Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Antony]

Police incentives for pursuing case

Yes, it's quite unbelievable to think they would continue, knowing they had a perfect suspect in Rudy given the DNA evidence etc., and a perfectly plausible excuse to let the other two go. I think they had to believe strongly in their case to take it as far as it went. It was not some utter foolishness like saving face.

It does seem unbelievable, but there are several unbelievable things about the investigation which unquestionably happened, such as the incompetent and arbitrary manner in which items of evidence were collected.

You have to recognise the powerful incentives there are for police and courts to prosecute whenever they have a good chance of a conviction. Knowing their suspects to be innocent doesn't have to be a consideration - the way the incentives work it is simply an obstacle to be overcome. You and I might recognise early on that we would have to admit that we were wrong about something, but these guys have resources we don't have: legal powers of arrest and detention, and a news media ready to propagate whatever they would choose to tell them.

Don't forget that the police kept Patrick in custody for almost 2 weeks after they already knew about his alibi, and then kept his bar closed for months afterwards as a "crime scene". They had every reason to think that they could control they way the case panned out, that the world would forget about these 2 kids, and that they would get extra credit for nailing 3 "culprits" rather than one. I think they clearly misjudged the amount of interest the case would arouse, and the amount of public scrutiny which their antics would attract.

 

[lionking]

No, it just proves that she's a cold-blooded calculating killer with no conscience. You see how that works?

My opinion:- guilters can believe that Knox is a cold-blooded calculating killer because they can imagine themselves acting like that.

I just want to understand you. Are you saying that people who think AK guilty may have homicidal tendencies?

 

[RoseMontague]

I just want to understand you. Are you saying that people who think AK guilty may have homicidal tendencies?

Let's hope not and hope for some clarification otherwise. Roger may not be aware of the very strict moderation on this thread.

 

[Mary_H]

LondonJohn
Notwithstanding the benefits of civil exchanges of view, what I find interesting is that people have already made their minds up either way which is strange because the appeal has only made one decision and that report is not due until April or May. I for one look forward to discussing what has actually taken place in the appeal rather rehashing the trial; also think I am the only person who doesn’t understand why people continue to talk of Guede, his conviction and sentence have been confirmed all that is left to discuss is the final motivational report of his appeal.

I agree with your point of view about Rudy Guede, Coulsdon. I always find something else to do when I see people dissecting the break-in. My reasoning is that whatever happened at the cottage doesn't have anything to do with Amanda and Raffaele because they weren't there. I can understand the urge to want to find facts that prove them innocent, though.

As an innocenter, I definitely have made up my mind about the case, but my position is not based on what happens in the courtroom. So the appeal will be interesting to talk about, of course, but won't make a difference except in terms of how soon Amanda and Raffaele will be released.

 

[Justinian2]

I just want to understand you. Are you saying that people who think AK guilty may have homicidal tendencies?

Bruce Fisher in "Injustice in Perugia" dissects and defines the guilters. I totally agree with his guilter vivisection.

I totally agree with Bruce Fisher, Candace Dempsey, FBI Agent Steve Moore, Amanda, Raffaele, the Knox family, CBS News, Doug Longhini, Paul Ciolino, Peter Van Sant, Doug Preston, Judy Bachrach, John Q Kelly, Tim Egan, Ron Hendry, Frank Sfarzo, Dr. Mark Waterbury and others. These are intelligent, hard working intelligent people.

I totally DISagree totally with Massei, Mignini, Dr. Stefanoni, Matteini, Barbie Latza Nadeau, Pisa, and the Perugian police. These ‘intellects’ and should be dealt with in a manner consistent with others of their genre.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I agree with your point of view about Rudy Guede, Coulsdon. I always find something else to do when I see people dissecting the break-in. My reasoning is that whatever happened at the cottage doesn't have anything to do with Amanda and Raffaele because they weren't there. I can understand the urge to want to find facts that prove them innocent, though.

As an innocenter, I definitely have made up my mind about the case, but my position is not based on what happens in the courtroom. So the appeal will be interesting to talk about, of course, but won't make a difference except in terms of how soon Amanda and Raffaele will be released.

Mary

I certainly hope the lay judges do not approach the appeal with either mindset of the blog terms innocentre and guilter. I accepted the verdict of the trial. However, unlike some I recognise that the appeal process may result in evidence being thrown out or verified, that witnesses statements may be accepted or refuted and that the verdict of the trial confirmed or overturned; these are the simple facts facing Amanda and Raffaele. There is a world of difference to the unreal environment of blogging and the real world of arguing a case in an appeal court with all the procedural protocols that do not apply in blogsphere. Unlike your view, my view of the trial can only be changed or confirmed by what takes place in the appeal and not by exchanging views here, unlike many who post I will accept the legal process and I will accept verdict of the appeal come what may.

 

[Amazer]

Bruce Fisher in "Injustice in Perugia" dissects and defines the guilters. I totally agree with his guilter vivisection.

I totally agree with Bruce Fisher, Candace Dempsey, FBI Agent Steve Moore, Amanda, Raffaele, the Knox family, CBS News, Doug Longhini, Paul Ciolino, Peter Van Sant, Doug Preston, Judy Bachrach, John Q Kelly, Tim Egan, Ron Hendry, Frank Sfarzo, Dr. Mark Waterbury and others. These are intelligent, hard working intelligent people.

I totally DISagree totally with Massei, Mignini, Dr. Stefanoni, Matteini, Barbie Latza Nadeau, Pisa, and the Perugian police. These ‘intellects’ and should be dealt with in a manner consistent with others of their genre.

What do you propose that should be done?

 

[Antony]

There is a world of difference to the unreal environment of blogging and the real world of arguing a case in an appeal court with all the procedural protocols that do not apply in blogsphere.

There is indeed a world of difference, in that procedures apply in court that do not apply here, but why do you call the blogging environment "unreal" and the appeal court "the real world"?

Unlike your view, my view of the trial can only be changed or confirmed by what takes place in the appeal and not by exchanging views here, unlike many who post I will accept the legal process and I will accept verdict of the appeal come what may.

In that case, what is there to discuss? Why are you even here? For me, what matters is the evidence, not the opinion of people known as "jurors" who followed public opinion instead. As far as I'm concerned, the disconnect between the evidence and the verdict places the courts very much in the unreal world.

 

[Dan O.]

Unlike your view, my view of the trial can only be changed or confirmed by what takes place in the appeal and not by exchanging views here, unlike many who post I will accept the legal process and I will accept verdict of the appeal come what may.

You are arguing that the result of the trial will be the result of the trial. Are you sure that is a safe view?

 

[Justinian2]

What do you propose that should be done?

My primordial mind thinks that a hanging would be nice.

Here's the post that elicited the question:

Originally Posted by Justinian2
Bruce Fisher in "Injustice in Perugia" dissects and defines the guilters. I totally agree with his guilter vivisection.

I totally agree with Bruce Fisher, Candace Dempsey, FBI Agent Steve Moore, Amanda, Raffaele, the Knox family, CBS News, Doug Longhini, Paul Ciolino, Peter Van Sant, Doug Preston, Judy Bachrach, John Q Kelly, Tim Egan, Ron Hendry, Frank Sfarzo, Dr. Mark Waterbury and others. These are intelligent, hard working intelligent people.

I totally DISagree totally with Massei, Mignini, Dr. Stefanoni, Matteini, Barbie Latza Nadeau, Pisa, and the Perugian police. These ‘intellects’ and should be dealt with in a manner consistent with others of their genre.

I think that a restraining order against them would be appropriate. They should be kept from approaching within 100 Km of a court, police station, forensic lab or publisher.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Dan O

You are arguing that the result of the trial will be the result of the trial. Are you sure that is a safe view?

In a word no, not sure if the above is a typo actually.

I am stating that if for example the defence produce a case that demonstrates that trial verdict is unsafe and this results in the verdict and sentence being overturned, I would accept that ruling, equally if the prosecution case is not refuted I would accept that outcome. As the appeal judge stated the only thing we know for sure was Meredith Kercher was murdered.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Antony

There is indeed a world of difference, in that procedures apply in court that do not apply here, but why do you call the blogging environment "unreal" and the appeal court "the real world"?

Blogging is essentially exchanging views about a given topic in this case it is moderated by administrators but it does not adhere to any national or international standard it is private medium, it has no jurisdiction.

The real world of a court (even an Italian court) is govern by national or international jurisprudence and exists in democracies at the behest of the people.

In that case, what is there to discuss?

The appeal.

Why are you even here?

Why do you post here if you have already made your mind up, is it not to exchange your views?

For me, what matters is the evidence, not the opinion of people known as "jurors" who followed public opinion instead. As far as I'm concerned, the disconnect between the evidence and the verdict places the courts very much in the unreal world.

Is that a general view of justice, or one specifically related to Italian justice and this case? I think in all western democracy especially in capital crimes juries are used to listen to the evidence and make a hopefully informed decision.

 

[Dan O.]

Dan O


In a word no, not sure if the above is a typo actually.

I am stating that if for example the defence produce a case that demonstrates that trial verdict is unsafe and this results in the verdict and sentence being overturned, I would accept that ruling, equally if the prosecution case is not refuted I would accept that outcome. As the appeal judge stated the only thing we know for sure was Meredith Kercher was murdered.

You have just confirmed again that in your view, reality as far as the courts are concerned is whatever the highest authority says it is.

As long as you hold that view, we can perfectly predict your position so I don't see why you bother reading and posting in this thread since nothing you say will make any difference to others that don't hold such a view and nothing others post will have any effect on your view.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Dan O

You have just confirmed again that in your view, reality as far as the courts are concerned is whatever the highest authority says it is.

And your view would be?

As long as you hold that view, we can perfectly predict your position so I don't see why you bother reading and posting in this thread since nothing you say will make any difference to others that don't hold such a view and nothing others post will have any effect on your view.

Nothing posted here will make any difference in context of whatever the outcome of the appeal will be.

PS
This sight is independent in the context of this case, it’s not like TJMK or IIP where the stated aims of these sites is obvious?

 

[Dan O.]

And your view would be?

My view is that reality can be tested and verified. I don't need an authority figure to tell me what is real.

Nothing posted here will make any difference in context of whatever the outcome of the appeal will be.

We have already heard that the defense is listening to the discussions here. Unless the Italian courts have already fixed their verdict and will not be listening to the defense arguments, your belief is invalid.

 

[babycondor]

... my view of the trial can only be changed or confirmed by what takes place in the appeal and not by exchanging views here, unlike many who post I will accept the legal process and I will accept verdict of the appeal come what may.

I hope you're never accused of a crime you did not commit, taken to court, and wrongfully convicted. It does happen. That's one of the reasons it is being discussed here.

 

[lionking]

Unlike your view, my view of the trial can only be changed or confirmed by what takes place in the appeal and not by exchanging views here, unlike many who post I will accept the legal process and I will accept verdict of the appeal come what may.

My position as well.

 

[Onofarar]

Dan O


In a word no, not sure if the above is a typo actually.

I am stating that if for example the defence produce a case that demonstrates that trial verdict is unsafe and this results in the verdict and sentence being overturned, I would accept that ruling, equally if the prosecution case is not refuted I would accept that outcome. As the appeal judge stated the only thing we know for sure was Meredith Kercher was murdered.

What would you do if the defense presents an impeccable case that the original verdict is wrong/unsafe BUT the sentence is NOT overturned? Or the prosecution provides additional irrefutable evidence that supports the original verdicts BUT the verdicts are overturned?

Re: my last post - yeah I admit it I'm a Knox case junkie - could not stay away.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Dan O.

My view is that reality can be tested and verified. I don't need an authority figure to tell me what is real.

In what way do you believe reality, I assume you mean in the context of this case, can be tested?

We have already heard that the defense is listening to the discussions here. Unless the Italian courts have already fixed their verdict and will not be listening to the defense arguments, your belief is invalid.

Where did you hear about the defence and what do you think this may mean? I was heartened to hear the appeal judge state that and I paraphrase “the only thing we know for certain is that Meredith Kercher was murdered”, do you accept that reality?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Babycondor

I hope you're never accused of a crime you did not commit, taken to court, and wrongfully convicted. It does happen. That's one of the reasons it is being discussed here.

Okay well the above is certainly the reason why a number of people discuss Meredith’s murder, but it is not the only view. Have you heard of the site Injustice In Perugia, as far as I can ascertain it is a site dedicated to the view you mention above, yet you post here on a site that has no stance either way.