Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Danny]

Well actually as I remember explaining earlier to someone with a different username, there's actually no evidence of any "hazing" or "rape pranks" that resemble the prosecution ever happening, any time, ever.

The guilters fascination with "rape pranks" turns out to have its origins in an anonymous allegation in the comments of an otherwise unremarkable on-line article where someone claimed Amanda got a friend to burst into someone's room with a mask on to scare them. Over time various guilters appear to have added their own lies to the story until it got to the point where they actually believed that there was proof Amanda Knox had orchestrated a "rape prank" where multiple attackers with knives stormed someone's apartment and threatened rape them. Pretty stupid.

Nobody ever outlines what they expect to happen in a so-called 'rape prank'. Does somebody actually get sexually assaulted? Or do people stand there and say they intend to rape a person? What would be the mechanics of the 'prank', and why wouldn't the victim call the authorities as soon as they were able to? Why didn't Amanda Knox's alleged victims in Seattle contact police?

 

[Branded]

So you're saying that nobody should be discussing the case unless they were physically present at every hearing and fluent in Italian? Would being physically present and speaking Italian change the facts?

Why not add some further qualifications? Only lawyers in the Perugia legal system are allowed to discuss the case?

Why do you suppose common law appellate courts are loath to second guess findings of fact made by trial jurors?

 

[snook1]

Frank has a powerful new post up!

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2011/03/media-embracing-amanda-knoxs-innocence.html#more

I've said it before and I'll say it again:
Frank is a hero. He's doing an amazing job and we should all be thankful. He's strong, confident and sure that Amanda and Raffaele will be freed eventually. His words gave me much confidence as well. Thank you, Frank.

BTW, does anyone know what will happen at the April 5th, when the experts will produce a report of the findings. I'm having some issues with understanding the following piece:

Meredith Murder - New Expert Report April 4th.

Tomorrow Amanda and Raffaele in court, the tramp gives evidence.

March 25th, 7.03 PM

(ANSA) -PERUGIA - March 24th.
On April 5th a new expert report on the knife claimed by the Prosecution to be the weapon of the crime and on the clasp of the bra worn by the victim, ordered during the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for the murder of Meredith Kercher. During the next meeting the experts will evaluate the outcomes of the results obtained up until now. Tomorrow, meanwhile, Knox and Sollecito will return to the courtroom for the appeal hearing. Among the witnesses the tramp, Antonio Curatolo will be heard.

They will announce what the testing revealed?

 

[Danny]

Why do you suppose common law appellate courts are loath to second guess findings of fact made by trial jurors?

Because common law appellate courts rule on questions of law rather than fact?

 

[snook1]

@Branded:
Frank is not just another guy who decided to write a blog on the case. He's there, he's in Perugia, he was at the trial hearings, he talked to the police, to the defence, to Mignini (that must have been awful), he knows Lumumba, and most probably many other people that are involved in the case. So me, or you, writing a blog about this case wouldn't equal Frank Sfarzo writing a blog. Simple as that.

 

[Branded]

...
Well, for starters it would immediately sink the Massei/Mignini theory they were convicted under.

More importantly, there was an excellent reason Mignini settled on the 23:30 fairy story. It's because he needed the allegations of Curatolo to even have a case in the first place, and Curatolo and the broken-down car outside the murder house close off any time before 23:30.

How does the "broken-down car" close off a time before 11:30?

 

[Danny]

removed

 

[Branded]

Because common law appellate courts rule on questions of law rather than fact?

Appellate courts are loath to 'second guess' the findings of fact made by trial judges (or jurors) because they know there is no substitute for observing witnesses as they are tested by cross-examination.

P.S. Yes, appellate courts generally restrict themselves to ruling on questions of law rather than on questions of fact, but there are exceptions.

 

[Danny]

Appellate courts are loath to 'second guess' the findings of fact made by trial judges (or jurors) because they know there is no substitute for observing witnesses as they are tested by cross-examination.

P.S. Yes, appellate courts generally restrict themselves to ruling on questions of law rather than on questions of fact, but there are exceptions.

But this isn't the case in the Italian system. The appeal court in Italy does not restrict itself to deciding questions of law. So it's hard to see where you're going with the point.

 

[Branded]

@Branded:
Frank is not just another guy who decided to write a blog on the case. He's there, he's in Perugia, he was at the trial hearings, he talked to the police, to the defence, to Mignini (that must have been awful), he knows Lumumba, and most probably many other people that are involved in the case. So me, or you, writing a blog about this case wouldn't equal Frank Sfarzo writing a blog. Simple as that.

I never went to J school. As a result, if a crime of interest to Perugians were to occur in America, I would not presume to hold myself out as a "reporter" to Perugians merely because my English is better than theirs and I happen to reside in America.

A free blogspot on Google is not a job.

Why is he asking for "donations"?

A professional journalist with press credentials does not effectively sit on the courthouse steps with a sign saying, "Will Blog for Cash."

 

[Branded]

But this isn't the case in the Italian system. The appeal court in Italy does not restrict itself to deciding questions of law. So it's hard to see where you're going with the point.

I would never object to people exercising their right to discuss this (or any other) case, but I think we would all do well to remain cognizant of the limitations flowing from the fact that we were not present in the courtroom when the evidence was tested by cross-examination.

 

[Danny]

I never went to J school. As a result, if a crime of interest to Perugians were to occur in America, I would not presume to hold myself out as a "reporter" to Perugians merely because my English is better than theirs and I happen to reside in America.

A free blogspot on Google is not a job.

Why is he asking for "donations"?

A professional journalist with press credentials does not effectively sit on the courthouse steps with a sign saying, "Will Blog for Cash."

I think this is where you're wrong. The internet has rendered the profession of 'journalism' all but obsolete. In one news event after another we see the mainstream media relying on 'amateurs' for their information.

It's far more likely that someone like Frank has better information than a journalist rewording a story from the Reuters news wire which is what they mostly seem to do.

 

[snook1]

I think this is where you're wrong. The internet has rendered the profession of 'journalism' all but obsolete. In one news event after another we see the mainstream media relying on 'amateurs' for their information.

It's far more likely that someone like Frank has better information than a journalist rewording a story from the Reuters news wire which is what they mostly seem to do.

You're absolutely right, but Branded seems to have problems with understanding this simple fact.

 

[snook1]

Any news on today's hearing yet?

All I know is that the disco owner that didn't show up recently, already testifyed this morning and they are currently waiting for Curatolo to take the stand or maybe he's testifying at this moment.

 

[Branded]

I think this is where you're wrong. The internet has rendered the profession of 'journalism' all but obsolete. In one news event after another we see the mainstream media relying on 'amateurs' for their information.

It's far more likely that someone like Frank has better information than a journalist rewording a story from the Reuters news wire which is what they mostly seem to do.

I agree with your assertion that the internet has shaken the profession of journalism to its core.

I disagree with your assertion that amateurs are preferable to professionals.

Anyone searching for objective, fact-based news and analysis in respect of this case is in for a crash course in what can happen when people purporting to be journalists are not duty bound to a professional code of ethics.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

it's a woman's prerogative to change her gloves

Where, in your opinion, has an expert contradicted the scientific literature?

Branded,

Stefanoni's assertions about how often one needs to change gloves are contradicted by Butler's textbook, as I have previously documented. I agree that Americans who relied upon Newsweek to cover the present case were not well served.

 

[Branded]

Branded,

Stefanoni's assertions about how often one needs to change gloves are contradicted by Butler's textbook, as I have previously documented. I agree that Americans who relied upon Newsweek to cover the present case were not well served.

a) I never said anything (good, bad or indifferent) about Newsweek;

b) what is "Butler's textbook"?

 

[RoseMontague]

I never went to J school. As a result, if a crime of interest to Perugians were to occur in America, I would not presume to hold myself out as a "reporter" to Perugians merely because my English is better than theirs and I happen to reside in America.

Nadeau's book is a good source for this issue. The reporters would gather at a local bar after the hearings to discuss the case. There they would trade stories, documents, and information. They all resented Frank because he had information and access. They were jealous of him, in other words. The fact that he wrote better than they did (my opinion) most likely contributed to this feeling.

Frank got the scoop on many of the regular reporters on this case. Many of the regulars were fed information from the cops and dutifully printed that information in order to show they were on the job. The fact is much of this information later turned out to be false. The cops were using the press and the press was allowing itself to be a mouthpiece for the police.

If there is going to be a major news break in this case in the future my guess is that it will come from a blogger, somebody like Frank. A good example of this is Alaska politics and the last presidential election with Palin as a VP candidate. There were two AK blogs in particular that constantly scooped the regular press and became a thorn in the side of the political establishment in Alaska. One local politician got so upset he publicly outed an anonymous blogger as just being a local housewife. That local housewife completely outdid the press in Alaska and the last time I checked in, continues to do so.

 

[Kaosium]

I never went to J school. As a result, if a crime of interest to Perugians were to occur in America, I would not presume to hold myself out as a "reporter" to Perugians merely because my English is better than theirs and I happen to reside in America.

I almost did that recently. There was something going on in my city making national news, and most of the week I'm all of about eight blocks away from the epicenter and there was an extensive thread dedicated to that happening on this site. I figured I might go down there regularly and give thread participants an idea of what was going on they might not see on the news. It took me all of about five posts in that thread to remind me why I won't get fooled again regarding politics. Just throwing trash back and forth is all the political debate amounts to anymore.

At any rate I figured I would be adding to the sum of knowledge known, certainly I couldn't be subtracting from it, and people could make their own determination whether my observations were of value. Kinda like Frank, and after three years and a growing knowledge of the English language I guess I figure he's earned his stripes. You know, once upon a time I wrote a long post to this one guy who used to post here before being banned, what was his name again, something from a movie everyone tells me I ought to see but never have gotten around to, about how insight can be gleaned even from dubious sources, and sometimes even outright lies can reveal a great deal about an issue for various reasons.

A free blogspot on Google is not a job.

You know, there are some that think his name really isn't Frank Sfarzo. They looked him up in a phone book or something and couldn't find him, nor could they imagine such a name could exist. If I recall correctly they even thought the picture in Candace Dempsey's book was faked. Thus if those were correct, 'Frank Sfarzo' could be anyone, even one of Italy's finest investigative journalists posting 'undercover' so to speak.

Why is he asking for "donations"?

He figures people might give him some?

A professional journalist with press credentials does not effectively sit on the courthouse steps with a sign saying, "Will Blog for Cash."

Huh, you should have told Andrew Sullivan that a dozen years or so ago. He was the editor of The New Republic at one point, one of the oldest and most prestigious political magazines in the United States, they wouldn't even accept ads when I had my subscription. He later went on to The Atlantic Monthly, yet another of the oldest and most prestigious political journals, might still be there, I don't pay attention anymore. At any rate he was 'blogging for cash' long before Frank Sfarzo put a 'tipping jar' up.

 

[RoseMontague]

Curatolo seems to have testified that he saw Amanda and Raffaele Halloween night and has admitted using heroin at that time.

http://www.gazzettadiparma.it/prima...vidi_Amanda_e_Raffaele_la_sera_Halloween.html

http://translate.google.com/transla...vidi_Amanda_e_Raffaele_la_sera_Halloween.html