Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[CoulsdonUK]

Onofarar

Welcome back.

What would you do if the defense presents an impeccable case that the original verdict is wrong/unsafe BUT the sentence is NOT overturned?

Sorry if the defence has presented a case that refutes the prosecution’s case, then the conclusion of such an event would be the release of Amanda and Raffaele. Indeed can you provide an example of your own proposition?

Or the prosecution provides additional irrefutable evidence that supports the original verdicts BUT the verdicts are overturned?

Seems improbable if not a bit vague. However, if were using speculative scenario’s, what if for example the DNA re-examination throws out the knife but upholds the bra clasp? Can you provide an example of your own question?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

My position as well.

Thank you I do think it is a reasonable position.

 

[Antony]

Thank you I do think it is a reasonable position.

You haven't answered the question of what there is to discuss in this topic. If your position is to accept uncritically the ruling of the court (one way or the other) there seems no point in you taking part in this thread, which is to discuss the evidence.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

You haven't answered the question of what there is to discuss in this topic. If your position is to accept uncritically the ruling of the court (one way or the other) there seems no point in you taking part in this thread, which is to discuss the evidence.

Antony

I did answer the question I wrote "the appeal" which to date has only authorised the re-examination DNA relating to the knife and Meredith’s bra clasp. The title of this blog for want of a better word is “the discussion of Amanda Knox case” or more accurately the Meredith Kercher murder trial.

PS
Same question I asked Babycondor, why do you post on a site that has no position either way on Meredith’s murder.

 

[Mary_H]

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.

They're keeping you pretty busy here, eh, Coulsdon?

In an ideal world, yours would be the approach to take. However, I agree with this statement by Antony: "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."

Fortunately, the court will follow public opinion this time, too, and it is overwhelmingly in favor of acquittal for both defendants.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

They're keeping you pretty busy here, eh, Coulsdon?

In an ideal world, yours would be the approach to take. However, I agree with this statement by Antony: "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."

Fortunately, the court will follow public opinion this time, too, and it is overwhelmingly in favor of acquittal for both defendants.

Mary

Yes they certainly are, just as well I haven’t written anything controversial. I read this about public opinion changing but I see no evidence of it, well not in the mainstream media. Indeed, by public opinion which public do you believe is changing? To be honest I think the Italian judiciary are fairly immune to public opinion (especially the Supreme Court judges) or even their own government for that matter.

 

[Danceme]

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.

Antony, I would like to hear more of these "powerful incentives" you think there are for police and courts to prosecute those they know to be innocent. Just how do these incentives work?
Personally, I firmly believe the police were convinced their suspects were guilty, not innocent.

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.

I remember that Patrick's alibi was none too swift to come by and wasn't all that convincing at first, a single witness to testify for him, against his cell phone records putting him in the vicinity of the cottage, the fact he changed his phone the very next day and to top it off the "eyewitness" testimony from Amanda who said he was there. I don't think you're trying to see the reality of how all these circumstances came together to produce the results we see today.

 

[babycondor]

Babycondor
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.

No indeed, it is not the only view. I didn't say it was the only view, I said it was "one of the reasons" the case is being discussed here.

I have heard of Injustice in Perugia.

I like reading and posting about the case on this forum exactly because multiple views are presented.

 

[Dan O.]

They're keeping you pretty busy here, eh, Coulsdon?

In an ideal world, yours would be the approach to take. However, I agree with this statement by Antony: "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."

Fortunately, the court will follow public opinion this time, too, and it is overwhelmingly in favor of acquittal for both defendants.

An authoritarian view would be that higher courts would be less likely to err whether swayed by public opinion or otherwise and that a supreme court whose rule is final cannot make a mistake. If public opinion happens to align with the opinion of the court, it just means the public got it right for a change.

 

[Antony]

CoulsdonUK,

Sorry I missed your first reply and complained that you hadn't responded to my questions.

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.

That doesn't make it "not real". We are discussing events that really happened. You might as well say that discussion of astronomy has no reality because it cannot influence the motions of the stars.

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.

Again, I don't see what point you are making. That doesn't mean the court is the only place where the real events of the murder can be discussed.

The appeal.

Doesn't answer the question. What points are there to be made, if you are going to take the correctness of the court's decision on trust?

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

Because I want to explain why I have arrived at the opinion that I have, which was reached independently by considering the facts of the crime. If someone can show me that I had the facts wrong, or that my reasoning was wrong in interpreting those facts, then I would be open to modifying or even reversing my opinion. The time has long past when I would expect either of those to happen, but in principle information or reasoning posted here could change what I think about the case.

You on the other hand have stated that you will accept the decision of the court as correct, and the thing that will change your opinion is if another court makes a different decision. Even though you must know that courts make mistakes, sometimes ghastly ones, you don't think it worthwhile building an independent view on whether the decision of this court was correct.

Is that a general view of justice, or one specifically related to Italian justice and this case?

I actually meant to type "the court's decision" (meaning "this court's decision") - I'm not sure why I typed "the courts". So it's not my general view of justice, no. Having said that, on principle I want to know the evidence before accepting that a court's decision was correct, particularly a high-profile one.

I think in all western democracy especially in capital crimes juries are used to listen to the evidence and make a hopefully informed decision.

That is naive wishful thinking, and is not borne out by the facts in this case and far too many others.

 

[Dan O.]

Dan O.

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

As I've done throughout this thread; when there is a question on the interpretation of the evidence, I think of what differences would show up in the alternate interpretations, what view of the evidence would show that difference and what experiment can be performed that will show which interpretation is correct.

One example is the interpretation of the bloody footprints left behind by Rudy. One view is that Rudy stepped in blood in Meredith's room and walked down the hall and out the door. An alternate view is that Rudy washed blood from his pants and it is the bloody water dripping on the side of his shoe that is leaving the prints. I suggested an experiment of walking on similar tiles with shoes inked in whole blood and various dilutions to see what creates the prints that most closely resemble what we see in the photographs.

Where did you hear about the defence and what do you think this may mean?

The first feedback that the defense was specifically looking at ideas developed in these discussions was presented up thread. To me it means that the defense is smart enough to recognize a useful resource and not so arrogant to think they can know everything on their own. I didn't expect such feedback until possibly after the trial but knew at least that there were posters with contact with the family and any viable ideas would be filtered up stream where they would eventually come to the attention of the defense team.

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?

Perhaps this is just the judges way of saying that the appeal is de novo. But where does he come up with the certainty that Meredith was murdered?

 

[Justinian2]

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.

You're going to believe what they tell you to believe??????

 

[Onofarar]

Onofarar

Welcome back.

<snip>


Seems improbable if not a bit vague. However, if were using speculative scenario’s, what if for example the DNA re-examination throws out the knife but upholds the bra clasp? Can you provide an example of your own question?

State of California vs. Orentahal James Simpson, 1995.

 

[babycondor]

Perhaps this is just the judges way of saying that the appeal is de novo. But where does he come up with the certainty that Meredith was murdered?

Guede's murder conviction was upheld.

I thought his saying "the only thing we are certain of is that Meredith was murdered" (or words to that effect) was the judge's way of hinting that reasonable doubt exists as to the guilt of AK and RS.

 

[lionking]

You're going to believe what they tell you to believe??????

That is a bizarre interpretation of his words. He said quite clearly that he would accept the court's decision, as will I.

Who is "they" by the way?

 

[Antony]

Antony, I would like to hear more of these "powerful incentives" you think there are for police and courts to prosecute those they know to be innocent. Just how do these incentives work?

Well, how do you think they work? Police are given credit for solving crimes, catching criminals and getting them convicted. What criteria are used for assessing whether they have succeeded in their task? I'll give you a clue: it's the part in bold. There is no part of the criteria which says: "oh, if the court has convicted your suspects, but they're really innocent, then it doesn't count."

As for the courts, it's not as clear-cut, but by the time the case gets to trial, the system has a clear interest in upholding the investigation and endorsing its actions in pursuing a particular line. The public perception, particularly in a high-profile case like this one, is that accusation is equivalent to guilt; there is no mileage in provoking public anger by letting accused people go. The principle "innocent until proved guilty" generally has little value.

Personally, I firmly believe the police were convinced their suspects were guilty, not innocent.

This is a complex question which we can't know in detail, but I would suppose that the degree of convincement (*) varied considerably among the police force and over time. My point is that that the success criteria for the police are centred around achieving a conviction, not establishing the truth - so doubts about the actual involvement of their suspects were secondary to whether they could make a case against them stick.

I think in their panic and ineptitude there was indeed a strong belief at first that they had arrested the right people. Then when they started looking at the real evidence it became clear that the crime was committed by one person who wasn't among their 3, and that they had screwed-up big-time. This was when the damage limitation apparatus came into operation.

I remember that Patrick's alibi was none too swift to come by and wasn't all that convincing at first, a single witness to testify for him, against his cell phone records putting him in the vicinity of the cottage, the fact he changed his phone the very next day

You are being far too generous to the Perugia police here. It's my understanding that at first they refused to speak to Patrick's alibi witness, and he had to travel from Switzerland to testify in person. Then they subjected him to a 7 hour interrogation before recognising they had to change track. Even then it was almost 2 weeks before they released Patrick, and they kept his bar closed for months afterwards with no rational justification whatsoever.

It's the first time I have heard about Patrick's mobile phone being tracked to the area of the cottage - can someone confirm whether that is correct? (I had indeed heard that he changed his phone.)

and to top it off the "eyewitness" testimony from Amanda who said he was there.

Alright, you want to take this "testimony" at face-value, obtained as it was in a highly irregular fashion and with no safeguards for Amanda's rights. In that case, why was Raffaele arrested at this time? There is no mention of him, and no other evidence implicating him. The suggestion is very strong that he was tied into the accusations purely because he was Amanda's alibi witness - and perhaps the delay in releasing Patrick was the time it took for the police to calculate that they couldn't include his alibi witness as well.

I don't think you're trying to see the reality of how all these circumstances came together to produce the results we see today.

I don't agree with throwing someone's words back at them, but in this case I think you are projecting your own slanted view of the case (which includes trusting the good faith of the police) onto others who don't see things the same way as you. I judge my reality to be far more well-supported than yours.

(* to avoid the over-loaded word "conviction")

 

[zeb]

sorry not having post before now, I have been looking at the past posts and have not finnish reading.
There a lot of posts to read on this case.
But one thing for sure is the hard drives of Amanda and Rafaele laptops, can be brought back to life again.
The only way you can burn a hard drive is by putting it in a furnace and melt it.
So there still hope yet with the laptops.

 

[RoseMontague]

I am reviewing all the photo evidence I can find and I have a few questions I was hoping to get some help with. In the bra photos it appears to me that not only the clasp was either cut or ripped apart but also the strap. Has this been discussed previously?

 

[RoseMontague]

Can anyone read what is posted in this picture?

 

[RoseMontague]

Loose threads side and and bottom?