Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

Oh, right, like they did with Frank "Sfarzo"? When is his calunnia trial again? How about the prosecutors in Massei's own trial? Were they charged with calunnia? Remember when he said he was going to sue a Seattle newspaper who reported on things he didn't like? Yeah, just a bluff.

It might be more satisfying to the defense lawyers to beat Mignini in court than in the public eye. Also, they need to keep working (possibly with him, depending on how things turn out); they know how to maintain their relationships in the legal community.

Charges can still be brought against Frank Sfarzo. Also, the case against the West Seattle Herald might not have been a bluff, it might have been impossible to pursue due to the laws in the United States.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

If the answers are no and no then my point is made that people through their sincere beliefs sometimes present assertions as though they are facts and others agree.

Hang on, you seem to be equivocating between "X did Y" on one hand, and "X was punished for Y", or "Z said X did Y" on the other.

If there is proof of police misconduct and/or incompetence, why should any rational person wait upon disciplinary action by the police against their own to say so? Why should any rational person wait upon the appeals team making such a case to say so? I see absolutely no reason myself, so if there is any reason then you will need to explain it to us.

It seems to be a recurring theme of guilter discourse that things aren't real to them until an authority figure says they are real. Facts aren't facts until the prosecution or the defence says they are, opinions cannot be formed until a court official forms them first, and logical inferences must wait until an Italian in a wig makes those inferences for us. Even news reports are judged strictly on the perceived qualifications of the journalist (are they or are they not a food blogger?) rather than the journalist's history of accuracy. This is if anything the opposite of rationality.

As far as I am aware neither defence teams have made the kind of accusations of Mignini and others that I have read here, possibly because unlike any of us they actually know Mignini and others.

Lots of things are "possible", but do you have any evidence whatsoever that this particular possibility is more likely than any other?

(It might well be fair to characterise the guilter community's standard defence of Mignini as special pleading, since they gleefully swallow factual falsehoods when they come from journalists they like and kowtow before the decisions of Italian courts no matter how absurd when it comes to the Knox case, but backflip completely when it comes to the allegations about and conviction of Mignini. When the sainted Mignini is on trial, he is innocent until his appeals are done and allegations by journalists are all a pack of lies until proven in court).

 

[Alt+F4]

Charges can still be brought against Frank Sfarzo.

Of course, charges can be brought against anyone...but in regard to Frank none have.

Also, the case against the West Seattle Herald might not have been a bluff, it might have been impossible to pursue due to the laws in the United States.

What laws might that be?

 

[Alt+F4]

It seems to be a recurring theme of guilter discourse that things aren't real to them until an authority figure says they are real. Facts aren't facts until the prosecution or the defence says they are....

Correct. The only facts that matter, the only facts that will get the love birds out of prison are the facts that the court deems are true.

....opinions cannot be formed until a court official forms them first, and logical inferences must wait until an Italian in a wig makes those inferences for us.

What exactly is your objective? You seem to want nothing more than to be proven correct in an anonymous Internet forum. Understand this: it's what those Italians in their wigs and their system of justice that will decide this matter.

Even news reports are judged strictly on the perceived qualifications of the journalist (are they or are they not a food blogger?) rather than the journalist's history of accuracy. This is if anything the opposite of rationality.

There is a big difference between a professional journalist and a food blogger. Do you accept the food bloggers claim that Nara Capazzali is "nuts" and "nearly deaf" with no evidence to back up this claim? Is it rational to believe this?

 

[Kestrel]

There is a big difference between a professional journalist and a food blogger. Do you accept the food bloggers claim that Nara Capazzali is "nuts" and "nearly deaf" with no evidence to back up this claim?

If you actually read Dempsey's blog, you should have noticed that the claims about Nara came from an article in the Italian magazine Oggi.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Kevin_Lowe

Hang on, you seem to be equivocating between "X did Y" on one hand, and "X was punished for Y", or "Z said X did Y" on the other.

If there is proof of police misconduct and/or incompetence, why should any rational person wait upon disciplinary action by the police against their own to say so? Why should any rational person wait upon the appeals team making such a case to say so? I see absolutely no reason myself, so if there is any reason then you will need to explain it to us.

Because they would be thinking rationally rather than emotionally; it isn’t necessary that we agree.

It seems to be a recurring theme of guilter discourse that things aren't real to them until an authority figure says they are real. Facts aren't facts until the prosecution or the defence says they are, opinions cannot be formed until a court official forms them first, and logical inferences must wait until an Italian in a wig makes those inferences for us. Even news reports are judged strictly on the perceived qualifications of the journalist (are they or are they not a food blogger?) rather than the journalist's history of accuracy. This is if anything the opposite of rationality.

Sorry you’ve lost me with the above paragraph, I was expressing an individual opinion as you are of course entitled to your opinion, I have no idea what or who you are referring to “food blogger”, is this something I have posted about in the past?

PS

Do you speak for all of Raffaele and Amanda's supporters here?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Correct. The only facts that matter, the only facts that will get the love birds out of prison are the facts that the court deems are true.



What exactly is your objective? You seem to want nothing more than to be proven correct in an anonymous Internet forum. Understand this: it's what those Italians in their wigs and their system of justice that will decide this matter.



There is a big difference between a professional journalist and a food blogger. Do you accept the food bloggers claim that Nara Capazzali is "nuts" and "nearly deaf" with no evidence to back up this claim? Is it rational to believe this?

Sorry I have missed something; who is the food blogger?

 

[Alt+F4]

If you actually read Dempsey's blog, you should have noticed that the claims about Nara came from an article in the Italian magazine Oggi.

Yes, which was also unsourced, so if she was trying to be a real journalist she should have tried to find corroboration or at least given a disclaimer.

She did neither.

 

[Alt+F4]

Sorry I have missed something; who is the food blogger?

http://www.candacedempsey.com/

Her verion of this murder is (her words, not mine):

This is Eat, Pray, Love gone horribly wrong. Under the Tuscan Sun on the dark side.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

http://www.candacedempsey.com/

Her verion of this murder is (her words, not mine):

I read her blog during the trial, clearly I missed her previous occupation, I just knew her has someone from Seattle. Saw her on that recent video clip I think it was Seattle Uni event.

 

[Kestrel]

Yes, which was also unsourced, so if she was trying to be a real journalist she should have tried to find corroboration or at least given a disclaimer.

She did neither.

She sourced it to Oggi, that is all she really needed to do.

Do you have a source for your continued faith in Nara as a credible witness? She was fairly confused even in the first trial. Among other things, she claimed to have seen newspapers about the crime the morning after hearing the scream. Since the body wasn't discovered until early afternoon, this would have been impossible. Nara also didn't show up for weeks after the murder.

Human memory is associative and reconstructive. We don't have a TIVO machine in our heads that plays back an exact recording. Even without mental health problems, our memory plays tricks on us. Nara may have heard a scream on Halloween night, or heard a squeal from the tow truck on the night in question, or maybe she did hear a scream from Meredith. Whatever she did hear, she didn't bother to call the police. Or even look at the clock and confirm the time. Later as she reads the newspaper and watches TV, her memory of the scream may have incorporated new facts.

"When I was younger I could remember anything, whether it had happened or not; but my faculties are decaying now and soon I shall be so I cannot remember any but the things that never happened." - Mark Twain

 

[HumanityBlues]

Ok great, so let's pick one thing each journalist has done, and just assume now that if you do anything other than write articles, you are not a journalist.

Andrea Vogt: Tour guide.
Barbie Nadeau: Food book writer.
Nick Pisa: Professional gigolo.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

LinkedIn profile for Candace Dempsey

Yes, which was also unsourced, so if she was trying to be a real journalist she should have tried to find corroboration or at least given a disclaimer.

She did neither.

Alt+F4,

I am providing a link to Candace Dempsey's linkedin profile and to some other professional information. How is your search function working today? There were some questions you were working on...

 

[Chris C]

Indeed. The obscene, hate-filled, quasi-violent PMs I've received have gotten one member banned and another on suspension. If this is such a open and shut case of absolute innocence why such the need to silence any opposition? It's like an Internet version of the Brown Shirts. If someone doesn't like what I post, then just put me on ignore.

What exactly are you posting? Most of your comments have been along the lines of, "LaLaLa your wrong" or attempts to provoke emotionally invested people. Perhaps you would actually like to discuss the evidence or lack thereof?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

modified limited hangout

Halides1
Agreed you did answer an hour or so ago. Hang on, if I am to accept that the first coroner was “let go” because of leaking information then that was the right thing to do given your observation about the stream of leaks from ILE? Which is it, good to leak or not good to leak?

I would also add that the media could and did easily obtain information about the ongoing investigation from the various public hearings and no doubt add their own sensationalist spin. In addition, leaks from high profile murder investigations are hardly unique to this case; I have heard the phrase “someone close to the investigation said this or that” on many occasions.

For me it is not about how “I feel” but really are these events unusual is there any evidence of deliberate wrong doing; has there ever been the perfect murder investigation, do the police make mistakes? If anyone has been disciplined I would simply ask for independent evidence, if this was not forthcoming I tend to conclude it is an assertion.

Any answer I would give would be just that my “impression”, I believe what will be raised in the appeal will be far more worthy of discussion.

CoulsdonUK,

Let me sketch out what I think the guiding principles should be, rather than discuss what the Italian statutes are (which in this matter are entirely unknown to me). I am guided by Chapter 11 (by Kenneth Williams) of Race to Injustice (edited by Michael Siegel). I am providing a quote from pp. 267-268: “A lawyer participating in the investigation or litigation of a matter must refrain from making public statements that the lawyer has reason to know will have a ‘substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding…’ In addition, a lawyer may not make any public statements regarding any evidence ‘that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be inadmissible as evidence in a trial.’ The rules also prohibit prosecutors from making any public communications that unnecessarily disparage the accused.” The first internal quotation comes from the North Carolina rules of professional conduct, and the second comes from the A.B.A.’s rules of professional conduct. IMO, these are good rules for both police and prosecutors to follow, and LondonJohn has discussed this point with respect to English law. I do not presently rule out that there is a limited legitimate role for leaking (though it is not easy to see what it is after arrests have been made), but I would ask you whether or not ILE followed the spirit of these guidelines.

With respect to Lalli, I would ask whether letting him go was or was not consistent, given the number and the accuracy of the many leaks. The information about the Harry Potter book, the bleach receipts, and Amanda’s sweatshirt came from leaks, unless I am mistaken, and all of it was wrong. The leaking of Amanda’s list of intimate partners was unconscionable and served no legitimate purpose.

With due respect, your second-to-last paragraph has me completely baffled. Why are you confining the argument to deliberate wrongdoing? If the police are merely not very good at their jobs, do they not deserve to be disciplined (and trained to do better)?

 

[Chris C]

It might be more satisfying to the defense lawyers to beat Mignini in court than in the public eye. Also, they need to keep working (possibly with him, depending on how things turn out); they know how to maintain their relationships in the legal community.

Charges can still be brought against Frank Sfarzo. Also, the case against the West Seattle Herald might not have been a bluff, it might have been impossible to pursue due to the laws in the United States.

Yup I agree Mary. It would be a waste of time to pursue West Seattle Herald. The only reason they are doing it to Knox's parents is because they want to go to Italy to see their daughter. I bet Italy wouldn't like it to much if US courts started charging people with crimes committed in Italy and asking for extradition.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

maybe she heard it through the grape vine

If you actually read Dempsey's blog, you should have noticed that the claims about Nara came from an article in the Italian magazine Oggi.

Alt+F4 and Kestrel,

In addition to Oggi, Ms. Dempsey also cited Paul Ciolino with respect to Nara.

 

[Alt+F4]

I am providing a link to Candace Dempsey's linkedin profile and to some other professional information.

That's nice. It doesn't change the fact that she neither tried to find corroboration for the Oggi article or give a disclaimer to it.

In regard to the DNA evidence, you often claim unprofessional practice in regard to it's retrieval. Yet when it comes to "journalism" by bloggers you seem to have no problem accepting unsourced rumors based on no other other criteria than yhsy they agree with your point of view.

Why the double standard? Is Nara Capezzali "nuts" and "nearly deaf" based on evidence avaiable?

How is your search function working today? There were some questions you were working on...

Not so good. The search function on JREF sucks.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Alt+F4 and Kestrel,

In addition to Oggi, Ms. Dempsey also cited Paul Ciolino with respect to Nara.

Keep in mind, guilters magically develop all these nuanced little principles only when its facts they don't like. They're also very happy to overlook blatant disregard for the scientific method and protocol when it comes to forensics in this case as well.

Even the principles they espouse, most of them can't even get those straight. AltF4's 90% of the evidence is a perfect example, but she's more than happy to make predictions or talk about how strong the evidence she knows only 10% of (her words not mine).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Nuts?

That's nice. It doesn't change the fact that she neither tried to find corroboration for the Oggi article or give a disclaimer to it.

In regard to the DNA evidence, you often claim unprofessional practice in regard to it's retrieval. Yet when it comes to "journalism" by bloggers you seem to have no problem accepting unsourced rumors based on no other other criteria than yhsy they agree with your point of view.

Why the double standard? Is Nara Capezzali "nuts" and "nearly deaf" based on evidence avaiable?



Not so good. The search function on JREF sucks.

Alt+F4,

Oggi plus Paul Ciolino makes two sources, which is what you said the standard should be, is it not? I am not sure why you are putting the word nuts inside quotation marks. I cannot find it at Ms. Dempsey's blog.