Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Alt+F4]

Yes - it all makes Amazer's "the appeal's going just fine" and Alt-F4's "I guarantee the convictions will be upheld" all the more baffling.

It's the same system that we are constantly told is filled with liars, corruption and criminal incompetence that is conducting the appeal so on what rational basis can you say the convictions won't be upheld? Don't the police still have to save face? What will the Italian judiciary look like if the love birds are found not guilty? That can't be allowed to happen. What makes you think that Vecchiotti and Conti are any different than Stefanoni?

 

[babycondor]

Yes, absolutely, from the very first days on Mignini and his people became occupied with theories of sex-games and orgies gone wrong. When the murder happened, I remember this is what I heard; satanic rituals and sex orgies. Two years later when I studied the case I realized that the sex orgies were happening in the minds of the prosecutors only.

Yet Mignini called Amanda sex-obsessed, it's grotesque almost …

He is grotesque. Mignini strikes me as a pathological liar, as well. (Let's see if he tries to "preemptively seize" the forum for transmitting this "evaluation.")

 

[Rhea]

It's the same system that we are constantly told is filled with liars, corruption and criminal incompetence that is conducting the appeal so on what rational basis can you say the convictions won't be upheld? Don't the police still have to save face? What will the Italian judiciary look like if the love birds are found not guilty? That can't be allowed to happen. What makes you think that Vecchiotti and Conti are any different than Stefanoni?

But you were reasoning from a different standpoint, you insinuated they will be upheld because the evidence is strong, in reality it is falling apart, as weak as it already was.

But of course there is the risk of a repetition of the first disaster due to the reasons you've mentioned, that's why even Amanda's family is trying not to get their hopes up too high, so it really depends from which angle you are looking at it, you can't just mix these things up; yes the evidence is falling apart, yet a conviction is still possible for the reasons mentioned.

But it can definitely be said that the appeal isn't going well for the prosecution so far and if the system works rightly, they should be acquitted.

 

[Rhea]

What will the Italian judiciary look like if the love birds are found not guilty? That can't be allowed to happen. What makes you think that Vecchiotti and Conti are any different than Stefanoni?

Why are you calling them love birds? They are broken up for three years.

 

[Alt+F4]

But you were reasoning from a different standpoint, you insinuated they will be upheld because the evidence is strong, in reality it is falling apart, as weak as it already was.

I do think the evidence is strong though I also don't think AK is the killer. Stupid girl, if she just told the truth she might be getting out of prison around now.

But of course there is the risk of a repetition of the first disaster due to the reasons you've mentioned, that's why even Amanda's family is trying not to get their hopes up too high, so it really depends from which angle you are looking at it, you can't just mix these things up; yes the evidence is falling apart, yet a conviction is still possible for the reasons mentioned.

But it can definitely be said that the appeal isn't going well for the prosecution so far and if the system works rightly, they should be acquitted.

But if the system has so many institutionalized flaws and nothing has been done to change that in the past 3+ years there is no reason that the outcome will be any different.

 

[Alt+F4]

Why are you calling them love birds? They are broken up for three years.

Because the term I want to use isn't allowed on this forum.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's the same system that we are constantly told is filled with liars, corruption and criminal incompetence that is conducting the appeal so on what rational basis can you say the convictions won't be upheld? Don't the police still have to save face? What will the Italian judiciary look like if the love birds are found not guilty? That can't be allowed to happen. What makes you think that Vecchiotti and Conti are any different than Stefanoni?

The appeal court is likely to be presented with a very different set of evidence and testimony to evaluate in the key areas. Already the first trial's "star witness", Curatolo, has been shown up for the pathetic drug addict/dealer, likely police stooge, and serial "misrememberer" that he is. And if the leaks in the Italian media are to be believed, the independent DNA experts are likely to say that the knife and the bra clasp are not only not testable, but also that Stefanoni's original testing techniques were bogus and inadmissible.

In addition to that, the defence teams will have got their act together and should be presenting a far stronger rebuttal against what remains of the prosecution's arguments. I would expect them to argue very strongly (and far more strongly than in the first trial) in areas such as computer evidence, mobile phone evidence and time of death.

So that's how the verdict in the first appeal may be one of not-guilty*. Additionally, I trust that Hellmann is a better reasoner than Massei, and also that the lay members of the judicial panel are more on the ball (they have to be educated to a higher standard than the lay jurors in the first trial). You're damn right that the police (and Mignini) will be desperately trying to save face, but I can't help thinking that the tide will go so strongly against them that it will be utterly overwhelming. And, in fact, I think that it would reflect well on the Italian judiciary if a not-guilty verdict is reached in the first appeal: not only will it vindicate the multi-trial system in place in Italy, but it will also show that Italian courts are capable of reaching just and fair decisions based on the evidence presented to them.

By the way, anything to say on the time of death debate, and the trial testimony of the various pathologists? You went curiously (and uncharacteristically) quiet after I posted the quotes from the Massei report....


* Incidentally, you're using incorrect nomenclature when you refer to "upholding convictions". You may be unaware of this fact, but the appeal trial is a de novo trial, in which the verdict of the first trial is not an issue. There is no conviction to "uphold" - indeed neither Knox nor Sollecito is actually convicted yet. They have been found guilty in the first trial. They will have to be found guilty in the first appeal and the Supreme Court appeal if they are to be convicted of murder. Just so you know......

 

[LondonJohn]

Why are you calling them love birds? They are broken up for three years.

Ahhh - Alt+F4 has an inbuilt pejorative attitude towards Knox (particularly) and Sollecito (occasionally), which reveals itself in most of her "arguments". The sarcastic use of the term "love birds" is quite common amongst commentators who can't make coherent arguments for guilt, and who thus fall back onto a pre-determined character assassination approach.

 

[Alt+F4]

Incidentally, you're using incorrect nomenclature when you refer to "upholding convictions". You may be unaware of this fact, but the appeal trial is a de novo trial, in which the verdict of the first trial is not an issue. There is no conviction to "uphold" - indeed neither Knox nor Sollecito is actually convicted yet. They have been found guilty in the first trial. They will have to be found guilty in the first appeal and the Supreme Court appeal if they are to be convicted of murder. Just so you know......

So this means Mignini isn't a convicted criminal either. Too bad we keep constantly being told this lie by many of Amanda's supporters.

 

[LondonJohn]

Because the term I want to use isn't allowed on this forum.

And, hey presto! My previous point is illustrated succinctly and beautifully.....

 

[Alt+F4]

Ahhh - Alt+F4 has an inbuilt pejorative attitude towards Knox (particularly) and Sollecito (occasionally), which reveals itself in most of her "arguments". The sarcastic use of the term "love birds" is quite common amongst commentators who can't make coherent arguments for guilt, and who thus fall back onto a pre-determined character assassination approach.

Young people having sex on the first date is common, your description of it as "character assassination" only reflects on your quite old-fashioned beliefs.

 

[Rhea]

I do think the evidence is strong though I also don't think AK is the killer. Stupid girl, if she just told the truth she might be getting out of prison around now.

But that speaks very much against your theory indeed; if Amanda had "only" been involved, but not been the killer herself, she could have said so to prevent greater damage. Her chosen path wouldn't be very logical in that scenario …

But if the system has so many institutionalized flaws and nothing has been done to change that in the past 3+ years there is no reason that the outcome will be any different.

It is still possible, many convictions get overturned on appeal in Italy, observers say.

Also in this case they are under scrutiny from the whole world, the damage keeping them in prison could outweigh the damage of releasing them at some point …

Also, all it needs is just one stand up person, a judge, and things can change quickly …

 

[LondonJohn]

So this means Mignini isn't a convicted criminal either. Too bad we keep constantly being told this lie by many of Amanda's supporters.

No, he's not a convicted criminal yet either. Although he's already been through the first appeal process, which is the one which deals with the facts of the case. The Supreme Court appeal will only deal with the correct application of the law. So if someone's also found guilty in the first appeal, there's a far higher chance that they'll ultimately be convicted after the Supreme Court appeal than someone who's currently only been found guilty in the first trial.

So yes, anyone who's calling Mignini a convicted criminal is incorrect (although I note that you interestingly choose to use the word "lie"). But I suggest that if one could place bets on such things, a bookmaker would currently offer very short odds on Mignini being a convicted criminal within the year. I also suggest that the odds on Knox and Sollecito ultimately being convicted are sliding longer and longer every day.

 

[Alt+F4]

And, hey presto! My previous point is illustrated succinctly and beautifully.....

There was nothing wrong with what they were doing, and the term I'm referring to simply describes it. Do you really think folks should wait for marriage (or even being sure of love) before having sex? Weird. You seem to think poor Amanda is a slut who put out on the first date. I think she was just doing what young people do.

 

[LondonJohn]

Young people having sex on the first date is common, your description of it as "character assassination" only reflects on your quite old-fashioned beliefs.

This is a straw man of quite some elegance! Where on earth did I link the term "character assassination" to any commentary on Knox and Sollecito having sex on the night they met? And where on earth have I ever suggested that such behaviour is wrong, unusual or distasteful in any way? In fact, I've been one of those who's argued that Knox's sexual history was perfectly normal, natural, and acceptable. Your attempts at arguing are becoming increasingly haphazard and muddled. And I don't appreciate my position being misrepresented either.

 

[Rhea]

Ahhh - Alt+F4 has an inbuilt pejorative attitude towards Knox (particularly) and Sollecito (occasionally), which reveals itself in most of her "arguments". The sarcastic use of the term "love birds" is quite common amongst commentators who can't make coherent arguments for guilt, and who thus fall back onto a pre-determined character assassination approach.

Yes, I'm actually aware of the dismissive character of that term, it was a bit of a rhetorical question.

Why is it okay to call them love birds, even though they aren't, but if Amanda remembers something wrongly, she is a compulsive liar?

 

[LondonJohn]

There was nothing wrong with what they were doing, and the term I'm referring to simply describes it. Do you really think folks should wait for marriage (or even being sure of love) before having sex? Weird. You seem to think poor Amanda is a slut who put out on the first date. I think she was just doing what young people do.

Right, let's put this one to bed shall we?

Rhea asked you why you used the term "love birds".

You replied: "Because the term I want to use isn't allowed on this forum."

Now, this would suggest to most people that the "term you want to use" was unpleasant, rude and/or derogatory.

You are the one who seems to have a problem describing Knox's and Sollecito's relationship. You'd better stop accusing me of things that are in fact pretty diametrically opposed to what I really think. Actually, I think you'd be better off taking a time out to get your act together.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

incentives

What makes you think that Vecchiotti and Conti are any different than Stefanoni?

Alt+F4,

The fact that they asked to open up the knife, for one thing. The fact that they appear to believe that turning over the electronic data files is a normal part of the forensic review process, for another. Any criminal justice system, not just Italy's, must wrestle with the lack of incentives in the system to overturn a wrongful conviction. It will only happen when someone decides that the cost of lengthening the carnival's run is prohibitively high.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, I'm acutally aware of the dismissive character of that term, it was a bit of a rhetorical question.

Why is it okay to call them love birds, even though they aren't, but if Amanda remembers something wrongly, she is a compulsive liar?

You're right, of course. The history of the usage of the term "love birds" among pro-guilt commentators is based on the following: many pro-guilt commentators believe that Knox (especially) and Sollecito (to a lesser extent) are duplicitous, scheming misfits who are pathological liars and manipulators.

They therefore choose to sarcastically employ the term "love birds" to imply that they - and those who believe in their non-guilt - see themselves as nothing more than two innocent young naive people who flitted around in love with each other and were too wrapped up in each other to be involved in a horrific crime such as murder. The pro-guilt commentators think therefore that the term" love birds" can usefully be employed in an ironic sense to contrast against the image that they have of Knox (and Sollecito) as a cold-blooded, scheming, vicious murderer.

 

[moije2]

love birds

Why are you calling them love birds? They are broken up for three years.

I suppose they were love birds. But the answer to your question is the same as you identified earlier: because he/she is obsessed with sex and therefore cannot leave that image. The result is that by constant repetition he/she is attempting to sexualize the entire debate and somehow degrade and pervert an otherwise respectable English word.

Alt, you say you use that term because the forum does not allow the term you would like to use. If that is true then I would think you could be a little more creative. But you would still have to keep the focus on sex of course.