suppression of ideas and opinions still exists in our society. It's scary !

It's really not as bad as it sounds, they just don't want people spreading lies, you can say whatever you want if you can prove it's true, if not, then don't spread it around.

 

[daydreamer]

Is Frank a professional journalist or just another Internet blogger? The stuff he writes is very pro-innocence and I'm sure there are others doing the same in Italian only. Who in this case has been threatened with more than a lawsuit?

Frank's early post were not pro-innocence, quite the contrary. He started changing his mind when the "super-witnesses" appeared in the case and he questioned their reliability. That's about the time that he wrote that post that is referenced above.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

committee to protect journalists

It's really not as bad as it sounds, they just don't want people spreading lies, you can say whatever you want if you can prove it's true, if not, then don't spread it around.

So the government does not want people spreading lies? Let me think about that.

Here is the quote I mentioned: "Several local journalists told CPJ that Italian reporters are afraid to speak openly in support of Spezi because they fear angering authorities. Several declined to be quoted by name for fear of official harassment."

 

[HumanityBlues]

It's really not as bad as it sounds, they just don't want people spreading lies, you can say whatever you want if you can prove it's true, if not, then don't spread it around.

A dozen odd defamation suits later. PAH-lease. BTW, in the United States, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove falsity. There's a good policy reason for this too.

 

[act1roson]

Did anyone who believes in guilt answer Komponisto's question in post 23995 in the manner requested? I haven't seen any, but sorry if I missed one or two. Here's the question:

"- For any who believe that Knox and Sollecito are guilty: why? I mean this in a very specific sense: what is your ranking of the various pieces of evidence against them, in order from strongest to weakest? How much does each item move your opinion? What is the "tipping point", i.e. the smallest subset of evidence that nudges your probability of guilt over 50%? (Subset need not be unique, of course -- I'd just like an example of a minimal set of evidence that causes you to say "Okay, now that I know this, I think it's more likely than not that they were involved".) "

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

A dozen odd defamation suits later. PAH-lease. BTW, in the United States, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove falsity. There's a good policy reason for this too.

The I guess it's too bad Amanda isn't in the US then. Really, in Italy, with the blow to the back of the head, she would have no problem if she could prove it, but she can't so she should have kept quit about it.

The part I don't understand about this is how in the world did her own lawyers not know or warn her about this. Is it remotely possible, they let her take the stand and did not know she was going to say this - Not in a million years -

 

[HumanityBlues]

she would have no problem if she could prove it, but she can't so she should have kept quit about it.

This evidences a very weird and unnuanced world view. Do you hold this principle for other crimes as well? BTW, do you know WHY it's the other way around in the United States?

 

[act1roson]

Sherlock Holmes, since you're here, could you address my post just one above yours? Have you attempted to answer Komponisto's question in the manner requested? And why do you think no one has done so?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

This evidences a very weird and unnuanced world view. Do you hold this principle for other crimes as well? BTW, do you know WHY it's the other way around in the United States?

Yes I do, if I'm in Timbuktu and they have a law about drinking a coke with you left hand, regardless that I can do this in the US or any other country, I'll drink it with my right hand because I like coke and I don't want to end up in jail.

 

[komponisto]

Did anyone who believes in guilt answer Komponisto's question in post 23995 in the manner requested? I haven't seen any, but sorry if I missed one or two. Here's the question:

"- For any who believe that Knox and Sollecito are guilty: why? I mean this in a very specific sense: what is your ranking of the various pieces of evidence against them, in order from strongest to weakest? How much does each item move your opinion? What is the "tipping point", i.e. the smallest subset of evidence that nudges your probability of guilt over 50%? (Subset need not be unique, of course -- I'd just like an example of a minimal set of evidence that causes you to say "Okay, now that I know this, I think it's more likely than not that they were involved".) "

One person did (sort of); but they didn't respond to a followup asking if they were aware of the defense's response to their points.

So the question is still out there.

While I'm at it, here's another question for guilt-believers: can you give an example (either real or hypothetical) of a wrongful conviction where you would have been convinced the defendant was innocent (in advance of any appeals court reversal)? How does (or would) that case differ from this one? (Remember, in any such case there must necessarily have been enough evidence of guilt to convince prosecutors and jurors!)

 

[HumanityBlues]

Yes I do, if I'm in Timbuktu and they have a law about drinking a coke with you left hand, regardless that I can do this in the US or any other country, I'll drink it with my right hand because I like coke and I don't want to end up in jail.

I don't think you understood the question, but it seems your basic philosophy is, all laws are just no matter where. Thanks.

What your original principle seemed to be stating was, if you make an accusation and then you're charged with defamation, you should have to prove its true. I doubt you actually understand the policy implications of that given principle. It seems you let whatever gut feeling you have guide whatever principles you espouse for reasons of convenience. No surprise that your arguments usually have no foundation.

Edit: Also, there's a HUGE difference between your Timbuktu analogy and this situation at hand. A pretty lame analogy all in all.

 

[Katody Matrass]

The I guess it's too bad Amanda isn't in the US then. Really, in Italy, with the blow to the back of the head, she would have no problem if she could prove it, but she can't so she should have kept quit about it.

The part I don't understand about this is how in the world did her own lawyers not know or warn her about this. Is it remotely possible, they let her take the stand and did not know she was going to say this - Not in a million years -

She wrote about it in her note directly after the interrogation night. She couldn't avoid being asked about it. I suppose her lawyers advised her not to point out anyone specifically. She did anyway When facing life in jail why would she withhold truth because of some laughable slander charges?
In my opinion it didn't turn out so bad for her. First of all the callunia charge revealed the truth about the interrogation. Nice chat over a cup of tea? With 12 interrogators? It also brought into attention that they "forgot" to tape that interrogation and that it was unlawful.

The "forgotten" tape sets up the situation as her word vs theirs. That she wrote about it the next morning works in her favor. The missing interrogation recording is very telling, too.