Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[CoulsdonUK]

I don't think logical fallacies are discussed in court. I believe that the evidence shown in a court usually has a basis in solid fact and expert testimony.

Presenting theory as fact (the cooperation between RS, AK and RG), presenting false evidence (the footprints, kitchen knife DNA, and bra clasp DNA) and poor eye witnesses (a professional witness/drug dealer) should totally enrage the judicial comunity all over the world. This trial made a mockery of justice and made it seem that humans are incapable of administering justice.

Judicial people and governments all over the world should be ashamed of what has been allowed to happen in this Italian court.

If what you state above is the case one could conclude that this would be demonstrated during the appeal.

You speak of a professional witness/drug dealer, what is your opinion of a convicted baby killer Alessi and a convicted Camorra enforcer Aviello, are these people more credible than a professional witness/drug dealer? Your focus I assume is Amanda and Raffaele, others think of the murder victim.

Like you I don’t know what the outcome of this appeal will be, but at least Amanda and Raffaele have a chance which is more than what can be said for Meredith Kercher.

 

[Supernaut]

When the dust of this case settles years from now, I think Lifeline will be seen to have embarked on one of the most ill-considered film projects ever. In one action, they have upset the victim's family, compromised the fairness of the judicial process, and left themselves open to massive ridicule and defamation charges when their portrayal of the case is ultimately shown to be wrong.

I completely agree. I'm still astonished at the sheer idiocy, and like you I hope it back-fires on them - big-time.

 

[Antony]

That is certainly a view shared by those who believe in Amanda and Raffaele innocence, but as we know it is not the only view.

No, but it's a view supported by reason: by and large, those clinging to the supposed guilt of Amanda and Raffaele don't focus on anything that could be considered real evidence - instead they focus on Amanda's character and on alleged contradictions in their stories, as reported by the Perugia police. Not only that, but as Kevin Lowe has pointed out, they can't provide a coherent narrative of the crime (incorporating the required clean-up and staging of the break-in) that involves Amanda and Raffaele and fits the known facts of the murder.

What is the rationale behind the other view: that those whose views are based on the facts include a significant number who think Amanda and Raffaele are guilty?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

What is the rationale behind the other view: that those whose views are based on the facts include a significant number who think Amanda and Raffaele are guilty?

I don't know the results of the DNA re-examination of the knife or Meredith's bra clasp, nor do I know the results of the cross examination of previous witnesses, basically the forth coming appeal. The rational conclusion is that there is a legal process unfolding which may or may not result in their release. I for one want to hear, indeed will hear what is said in the appeal, what is legally argued, what the result of the geneticist findings etc. This does not strike me as unreasonable.

 

[Justinian2]

If what you state above is the case one could conclude that this would be demonstrated during the appeal.

You speak of a professional witness/drug dealer, what is your opinion of a convicted baby killer Alessi and a convicted Camorra enforcer Aviello, are these people more credible than a professional witness/drug dealer? Your focus I assume is Amanda and Raffaele, others think of the murder victim.

Like you I don’t know what the outcome of this appeal will be, but at least Amanda and Raffaele have a chance which is more than what can be said for Meredith Kercher.

I fail to see how sympathy for Meredith Kercher has anything to do with the argument about the guilt or innocence of Amanda and Raffaele.

Those that make the effort to free Amanda and Raffaele, whether futile or not, value free life very highly and that is their motivation for posting here.

Perhaps those that think they have to remind the pro-innocent people about the value of human life plausibly are really making a statement about their own necrophilia.

 

[colonelhall]

What part did the family play in the making of the film?

I notice that at the end of the film, the producers give special thanks to Curt Knox and Eddie Melas. Does this mean that they were involved in its production? If so, why all the protests now?
Perhaps they initially saw it as a piece of positive propaganda for their case. If so, it seems to have backfired somewhat.

 

[Kaosium]

People whose views are based on the facts will not be influenced by the movie, and my impression is that of those people the overwhelming majority conclude that both Amanda and Raffaele were wrongly accused and wrongly convicted.

From what I can gather about the conduct of the appeal, it may well have no influence there - but it has potential to cause huge problems to the defendants after they are cleared, particularly Amanda. This is the reason why it's so profoundly unfair: it means that her defence team have to act to protect her reputation at the same time as having to present the case at the appeal court.

Actually I think it does a fair bit for her reputation. It puts a lot of the events that made her look 'suspicious' in context, and notes the dishonest tabloid campaign. Hayden plays it straight, as an innocent Amanda, there's no furtive glances or maniacal expressions as the camera fades. The only thing even remotely suspicious along those lines is when Mignini informs her they think the break in was staged, and she looks shocked--as should any girl whose just been told the police think they've evidence someone living at her home murdered Meredith.

I haven't seen the movie, but I do know that:

a) the case for a wrongful conviction demonstrates that the investigation was screwed-up and malicious;

b) fictional dramas never show the police and authorities acting in bad faith - except when portraying perceived rogue states.

This is mostly true, at worst you're given the impression that the cops just screwed up, and Mignini's theories are not taken apart as lustily as they should be, it's presented more as proper policework. They even bend over backwards and show Raffaele calling the 2-1-1 after the postal police arrive, though they play it more like Raffaele forgot and is embarrassed to admit it.

However they do not stick to the police version of the interrogation, unfortunately they also do not underline the provable lies about it, as you note above they're pretty forgiving with the police.

For these reasons, it's hard to imagine that it can have anything other than a negative impact. Someone tell me that I'm wrong who's seen it.

I suspect at most it would have a mild benevolent effect. The 'evidence' produced does not sound damning and her and Raffaele murdering Meredith doesn't 'fit' at all in the context of the movie. Raffaele gets kinda short shrift as they didn't put much imagination into how he might have ended up 'changing his story,' they just had a cop get mean with him for a minute--that part is a bit jarring. However you do see lines around his eyes as he's 'confessing' which suggests to me they were trying to at least subtly imply he was stoned at the time--too subtly.

When the dust of this case settles years from now, I think Lifeline will be seen to have embarked on one of the most ill-considered film projects ever. In one action, they have upset the victim's family, compromised the fairness of the judicial process, and left themselves open to massive ridicule and defamation charges when their portrayal of the case is ultimately shown to be wrong.

Lifetime is channel 360 on my system, I found that out as a result of this movie. I don't think the channels that end up in the 360s get saddled with responsibility for the 'most ill-considered film projects ever.' I also don't know where these 'defamation' charges would come from, they sure went out of their way to avoid them from the Italian police at any rate. Amanda and her mother came off as sympathetic characters, Raffaele is the only one who should feel impugned.

Surely the sensible thing would have been to hold off until the full story panned out and the contentious issues were settled, when in any case they would have a much more coherent story to tell.

That's not how they do it for anyone these days. Law and Order regularly cribs from the headlines before the case has wound its way through the court.

However when the whole story is told it will make for a much better movie and this will be forgotten. Can you name two other made for Lifetime TV productions? See what I mean?

 

[Justinian2]

I notice that at the end of the film, the producers give special thanks to Curt Knox and Eddie Melas. Does this mean that they were involved in its production? If so, why all the protests now?
Perhaps they initially saw it as a piece of positive propaganda for their case. If so, it seems to have backfired somewhat.

The film may have helped their slander case as the interrogations of Amanda and Raffaele were depicted as pretty horrific.

 

[Justinian2]

self monitored.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

fail to see how sympathy for Meredith Kercher has anything to do with the argument about the guilt or innocence of Amanda and Raffaele.

I state what are undisputed facts; Meredith has been murdered, fact.
Amanda and Raffaele do have further opportunities via the appeal process, another fact.

You speak of a professional witness/drug dealer, what is your opinion of a convicted baby killer Alessi and a convicted Camorra enforcer Aviello, are these people more credible than a professional witness/drug dealer? Your focus I assume is Amanda and Raffaele, others think of the murder victim.

Any comment on the above?

 

[Justinian2]

I state what are undisputed facts; Meredith has been murdered, fact.
Amanda and Raffaele do have further opportunities via the appeal process, another fact.

Any comment on the above?

That Meredith has been murdered is an undisputed fact that does NOT alter the probability of guilt of Amanda and Raffaele.

That Guede was there when the murder happened is also an undisputed fact that does very significantly lessen the probability of guilt of Amanda and Raffaele as Meredith was dead before Amanda and Raffaele could have gotten there even if a conspiracy with Guede was more than a myth.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Perhaps those that think they have to remind the pro-innocent people about the value of human life plausibly are really making a statement about their own necrophilia.

A definition of the psychological term projection:

Projection: Projection is one of the defense mechanisms identified by Freud and still acknowledged today. According to Freud, projection is when someone is threatened by or afraid of their own impulses so they attribute these impulses to someone else. For example, a person in psychoanalysis may insist to the therapist that he knows the therapist wants to rape some women, when in fact the client has these awful feelings to rape the woman.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

That Meredith has been murdered is an undisputed fact that does NOT alter the probability of guilt of Amanda and Raffaele.

Please review what I actual wrote. I made no mention of the probability of guilt merely the simple fact that they are involved in a criminal appeal for murder in Italy.

 

[Juror]

If what you state above is the case one could conclude that this would be demonstrated during the appeal.

You speak of a professional witness/drug dealer, what is your opinion of a convicted baby killer Alessi and a convicted Camorra enforcer Aviello, are these people more credible than a professional witness/drug dealer? Your focus I assume is Amanda and Raffaele, others think of the murder victim.

Like you I don’t know what the outcome of this appeal will be, but at least Amanda and Raffaele have a chance which is more than what can be said for Meredith Kercher.

My understanding is the defense is basically arguing that if the court/investigation has set the bar at a level that gives credibility to Curatolo, then to be consistent the court/investigation has no reason not to consider the testimony of these other characters.

 

[LondonJohn]

I notice that at the end of the film, the producers give special thanks to Curt Knox and Eddie Melas. Does this mean that they were involved in its production? If so, why all the protests now?
Perhaps they initially saw it as a piece of positive propaganda for their case. If so, it seems to have backfired somewhat.

Do you mean the film, or do you mean the documentary which followed the film? Curt Knox and Edda Mellas (not Eddie Melas) are thanked in the end credits to the documentary, which is hardly surprising since they appeared in it. AFAIK, Knox parents are not thanked or even acknowledged in the end credits of the film.

I'm sure you'll be happy to clarify, since your inference here is that Knox's parents helped with the making of the feature film, but then criticised it when they saw it. Thanks in advance.

PS: Anyone who disparages the look of the risotto made by Sollecito's character in the movie clearly doesn't know how to make risotto properly. It SHOULD look somewhat like wet porridge, and should have almost a pouring consistency. If you can pile up a risotto in the centre of a plate, you haven't made a decent risotto

 

[CoulsdonUK]

My understanding is the defense is basically arguing that if the court/investigation has set the bar at a level that gives credibility to Curatolo, then to be consistent the court/investigation has no reason not to consider the testimony of these other characters.

I thought Alessi was being called because he made a statement that Guede had informed him Amanda and Raffaele were not at the cottage? Also I thought Aviello was being called because he has stated that his brother and another person murdered Meredith and he knows the location of possible evidence, isn’t this why they are being called as witnesses?

 

[Juror]

I thought Alessi was being called because he made a statement that Guede had informed him Amanda and Raffaele were not at the cottage? Also I thought Aviello was being called because he has stated that his brother and another person murdered Meredith and he knows the location of possible evidence, isn’t this why they are being called as witnesses?

They are being called because they make statements that support AK and RS but I don't think the point is to prove such statements but rather illustrate the bias and demonstrate reasonable doubt.

Curatolo is key in that he places them at the crime scene. So with these other two testifying, the question becomes why should the court believe Curatolo over them? This is how I would guess the defense would frame the issue.

Remember the burden of proof - a win for the defense would be the court tosses all three out as unreliable.

 

[snook1]

Do you mean the film, or do you mean the documentary which followed the film? Curt Knox and Edda Mellas (not Eddie Melas) are thanked in the end credits to the documentary, which is hardly surprising since they appeared in it. AFAIK, Knox parents are not thanked or even acknowledged in the end credits of the film.

LondonJohn, did you maybe record the documentary?

 

[RoseMontague]

I thought Alessi was being called because he made a statement that Guede had informed him Amanda and Raffaele were not at the cottage? Also I thought Aviello was being called because he has stated that his brother and another person murdered Meredith and he knows the location of possible evidence, isn’t this why they are being called as witnesses?

There has been no agreement by the court on hearing these witnesses. Raffaele's defense team is correct that the cops should have followed such leads with at least a minimum amount of investigation but they are making a strategic mistake by taking it any further than that, in my opinion.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

There has been no agreement by the court on hearing these witnesses. Raffaele's defense team is correct that the cops should have followed such leads with at least a minimum amount of investigation but they are making a strategic mistake by taking it any further than that, in my opinion.

I agree that the appeal judge has not ruled on whether Alessi and or Aviello will be heard as witnesses. However, I believe part of the difficulty with Aviello is that he wrote directly to the trial judge during the trial and I believe this is not the correct protocol, maybe you know more than I do. Thank you either way for your input.