Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris C]

Are you suggesting that ToD is different between Raffaele and Amanda trial and the appeal?

Coroner places the ToD before 10pm. Prosecutor in Knox/Sollecito case has the ToD after 11:30pm. Rudy's conviction has the ToD before 10:30pm and admits to seeing the people standing in the street with a broke down car when he left. Do the math.

 

[Chris C]

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?

How did PMF get Knox's trial transcript of her testimony? Are you saying only Knox's is available?

 

[Alt+F4]

How did PMF get Knox's trial transcript of her testimony?

Good question. I don't know.

Are you saying only Knox's is available?

I haven't read the verbatim testimony of any other witness. Have you?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Coroner places the ToD before 10pm. Prosecutor in Knox/Sollecito case has the ToD after 11:30pm. Rudy's conviction has the ToD before 10:30pm and admits to seeing the people standing in the street with a broke down car when he left. Do the math.

Thank you for your suggestion of “do the math”. However, many of Raffaele and Amanda’s supporters here have stressed that the result of Guede judicial process is distinct from Raffaele and Amanda’s appeal process, whilst I have stated that the prosecution or defence are now in a position to use anything from Guede’s trial\appeal if they wish, therefore, can we firstly clarify whether the ToD in Guede’s trial\appeal has any binding or legal bearing in the Raffaele and Amanda’s appeal?

 

[Dan O.]

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?

I understand that you as an authority follower have no choice but to accept whatever any authority says. I however can make my personal choice not to visit or support any state that I perceive has a dysfunctional court system. I can also work to insure that the best known information is available for others that want to make their own decisions.

It is up to Italy to either find Amanda not guilty or release the information that proves their case against her and clear the perception of a wrongful prosecution and conviction. I am willing to wait (though not silently) for the appeals process to run its course. Until clear evidence for guilt is released, I will remain in the "Innocent until proven guilty camp".

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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?

You have avoided answering my question, unsurprisingly.

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 no answer to that question. You no more have a coherent theory about what evidence could be hiding in the transcripts than you have a coherent theory of the crime.

This is just an article of desperate faith, the last holdout of the guilters who have been routed from every other single position they tried to hold.

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.

That's a funny way to characterise the Massei report. I remember back in the day the guilters praised the report the way Pentecostalists praise the little baby Jesus. How fair it has fallen in their esteem now it's been shown to be intellectually bankrupt, irrational and in some cases outright deceptive. Now it's been reduced to "hearsay, rumors and gossip".

Still, it's nice that you at least finally admit that Amanda and Raffaele were convicted on the basis of rumours, hearsay and gossip. You left out "lies", "destruction of evidence" and "a coerced false statement" but we are making progress.

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.

It's not a very convincing argument for guilt when the pro-guilt court got to cherry-pick and in some cases, it seems overwhelmingly likely, actually outright distort the testimony given to it and they still can't come up with a coherent narrative of guilt. They had 10 000 pages of material to trawl through, they got to boil it down to 400 however they wanted, and they still couldn't make up a story that held together.

If your last forlorn hope is that the Massei report was a total screw-up, and that there was an airtight case against Amanda and Raffaele hiding in the transcripts that absolutely nobody including Comodi, Mignini, Maresca, Massei or Christiani ever noticed I'd just give up hope now.

 

[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?

Again, the trial transcript contains the verbatim testimony of the actual witnessess. It contains every question asked to them by the defense and prosecution and every answer given by those witnessess.

You really believe that a journalist's report is the same thing as an actual transcript? Why is it that you don't want people to make up their minds about this trial based on what exactly happened at this trial? You seem to want folks to make their determination based on what you say.

Still, it's nice that you at least finally admit that Amanda and Raffaele were convicted on the basis of rumours, hearsay and gossip.

No, your belief in their innocence is based on rumors, hearsay and gossip. Except for Amanda, you have no idea as to what the actual witnesses testified to. You have no access to the trial transcript, you base what you know on Google and biased reporting. What innocence group would take on a case without the transcript and only getting their information from the Internet?

 

[Alt+F4]

I understand that you as an authority follower have no choice but to accept whatever any authority says.

Straw man, and a very lazy one at that.

I however can make my personal choice not to visit or support any state that I perceive has a dysfunctional court system.

Wow, you're not going to visit Italy for the next 20 years or buy Italian imports! That's really gonna help!

I can also work to insure that the best known information is available for others that want to make their own decisions.

The best information would be the trial transcript translated into English. Are you working to insure that information is available for others to make their own decision? If you don't think the trial transcript is the "best known information", please tell us why.

It is up to Italy to either find Amanda not guilty or release the information that proves their case against her and clear the perception of a wrongful prosecution and conviction.

The state has presented their case, which I believe will be upheld on appeal.

Until clear evidence for guilt is released, I will remain in the "Innocent until proven guilty camp".

Good for you, it doesn't change a thing.

 

[Alt+F4]

It's not a very convincing argument for guilt when the pro-guilt court got to cherry-pick and in some cases, it seems overwhelmingly likely, actually outright distort the testimony given to it and they still can't come up with a coherent narrative of guilt.

Where is this testimony posted for the public to read? I mean what the witness actually attested to as truth of a matter, not what a reporter or blogger says a witness said.

 

[michellesings]

45,000 replies?

What the heck is this topic and why won't it ever go away? The wikipedia article provides nothing. Seriously, 45,000 replies is more than the Loose Change thread received. How the hell could there be this much material or background to even discuss on this topic? Could someone please give me some idea what this utterly immortal argument is about?

It's about a "wrong".
It's about the human nature of intrigue of a horrible crime thought to be done by sick individuals.
It's about exposure of "wrong" and right vs. wrong.
It's about an out of control Prosecutor who made some serious mistakes resulting in a creative story, a lie, as a means of the salvation for a spiraled career.
It's about exposing a form of a modern day Mafia.
It's the form of a corrupt Prime Minister, Prosecutor, cops
and corrupt court. All given too much power.
It's about an act.

And then it's about exposure of "Tabloid Press" and publicly speaking out against it.
It's about human nature and an insatiable appetite and morbid curiosity that is foreign
to us all.
It's about the exposure of sensationalism that put innocent people in jail.
It's about unnecessary victims and no willingness or ability to stand up for the truth.
It's about money.
It's about Anti Americanism.
It's about reverse prejudice, and some who refuse to stop being able to use "the race card".
It's about the empathy and passion of people seeing a wrong and being proactive.
It's about being given opportunity to make it make it right.
It's about which Media to believe.
It's about people who can't believe or trust good in people because of their own own lack.
It's about motives.
It's about exposing these kind of people.
It's about cyber hate and cyber crime and
exposing it, speaking out against it and stopping it.
It's about great expense.
It's about life changing repercussions
and the cost of being a truth seeker.
It's about Political freedom of Speech.
It's about the exposure of wild irrational conspiracy theorists.
It's about exposing desperate individuals who haven't and can't let go of lies.
It's about exposing jealousy, greed and power.
It's about pain.
It's about tip toeing out of sympathy.
And it's about so more.
It's about slowly moving a big ship, it's about change.

 

[EGarrett]

A murdered girl, a cartwheel, police who announce they don't need no stinkin' evidence to just know someone is guilty, a second story man, Harry Potter books, defendants who don't clock watch, police who don't clock watch either, olives, 12" vs. 6", bleach, no bleach, cat's blood, rock throwing, Toto, Nara's ears, 3 out of 4 computer hard drives destroyed, sex, lies, missing video tapes, press gone wild, prosecutors gone wild, dirty gloves, a mop (don't forget the bucket), wrapping paper, Amelie (the movie), Manga comics, cell phones-several of them, leaky drains..............and that's just the short list.

Well, to me it is about the railroading of two college students in Perugia, Italy by the corrupt and incompetent police, forensic, prosection team involved. The conversation lingers because people who fell for the prosection's crazy story refuse to see the truth even after all the evidence used against them has been proven false.

EGarrett,

There has been a good deal of new information made available since the convictions in December of 2009. Basically one side thinks that the convictions were sound, and the other sees them as an injustice. We have argued DNA, cell phones, stomach contents, latent blood detection, the physics of breaking a window, plus who knows what else. Heck, you could practically do a general science/technology course just based on this case. Plus, there are RoseMontague's literary allusions. So maybe you could do a lit course....

Thank you for the explanations. I'm still amazed at the amount of discussion, I don't even think the OJ Simpson trial, had the whole thing started with the White Bronco Chase today, would get 45,000 replies.

 

[babycondor]

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.

So then, they are presumed innocent. Thank you.

 

[Alt+F4]

So then, they are presumed innocent. Thank you.

You really think they are presumed innocent based on anything I write anymously at the JREF? Really?

 

[babycondor]

You really think they are presumed innocent based on anything I write anymously at the JREF? Really?

Under Italian law, they are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You said you had not concluded they were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore you must presume them innocent.

 

[Trigood]

Thank you for the explanations. I'm still amazed at the amount of discussion, I don't even think the OJ Simpson trial, had the whole thing started with the White Bronco Chase today, would get 45,000 replies.

I was on the internet, which consisted mostly of something called "newsgroups," during and immediately after the OJ Simpson case. You'd be surprised.

Somewhere, in some far-off corner of the intertubes, there is probably an alt.fan.oj-simpson thread still going on....

 

[Alt+F4]

Under Italian law, they are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You said you had not concluded they were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore you must presume them innocent.

What makes you believe they are innocent when you haven't even read the actual trial testimony of those testified for and against them? What makes you believe one over the other when you don't even know what those people actually said? What are you basing your belief on?

I believe RS and RG are guilty of the actual murder and AK is guilty of tampering with evidence and being an accessory after the fact. Of course, since I haven't read the trial transcript this is only my opinion based on the information that is available to me. What I don't get is how folks can say they are absolutely certain that AK and RS are innocent when they are privy to only a very small amount of the evidence that was introduced at the trial.

 

[Alt+F4]

Somewhere, in some far-off corner of the intertubes, there is probably an alt.fan.oj-simpson thread still going on....

You don't have to go as ancient as newsgroups to find those who still think OJ is innocent. It took me a minute to find this:

http://www.oprah.com/community/thread/102910

Bottom line is that for every murder case there will always be those advocating innocence, doesn't mean it's true.

 

[Amazer]

I understand that you as an authority follower have no choice but to accept whatever any authority says. I however can make my personal choice not to visit or support any state that I perceive has a dysfunctional court system. I can also work to insure that the best known information is available for others that want to make their own decisions.

It is up to Italy to either find Amanda not guilty or release the information that proves their case against her and clear the perception of a wrongful prosecution and conviction. I am willing to wait (though not silently) for the appeals process to run its course. Until clear evidence for guilt is released, I will remain in the "Innocent until proven guilty camp".

You have this attitude with each and every case, in which ever country in the world? Or just the ones that involve a cute american chick?

 

[Dan O.]

The best information would be the trial transcript translated into English. Are you working to insure that information is available for others to make their own decision? If you don't think the trial transcript is the "best known information", please tell us why.

The police and prosecution had the first chance to release proof of guilt and all they released were lies. After the first trial, it was Massei's turn to show the world that justice was done. Where is the proof of guilt in the Massei report?

Now in a combined shift of the goal posts and reversal of burden of proof, you say the answer is in the trial transcripts. Have you seen these transcripts? Or is this just wishful thinking on your part that evidence to support your belief will show up just around the corner?

 

[Dan O.]

You have this attitude with each and every case, in which ever country in the world? Or just the ones that involve a cute american chick?

I got involved in this case because there was a running debate on JREF where I happen to be a member. If you would ever bother to look up, you would see that I have been involved in other cases here on JREF.