• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

Reasonable argument?

Pro Amanda Person: You should really learn about the Amanda Knox case, she's an innocent girl wrongly convicted of murder in Italy.

Ignorant Person: Really? Send me a link to the trail transcript so I can learn more about this.

Pro Amanda Person: Well you can't read the trial transcript, it's not available on line.

Ignorant Person: Then how do you know she's innocent if you haven't read the testimony of the witnesses for and against her?

Pro Amanda Person: Well I know she's innocent, that's all that matters.

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).

Yeah, and even with intense international press the reversal of that decision took 27 years! Amanda willl be out of prison by then.

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.

All of those wrongly convicted of murder were exonerated because of new evidence, such as retesting old DNA, or confessions by the real killer(2). Not one has been exonerated just because of public pressure. There was one case where all the witnessess recanted and the prosecutor and police chief wrote affidavits in support of vacating the conviction. I don't see that happening in this case.

Look at the case of Lindy Chamberlain. She had almost no one advocating for her after her conviction, yet she was still exonerated thanks to the finding of the babies jacket. If there is new evidence that Amanda is innocent that is what will exonerate her, not what folks on the Internet say about her.
 
The fact that there is 10,000 pages of the case file isn't equal with 10,000 pages of evidence.

How many pages are there of the actual testimony of the witnesses? Besides Amanda's how many have you read? How many hundreds of photos are in that case file? You don't know because while you believe you actually know a lot about this trial, you don't.

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.

Barbie Nadeau is not impartial and she has gotten some of her facts wrong. According to her, "At one point the stepmother of Raffaele Sollecito, Knox’s former boyfriend who was sentenced to 25 years for his part in the murder, yelled out **** you,” then cried loudly in a fit of hysteria." We know this didn't happen, it's a lie and this is the person you trust for accurate reporting?

Edited by jhunter1163: 
To properly mask profanity.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-04/amanda-knoxs-next-move/

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

I never said there was hidden evidence, what I'm saying is that the pro Amanda innocence have made their opinion without having seen and read all the evidence that was presented.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Look at the case of Lindy Chamberlain. She had almost no one advocating for her after her conviction, yet she was still exonerated thanks to the finding of the babies jacket. If there is new evidence that Amanda is innocent that is what will exonerate her, not what folks on the Internet say about her.

I don't think this is true: the matinee jacket was mainly important in that the police had claimed it didn't exist, and that Lindy Chamberlain had made it up. I can't see that it actually proved her innocent. Sure, it was found in an area where there were dingoes, but that's not such a rarity in the outback, and after all the jacket wasn't found till six years after the baby's death. I would say that the finding of the jacket just provided the excuse needed for the Northern Territory to release her, due to general concerns about the safety of the conviction. From here:

The fight for freedom was to be a long and arduous process that would take nearly six years. From the moment the jury's verdict had been handed down, the battle had begun. It was to be fought on three major fronts: the popular, the scientific and the legal, by people from all walks of life outraged at the injustice that had been done.

The popular movement to enlighten the Australian public of the truth about the Azaria Chamberlain case had begun as far back as October 1982, before the opening of the trial. Mr. L Williams began placing advertisements in Adelaide's Sunday Mail blaming the Northern Territory Government for Azaria's death because of its insistence on supporting a policy that allowed wild dingoes to roam in family camping grounds. He continued to run these advertisements until September 1985, costing him $5000.00 in personal funds. His last advertisement claimed that by convicting Lindy Chamberlain of murdering Azaria, the Northern Territory Government had been acquitted along with the dingo.

The "Free Lindy Campaign" would come to appear to be the most well organised public rallying effort ever to be seen in Australia. In fact, it was mostly due to the spontaneous efforts of individuals who had risen to the cause, drawing with them thousands of new supporters. At its base were men and women who gave tirelessly to the cause of justice and the Chamberlains. People such as Veronica Flanigan who went from door to door in her village, 120 kilometres southwest of Sydney, gathering names for a petition. Mrs. J Edwards spent hours in Perth central mall handing out leaflets urging people to write to parliamentarians about the case. In Melbourne supporters stood on street corners, collecting signatures, twelve hours a day. A group of Brisbane women organised the mailing of masses of letters to politicians and newspapers. A schoolteacher traveled from Victoria to Darwin to set up vigil with placards outside Parliament to protest 'bush justice'. The efforts of all of these people resulted in the gathering of the largest number of signatures on a petition for a private person in Australia's history, numbering in excess of 130,000.

Every means possible was used to keep the Azaria Chamberlain case alive in the minds of the Australian public, meetings were organised all over the country, thousands of letters were written to newspapers and politicians, leaflets and flyers were written, printed and distributed, letter-box drops were organised, bumper stickers and t-shirts were printed. A pre-recorded information service was established to enable supporters to gain up-to-the-minute information. Hundreds of thousands of books, booklets and pamphlets covering various aspects of the case were distributed all over the country. In an effort to co-ordinate all of these individual activities, a newsletter was created. By January 1988, fourteen issues had been published. It covered detailed reports of every aspect of the case and the results of all legal proceedings, as they became available. [...]

It was through the tireless and unwavering support and actions of these people that an inquiry into the Chamberlain case was finally opened. The public outcry had become so loud that politicians could no longer ignore the facts, and action was at last taken.
 
Last edited:
How many pages are there of the actual testimony of the witnesses? Besides Amanda's how many have you read? How many hundreds of photos are in that case file? You don't know because while you believe you actually know a lot about this trial, you don't.



Barbie Nadeau is not impartial and she has gotten some of her facts wrong. According to her, "At one point the stepmother of Raffaele Sollecito, Knox’s former boyfriend who was sentenced to 25 years for his part in the murder, yelled out **** you,” then cried loudly in a fit of hysteria." We know this didn't happen, it's a lie and this is the person you trust for accurate reporting?

Edited by jhunter1163: 
To properly mask profanity.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-04/amanda-knoxs-next-move/



I never said there was hidden evidence, what I'm saying is that the pro Amanda innocence have made their opinion without having seen and read all the evidence that was presented.
Sollecito's stepmom actually said "Forza, Raffaele!" which roughly translates to "Be strong, Raffaele!"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think this is true: the matinee jacket was mainly important in that the police had claimed it didn't exist, and that Lindy Chamberlain had made it up. I can't see that it actually proved her innocent. Sure, it was found in an area where there were dingoes, but that's not such a rarity in the outback, and after all the jacket wasn't found till six years after the baby's death. I would say that the finding of the jacket just provided the excuse needed for the Northern Territory to release her, due to general concerns about the safety of the conviction. From here:

Thank you katy, I didn't realize she had that much support. But even with that support she was not released until the jacket was found, even if the authorities might have had doubts about her guilt.

I see the same thing happening in this case. Unless new evidence is found the outcome will remain the same - guilty.
 
Thank you katy, I didn't realize she had that much support. But even with that support she was not released until the jacket was found, even if the authorities might have had doubts about her guilt.

I see the same thing happening in this case. Unless new evidence is found the outcome will remain the same - guilty.

Agree on both counts.
 
Reasonable argument?

Pro Amanda Person: You should really learn about the Amanda Knox case, she's an innocent girl wrongly convicted of murder in Italy.

Ignorant Person: Really? Send me a link to the trail transcript so I can learn more about this.

Pro Amanda Person: Well you can't read the trial transcript, it's not available on line.

Ignorant Person: Then how do you know she's innocent if you haven't read the testimony of the witnesses for and against her?

Pro Amanda Person: Well I know she's innocent, that's all that matters.

A gross oversimplification, exaggeration, and misrepresentation of the dialog.


If there is new evidence that Amanda is innocent that is what will exonerate her, not what folks on the Internet say about her.

No new evidence is required. Discrediting the existing evidence would suffice to create reasonable doubt (which already exists in my opinion.)
 
Last edited:
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.

If anything, make the 1st appeal automatic in the USA and let the appeal court write the document.
 
A gross oversimplification, exaggeration, and misrepresentation of the dialog.




No new evidence is required. Discrediting the existing evidence would suffice to meet the standard of reasonable doubt (which has already been met in my opinion.)

As an example. ToD. A different ToD equals not guilty.
 
A gross oversimplification, exaggeration, and misrepresentation of the dialog.




No new evidence is required. Discrediting the existing evidence would suffice to meet the standard of reasonable doubt (which has already been met in my opinion.)
Has the trial transcript been released?
 
Last edited:
As the trial transcript been released?

It's my understanding (and I could be wrong) that the transcript is available from the court for 2 euros per page, then of course it would have to be translated into English, which would be an expensive undertaking. Supposedly both Barbie Nadeau and Steve Moore have read it. Where they got it from, I don't know.

A few posters made reference to the Todd Willingham case as an example of a wrongful conviction. When you research this at the Innocence Project guess what they have on their website to support his innocence: THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS!!!
 
It's my understanding (and I could be wrong) that the transcript is available from the court for 2 euros per page, then of course it would have to be translated into English, which would be an expensive undertaking. Supposedly both Barbie Nadeau and Steve Moore have read it. Where they got it from, I don't know.

A few posters made reference to the Todd Willingham case as an example of a wrongful conviction. When you research this at the Innocence Project guess what they have on their website to support his innocence: THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS!!!
I thought trial transcripts were retained until the convictions were confirmed like in the case of Guede then released as a public record or retained in the case of an acquittal.
 
Has the trial transcript been released?

Are you suggesting that everyone must now have read the (unavailable) trial transcript in order to evaluate the mountain of evidence that has already been made available? This is an example of "moving the goalposts," apparently a tactic you favor.

Is there likely to be something hidden in the transcript that hasn't been made public before now, that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty?
 
Is there likely to be something hidden in the transcript that hasn't been made public before now...

Yes, the actual verbatim testimony of all the witnesses.

EDIT: Are you actually going to argue that knowing what the witnesses said, in their own words, is not important when deciding guilt or innocence?
 
Last edited:
Babycondor:

Are you suggesting that everyone must now have read the (unavailable) trial transcript in order to evaluate the mountain of evidence that has already been made available? This is an example of "moving the goalposts," apparently a tactic you favor.

You deduced that by me asking a simple question Has the trial transcript been released? Please explain how the 6 highlighted words constitute me moving goalposts? I asked a question I made no further statement, I have since explained my reasoning for the question
I thought trial transcripts were retained until the convictions were confirmed like in the case of Guede then released as a public record or retained in the case of an acquittal.
 
Last edited:
Babycondor:



You deduced that by me asking a simple question Has the trial transcript been released? Please explain how the 6 highlighted words constitute me moving goalposts? I asked a question I made no further statement, I have since explained my reasoning for the question

Sorry, I jumped to an incorrect conclusion.
 
Yes, the actual verbatim testimony of all the witnesses.

EDIT: Are you actually going to argue that knowing what the witnesses said, in their own words, is not important when deciding guilt or innocence?

No, I'm not going to argue that.

When you read the trial transcript, what specific testimony convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt that AK and RS conspired with Rudy Guede to murder Meredith?
 
When you read the trial transcript, what specific testimony convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt that AK and RS conspired with Rudy Guede to murder Meredith?

I never concluded beyond a resonable doubt that AK and RS conspired with RG to murder MK....that's because I didn't read the transcript.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom