Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Justinian2]

They don't do anything because they know justice has been served in this case.

You can't prove that because you haven't even established that they know what justice is.

All you can truthfully say is that "They don't do anything because they don't know that justice has NOT been served in this case because they are ignorant."

And the reason they remain ignorant is that there are no world organizations for the quality control of justice (other than by the non-profit organizations which are hugely underfunded).

 

[CoulsdonUK]

"Italy continued to lack an effective police accountability mechanism. There were irregularities in legal processes against law enforcement officials accused of human rights violations."

I accept the link of Amnesty findings, this is not an internationally binding body and as I have said far more serious claims exists for other countries.

When a grieving mother calls her son's killers "felons," it is less a statement of fact than it is one of emotional pain. For anyone to sue her for saying what she did in such circumstances is appalling.

I completely agree with your comment regarding the Mothers grieve. However, I responded in the context of what I believe is their law. You and others would argue that Raffaele and Amanda are not considered guilty until their appeals were exhausted if that applies to them then it must apply to all; Justice must be blind.

Along with statements from the Committee to Protect Journalists that I have cited previously, this case bolsters my impression that ILE has too much power and too little oversight. They are very fond of suing people, as noted here many times. MOO.

The power of the Italian judiciary was created because of fascist government abuses, parliamentary abuses of power\corruption not to mention organised crime in Italy; the judiciary is controlled by their criminal penal codes as a check and balance system against abuse of the judiciary, I believe this is an issue for the Italian electorate to address.

 

[babycondor]

Thank you, I kind of knew you would come back with more information.

I agree the Italian judicial system is slow. However, the link points to general findings covering 2000 – 2006 which was before Meredith was murdered. In addition, ECHR has not and cannot make a ruling on a specific case until the judicial process has been fully exhausted in a member state.

As for whether their trial was fair:

Was the collection and processing of evidence different in some way than other murder cases in Italy at the time?

Are you and others stating that this trial in particular is different in its implementation from other murder cases in Italy? For example in the context of a murder case, was a non Italian or non EU citizen allowed house arrest or allowed to leave Italy until their trial?

Difficult questions to answer but this would be the only way of demonstrating that their treatment was in some way different to other comparable murder cases.

You keep moving the goalposts.

 

[Justinian2]

You keep moving the goalposts.

"Lies are infinite in number, and the truth so small and singular." -Barbara Kingsolver, The Lacuna

In this case, the prosecution's "evidences" are semi-infinite in number. Does that mean that they are lies?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

You keep moving the goalposts.

Based on the quote you included, I agreed with the first point and responded to the second by asking a series of questions relating to how one could demonstrate Raffaele and Amanda did not receive a fair trial. I also made general comments regarding ECHR.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

"Lies are infinite in number, and the truth so small and singular." -Barbara Kingsolver, The Lacuna

In this case, the prosecution's "evidences" are semi-infinite in number. Does that mean that they are lies?

No it means that if the defence cannot refute the prosecutions case or raise reasonable doubt in the judges and jury's minds Raffaele and Amanda will lose their appeal.

 

[Kaosium]

Other than that, nothing you do means anything.

"If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do."

 

[Justinian2]

No it means that if the defence cannot refute the prosecutions case or raise reasonable doubt in the judges and jury's minds Raffaele and Amanda will lose their appeal.

Some people think that the majority is correct and/or that might makes right. And then there are individuals like Newton, Galileo, and Einstein that show the majority that they are wrong.

Very few people think logically and make fact based decisions that deviate from the majority. Have you noticed how all of today's newspaper accounts about the appeal say almost exactly the same thing? Not that they are wrong, just that reporters and their readers follow the herd.

Of course it's possible that Raffaele and Amanda will lose their appeal. If the magicians beat the scientists, that's what will happen. And the world will rest on the backs of elephants at the center of the universe.

I think that there is a slight reason to believe that the trend is towards finding Amanda and Raffaele innocent. More and more newspapers are agreeing with the defense's evidence.

 

[Justinian2]

Amanda was reported to have been in tears today in the courtroom. It is thought the defense had a good day.

Appealing her conviction today, Amanda told the packed courtroom she is not the "dangerous, diabolical, jealous" person the prosecution made her out to me.

"I am innocent. Raffaele is innocent. We did not kill Meredith," she proclaimed.

And speaking directly to Meredith's family, who had traveled from the UK for the hearing, Knox said, "I am sorry Meredith is no longer living. I too have little sisters and the idea of their suffering, their loss, terrifies me."

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusiv...tears-she-appeals-her-murder-conviction-italy

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Some people think that the majority is correct and/or that might makes right. And then there are individuals like Newton, Galileo, and Einstein that show the majority that they are wrong.

What do you suggest as an alternative to a majority verdict? Sorry you are attempting to link what 2 physicist and an astronomer to this case, why?

Very few people think logically and make fact based decisions that deviate from the majority. Have you noticed how all of today's newspaper accounts about the appeal say almost exactly the same thing? Not that they are wrong, just that reporters and their readers follow the herd.

I see I assume you and those who agree with your position are capable of logical reasoning, whilst others are not? Most English reports on today’s appeal proceedings stem from the Associated Press.

Of course it's possible that Raffaele and Amanda will lose their appeal. If the magicians beat the scientists, that's what will happen. And the world will rest on the backs of elephants at the center of the universe.

A philosophical question, if the elephants are holding up the earth and the universe, then what are elephants standing on?

I think that there is a slight reason to believe that the trend is towards finding Amanda and Raffaele innocent. More and more newspapers are agreeing with the defense's evidence.

Okay you’re entitled to your opinion, I’d just rather wait for the appeal to actually take place and see what the verdict is.

 

[Alt+F4]

Amanda was reported to have been in tears today in the courtroom. It is thought the defense had a good day.

Today? That linked is dated December 11, 2010.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Today? That linked is dated December 11, 2010.

Apparently Nick Pisa reported she was tearful. There is also a video in which she seems to have been crying when entering the court but it is hard to tell.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It is a simple fact of the judicial process that the appeal court and only the appeal court will decide Raffaele and Amanda’s culpability; therefore, the high ground you refer to is irrelevant. Agreed Guede’s sentence and conviction has been confirmed.

It's curious how a subset of the pro-guilt community flip-flop between arguing that Amanda and Raffaele are factually guilty, and arguing that regardless of their guilt or innocence they will lose in court.

One would think that we could all agree that their factual guilt or innocence is what should decide our view, and that the court's subsequent decision should be judged on that basis.

 

[babycondor]

One would think that we could all agree that their factual guilt or innocence is what should decide our view, and that the court's subsequent decision should be judged on that basis.

One would think we could all agree that if the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were guilty of the charges against them, then Amanda and Raffaele should have been acquitted.

The thought process of some people who favor the guilty verdict seems to be, "Amanda and Raffaele kept changing their stories, they lied, there are so many unanswered questions and things that don't make sense...so they must be guilty somehow, of something. Therefore I accept the court's decision."

I don't think that kind of reasoning is subject to being changed, because it's based on a faulty premise.

 

[Justinian2]

What do you suggest as an alternative to a majority verdict? Sorry you are attempting to link what 2 physicist and an astronomer to this case, why?

That was funny. You have a natural wit, I think.

I see I assume you and those who agree with your position are capable of logical reasoning, whilst others are not? Most English reports on today’s appeal proceedings stem from the Associated Press.

I have the choice of laughing at your sarcasm or explaining. I'll choose to laugh. Good one, old chap!

A philosophical question, if the elephants are holding up the earth and the universe, then what are elephants standing on?

I never actually got that far in the logical chain of reasoning. I always wondered where they got an elephant that big.

Okay you’re entitled to your opinion, I’d just rather wait for the appeal to actually take place and see what the verdict is.

Have some beer and pretzels while you're watching.

 

[Justinian2]

What do you suggest as an alternative to a majority verdict? Sorry you are attempting to link what 2 physicist and an astronomer to this case, why?

My point was that a majority verdict and being correct are potentially two different things. If the majority thinks that Amanda is guilty (or not guilty) does mean the verdict is correct.

What is correct? Take all of man's knowledge and calculate every single possibility. Then assign a score to the outcome. That is how a chess computer determines the correct move. The chess computer can easily beat a majority vote of people not using computers.

However, even in a chess calculation, there comes a time when there are twenty nearly equal moves. So what then? If a person's life is at stake you have to decide whether to let him (or her) go or destroy their lives when there is no clear decision.

I think that Amanda is clearly innocent. Whether or not the majority agrees is irrelevant to the truth.

 

[zeb]

So to day we had seven witness, who said there was no disco bus,s runing on the first of nov.
But the funny thing is these witness was ask by the police the same Question early on in the investagtion.
So that points to the prosecution knew that there was no disco bus,s the night of the murder.
So their star witness, is a mixed up person doing what the prosecutor says, and not forgetting, he change his story ten times while on the witness stand.

 

[zeb]

ALT + F4.
Its seems your house of cards has started to full, and full they will.

 

[RoseMontague]

So to day we had seven witness, who said there was no disco bus,s runing on the first of nov.
But the funny thing is these witness was ask by the police the same Question early on in the investagtion.
So that points to the prosecution knew that there was no disco bus,s the night of the murder.
So their star witness, is a mixed up person doing what the prosecutor says, and not forgetting, he change his story ten times while on the witness stand.

Frank has a post up about this:

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2011/03/mysterious-disappearence-in-knox.html

Hope Frank's meeting with Mignini goes OK.

They told me to take a disco bus named Desire, and then transfer to one called Cemeteries and ride six blocks and get off at Elysian Fields.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

So to day we had seven witness, who said there was no disco bus,s runing on the first of nov.
But the funny thing is these witness was ask by the police the same Question early on in the investagtion.
So that points to the prosecution knew that there was no disco bus,s the night of the murder.
So their star witness, is a mixed up person doing what the prosecutor says, and not forgetting, he change his story ten times while on the witness stand.

The witnesses were called by the defence to try and raise reasonable doubt in Curatolo's testimony; if he got the disco buses wrong then he could be wrong about his statement of seeing Raffaele and Amanda. I guess we’ll have to wait and see what Curatolo's states when he is recalled and how he stands up to cross-examination from the defence teams.