Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[capealadin]

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kevin_Lowe

You and others have made you position clear you will accept only one verdict an odd point of view given that you have no idea what is going to unfold in the appeal.

Please don't put words in our mouths, when the words are stupid.

If (and I think this is incredibly unlikely) the prosecution pulls some astounding rabbit out of their hat which could not have been faked and which proves beyond all reasonable doubt Amanda and Raffaele did it, all rational people would change their views accordingly. The pro-innocence posters here are mostly rational, and all but maybe one or two would switch to the pro-guilt side if the evidence went that way.

However I really struggle to see what this evidence could possibly be at this stage, and where it could have been hiding.

If no such new evidence is presented in the appeals, then of course our opinion of the matter will not change. It takes evidence to change a rational person's opinion, not the empty say-so of a Perugian lawyer.

My position for example is one of waiting to see what the results of the independent geneticist because their report and not your links will have a direct impact on the course of the appeal.

It seems strange to position oneself as interested in the outcome of the appeal but not in the factual guilt or innocence of the parties on trial.

Finally, I believe maybe naively that there is no alternative than the judicial process that is taking place, I certainly do not subscribe to justice via the internet. I can honestly and sincerely state that I will accept whatever the verdict of the appeal will be.

Do you think it's possible to know the truth without being told by a Perugian in a wig?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Proven false only by Internet slueths who haven't even read the trial transcript but believe that by Googling they become experts in Italian jurisprudence and forensic science.

What exactly do you think is in the trial transcripts that is not in a single journalist's report of the proceedings, not in the judge's report, not known to a single relevant lawyer, not mentioned in any of the available appeal proceedings and has not been leaked or even mentioned to the media by the incredibly leaky Perugia law enforcement community?

You have to have religious faith bordering on fanaticism to believe that this magical super-evidence exists, but only in the trial transcript and absolutely nowhere else.

It requires equal faith to believe that this magical super-evidence hidden in the transcript and never mentioned elsewhere overrides well-established science.

Also, I can't help but point out that you have tried running this exact talking point before. It hasn't started making any more sense since last time.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

waste of time

Halides1

My point is a simple one, many of you describe how Raffaele and Amanda were treated by the Italian media as though it was unusual but clearly it is not given the links you and others have provided, once again I am not saying it is right but clearly it is common. Indeed, I believe most Italians know what their tabloid media is like (TV and printed media) and are far more discerning than people outside of Italy give them credit for, it’s a bit like judging American media based on the content of the National Enquirer or in the UK the Sun, Daily Mirror or favourite the Daily Mail.

The Stasi case is indeed sad and incredible but as I have said not unique in Italy or anywhere else for that matter, I believe you have researched the Duke Lacrosse Team case.

In the UK we have had cases like the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six a UK TV presenter called Jill Dando who was shot and killed on her door step; Barry George was arrested sent to trial and convicted on a minuscule piece of evidence, his appeal was subsequently heard and he was released in 2007, I think. I am not stating the judicial process of any country is always right, but in the UK cases the judicial process resulted in convictions being overturned and in some cases the illegal actions of police officers being exposed.

(highlighting mine)
CoulsdonUK,

I brought up those other cases to show that demonization was not unique to this case and to illustrate how corrosive it is to the presumption of innocence. If I had known what your response would be, I would not have bothered to read up on the Stasi case and provide those citations.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

now I have two data points

Just below “not incompatible” is the latest phenomenon “internet expert” we don’t need a judicial process of a sovereign state we have our search (insert your choice) engine.

CoulsdonUK,

I suggest you define the term "internet expert." n = 2 as far as I am concerned.

 

[Kaosium]

Just below “not incompatible” is the latest phenomenon “internet expert” we don’t need a judicial process of a sovereign state we have our search (insert your choice) engine.

I give credit where credit is due, one excellent procedure inherent to the Italian System is the concept of Motivations Reports, it's one I'd like to see our judicial process embrace. In this case it wraps up in 400 or so pages the evidence against the accused as well (as best as can be constructed) as their theory of the commission of the crime and the reasoning behind the verdict. To add to that are translated transcripts of court testimony and documents as well as gigabytes of crime scene photos and other data available to be perused without limitation. Add to that the analysis of additional experts and commentators, a significant number of them professional grade. Quite frankly I find the idea that the jury in this instance could or did know as much about the case as dozens if not hundreds of people arguing it right now utterly absurd.

Incidentally, I started exactly where you did on the issue of the Italian legal system. I had no reason to think it was any better or worse than any other western democracy. My mind changed reading the arguments and the evidence presented by both those who though Amanda and Raffaele guilty and those who thought them innocent, by those who admired the system and those who despised it. Initially I thought some facets of it kinda neat, in fact in a couple instances there were ideas incorporated I'd thought would be improvements to our own system. I have changed my mind on many of them, but not on the Motivations Reports.

BTW, you can go through my thousand or so posts here and you won't find a single one praising our own legal system, though you might find a few snarks about 'doesn't it make you ashamed to know you live in a land where justice is a game?' You will find kind words about other legal systems however. I don't hold any human or human institution as infallible, even ones I know intimately and admire in many respects.

 

[Kaosium]

That is way out of proportion, the question is does he seriously believe the charges or does he privately know they are BS and Amanda is innocent. If the former he should be disbarred and kicked out of his job. If the later he should do some prison time. But the founding fathers were right not to allow cruel or unusual punishment. I just don't trust the competency of the public to hand out death sentences, there are way too many idiots in this world.

I have wondered this for a while, whether Mignini himself still actually believes them guilty, and it may have been answered in the recent documentary that aired on Lifetime after their movie about the case. Mignini states there that he definitely believes it, and I tend to believe him as it fits with what I've read of him. I also suspect there are those involved in the persecution and prosecution of Amanda and Raffaele that know damn well they're (probably) innocent.

 

[Chris C]

I give credit where credit is due, one excellent procedure inherent to the Italian System is the concept of Motivations Reports, it's one I'd like to see our judicial process embrace.

I don't know if a 400 page document on why a Judge accepts an unanimous decisous from a Jury is a good use of time. It might be a good idea in Italy where you dont need a unanimous decision.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I don't know if a 400 page document on why a Judge accepts an unanimous decisous from a Jury is a good use of time. It might be a good idea in Italy where you dont need a unanimous decision.

Personally I like it a great deal. I think that forcing the court to put its reasoning down in detail, as opposed to recording the evidence and the conclusion without the reasoning, might well lead to more reasonable conclusions.

 

[bri1]

Personally I like it a great deal. I think that forcing the court to put its reasoning down in detail, as opposed to recording the evidence and the conclusion without the reasoning, might well lead to more reasonable conclusions.

I agree. I'd also add, Coulsdon UK, that the point of having trials in the open (as opposed to in secret) - the point of our public bodies being transparent - is to allow precisely for the kind of democratic oversight happening right here on this board. Democracies allow and encourage the scrutiny of our executive and judiciary. We are providing such scrutiny, surely? It's the ultimate failsafe against corruption.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Halides1\Kaosium

I freely accept that a number of people on both sides of this case have invested a lot of time sifting through and analysing information via the web it has boiled down to those who believe in their innocence and others believing they are guilty. As I have said on a number of occasions I do not agree with justice via the internet, for me it is not whether the jury know as much as you or are as qualified in a particular field as other posters here and elsewhere. Italy is a sovereign western democracy with its own judicial system and it will administer this case according to that system, this is exactly what happens in the US and UK.

Maybe I am a modern day Luddite and the future might be justice via the internet.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I agree. I'd also add, Coulsdon UK, that the point of having trials in the open (as opposed to in secret) - the point of our public bodies being transparent - is to allow precisely for the kind of democratic oversight happening right here on this board. Democracies allow and encourage the scrutiny of our executive and judiciary. We are providing such scrutiny, surely? It's the ultimate failsafe against corruption.

Italy like any other country has the right to prosecute court cases according to its own judicial system, we outside of Italy can and do comment on our interpretation of what is unfolding in this particular case, but I do feel it is wrong to impose other countries values on another sovereign country. Take Guantanamo Bay, all international institutions have condemned America for its existence, some argue America is in breach of international laws, nonetheless it will not be closed down until America and only America decides to do so.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

(highlighting mine)
CoulsdonUK,

I brought up those other cases to show that demonization was not unique to this case and to illustrate how corrosive it is to the presumption of innocence. If I had known what your response would be, I would not have bothered to read up on the Stasi case and provide those citations.

Halides1

Sorry not a very good post on my part. The UK cases I mentioned involved those who I believe were also demonized in the media.

 

[Alt+F4]

What exactly do you think is in the trial transcripts that is not in a single journalist's report of the proceedings, not in the judge's report, not known to a single relevant lawyer, not mentioned in any of the available appeal proceedings and has not been leaked or even mentioned to the media by the incredibly leaky Perugia law enforcement community?

How about the actual testimony of the witnesses rather than what journalists say it was. Much of what you think you know about this case is based on hearsay, rumors and gossip.

How many pages do you think are in the complete case file? Some folks say 10,000. How much has been available to the general public? Maybe 1,000 pages? So you're basing your conclusion on innocence with only having seen 10% of the evidence. Not a very convincing argument for innocence.

 

[babycondor]

deleted

 

[Dan O.]

Italy like any other country has the right to prosecute court cases according to its own judicial system, we outside of Italy can and do comment on our interpretation of what is unfolding in this particular case, but I do feel it is wrong to impose other countries values on another sovereign country. Take Guantanamo Bay, all international institutions have condemned America for its existence, some argue America is in breach of international laws, nonetheless it will not be closed down until America and only America decides to do so.

All the other countries in the world are wimps when it comes to telling America what to do. That has no bearing on the failures in Italies judicial system.


Your every post has been telling us that we need to lie down like sheep and accept whatever the Italian judiciary says. Why do you bother? You choose to ignore the evidence and science and state quite clearly that you will accept whatever decision the judges hand down. Are you that easily manipulated? If the Italian supreme court says they are bowing to the pressure of the international blogosphere and exonerating Amanda, will you accept that decision?

 

[Justinian2]

At this point I would not trust any new evidence presented by the prosecution. The prosecution hasn't been a trustworthy source of evidence to say the least.

It's possible I could change my mind. For example, some of the recent simulations of the JFK assassination altered my thinking. I think now that the magic bullet was not so impossible. The simulations came almost 40 years later.

Any new Bra clasps wouldn't change my mind. I would be skeptical of any new evidence.

My distrust of the prosecution is 100%.

 

[Alt+F4]

Your every post has been telling us that we need to lie down like sheep and accept whatever the Italian judiciary says.

What other choice do you have but to accept whatever the Italian judiciary says when all of this is concluded? Break Amanda out of prison?

If the Italian supreme court says they are bowing to the pressure of the international blogosphere and exonerating Amanda, will you accept that decision?

There is no pressure coming from the international blogosphere and courts don't make their determinations based on what folks on the Internet say.

The only way to help Amanda's cause is to donate to her defense fund. Her family is probably close to broke (they do have other kids to care for too) and I'm sure expert witnessess are very expensive. Pontificating anyonmously behind a keyboard about the greatest injustice since the Dreyfus Affair does nothing to actually address that perceived injustice.

 

[babycondor]

...

The only way to help Amanda's cause is to donate to her defense fund. Her family is probably close to broke (they do have other kids to care for too) and I'm sure expert witnessess are very expensive. Pontificating anyonmously behind a keyboard about the greatest injustice since the Dreyfus Affair does nothing to actually address that perceived injustice.

I disagree. Donating to her defense fund is certainly the most immediately useful action one could take. But expressing opinions that are backed up by reasonable arguments and facts can be very persuasive in shedding light on the injustice and producing changes in public perception.

You might consider the case of Nelson Mandela, who was released from prison after 27 years due to local and international pressure. (I am by no means elevating the Knox/Sollecito case to the level of a Nelson Mandela situation, but merely offering it as an example of how public pressure can reverse a court's decision).

You might also consider the hundreds of wrongfully convicted "murderers" who have later been exonerated and released, at least partly because of public campaigns tirelessly pursued on their behalf.

 

[snook1]

How many pages do you think are in the complete case file? Some folks say 10,000. How much has been available to the general public? Maybe 1,000 pages? So you're basing your conclusion on innocence with only having seen 10% of the evidence. Not a very convincing argument for innocence.

You're wrong, again.
The fact that there is 10,000 pages of the case file isn't equal with 10,000 pages of evidence. Barbie Nadeau, who attended all the trial sessions, didn't say anything about the fact that there are any unknown to the public evidence in this case.

There's no hidden evidence as far as I know, unless you mean another crazy theory that Mignini is holding back.