Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[spartacus]

Halides1

I can't recall did Amanda's defence team raise the possibility of “memory distrust syndrome” through any expert testimony?

No, they didn't. But they could if they want to. I don't think it is needed since the "confession" statement cannot be entered in court.

 

[spartacus]

I must cite confidentiality here.

fair enough

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You don't really know what you're talking about. Both cases involve a judicial process. DSK was today indicted by a Grand Jury, and committed to trial. This means that the Grand Jury (before which both DSK and his alleged victim appeared and testified if they wished) found there was a sufficient case to answer. DSK's judicial process will now take the form of a single criminal trial, at the end of which he will be either convicted or acquitted, and if convicted he will then be sentenced.

Knox's judicial process is still ongoing. What you think the term "appeal" means is not what it means in the anglo-saxon system. The appeal is actually essentially a second trial. So, in effect, Knox is still mid-trial. She's been found guilty in "phase one", but she also needs to be found guilty in "phase 2" and "phase 3" if she's to be convicted and to carry out her sentence.

I repeat - since you don't seem to understand: Knox is currently being held on remand. She's not being held as a convicted criminal. Do you not understand that? And in that regard, both she and DSK (up until about 10 minutes ago) were in exactly the same boat: they are (were) being held purely to prevent them from fleeing (and/or re-offending) until a court can ultimately decide whether they should be convicted of the crimes of which they are accused.

If the appeal is a "second trial", then there must have been a "first trial", no?

DSK has not had any trials.

To summarize:

Number of trials:

DSK - 0
CMAN - 1

Now, which of us doesn't know what they are talking about? (Hint: it isn't me)

 

[LondonJohn]

LOL! There isn't? Then how did the court manage to do that very thing? Are you really that out of touch with reality?

LOL!!!

Courts always reach rational and well-reasoned decisions! ROFL!!!!!!

Courts are never presented with bogus evidence which has been given false levels of reliability by the prosecution! PMSL!!!!!1!!1!!!!!!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

LOL!!!

Courts always reach rational and well-reasoned decisions! ROFL!!!!!!

Courts are never presented with bogus evidence which has been given false levels of reliability by the prosecution! PMSL!!!!!1!!1!!!!!!

Has convicted murder Amanda Knox been found guilty of murder or has she not? !!!!!1!!1!!!!!

The public humiliation continues....

 

[stilicho]

Has convicted murder Amanda Knox been found guilty of murder or has she not? !!!!!1!!1!!!!!

The public humiliation continues....

Isn't this supposed to be about Amanda Knox's family and their defamation cases?

On the bright side, I suppose, the whole bunch might not have to run bowl-a-ramas to finance their trips to sunny Capanne prison.

 

[LondonJohn]

If the appeal is a "second trial", then there must have been a "first trial", no?

DSK has not had any trials.

To summarize:

Number of trials:

DSK - 0
CMAN - 1

Now, which of us doesn't know what they are talking about? (Hint: it isn't me)

I'll say it once again, slooooooowly, so you might understand:

1) I am not directly comparing the current legal situation/status of Knox and DSK.

2) It would, in any case, be impossible to directly compare their situations until any final convictions or acquittals, owing to the different justice systems.

3) Although, having said that, both are currently unconvicted of any criminal offence: Knox has been found guilty in a first trial, and DSK has been indicted by a Grand Jury, but neither stands convicted of any crime as of right now. You don't seem to know (or understand) this, but both Knox and DSK are currently presumed innocent in law in their respective countries.

4) Now for the important part: what I am comparing is the reason why both of them were incarcerated (at least, up until a few minutes ago in the case of DSK). Both of them were remanded into custody for reasons that were entirely unrelated to any criminal conviction or associated sentence. Both are (were) incarcerated because of flight risk before the culmination of the judicial process, and/or a risk of re-offending during the same period.

 

[LondonJohn]

Isn't this supposed to be about Amanda Knox's family and their defamation cases?

On the bright side, I suppose, the whole bunch might not have to run bowl-a-ramas to finance their trips to sunny Capanne prison.

Ah hello!

So you reckon Knox is/was a serial killer in training, who was only stopped from slaying more people by the intervention of the Perugia authorities, eh? Not even Mignini would espouse such total nonsense

 

[LondonJohn]

Has convicted murder Amanda Knox been found guilty of murder or has she not? !!!!!1!!1!!!!!

The public humiliation continues....

Ah, I see what you've done there with the mixing of the factually-incorrect "convicted murderer" with the factually-correct "found guilty of murder" in the same sentence! Outstanding! Well done!

 

[stilicho]

Ah hello!

So you reckon Knox is/was a serial killer in training, who was only stopped from slaying more people by the intervention of the Perugia authorities, eh? Not even Mignini would espouse such total nonsense

Fortunately we won't have to test out CodyJoeBibby's theory since Amanda is securely locked away in Capanne and away from decent society for the next two decades.

 

[LondonJohn]

Fortunately we won't have to test out CodyJoeBibby's theory since Amanda is securely locked away in Capanne and away from decent society for the next two decades.

You prefer not to answer my question then? "Yes" or "no" would do fine, but I understand if you'd prefer to ignore the question or refuse to answer it - it's entirely your prerogative!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'll say it once again, slooooooowly, so you might understand:

1) I am not directly comparing the current legal situation/status of Knox and DSK.

2) It would, in any case, be impossible to directly compare their situations until any final convictions or acquittals, owing to the different justice systems.

3) Although, having said that, both are currently unconvicted of any criminal offence: Knox has been found guilty in a first trial, and DSK has been indicted by a Grand Jury, but neither stands convicted of any crime as of right now. You don't seem to know (or understand) this, but both Knox and DSK are currently presumed innocent in law in their respective countries.

4) Now for the important part: what I am comparing is the reason why both of them were incarcerated (at least, up until a few minutes ago in the case of DSK). Both of them were remanded into custody for reasons that were entirely unrelated to any criminal conviction or associated sentence. Both are (were) incarcerated because of flight risk before the culmination of the judicial process, and/or a risk of re-offending during the same period.

I'll ask it once again, slooooooowly, so you might understand:

1) Was CMAN found guilty of murder or was she not?

From wikipedia:

The trial of Knox and Sollecito began on 16 January 2009, before judge Giancarlo Massei, deputy judge Beatrice Cristiani and six lay judges at the Corte d'Assise of Perugia.

They had been charged with murder, sexual assault, simulating a crime (burglary), carrying a knife and theft of 300 euros, two credit cards and two mobile phones.

On 4 December 2009, after 13 hours of deliberations, Knox was convicted by a panel comprising two judges and six lay judges of all charges except theft and was sentenced to 26 years in prison.

2) Is the wikipedia account accurate or inaccurate? If it is inaccurate, why have you not corrected it?

3) (goes toward mental state) At 2:56 UTC on July 21, 1969, did US astronaut Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon?

 

[spartacus]

You can read more about false confessions and the Amanda Knox case here.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'll ask it once again, slooooooowly, so you might understand:

1) Was CMAN found guilty of murder or was she not?

From wikipedia:


2) Is the wikipedia account accurate or inaccurate? If it is inaccurate, why have you not corrected it?

3) (goes toward mental state) At 2:56 UTC on July 21, 1969, did US astronaut Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon?

It's inaccurate. She was found guilty but will not be convicted until/unless both of her appeals similarly find her guilty. I assume that whoever wrote the English language Wikipedia article is not familiar enough with the Italian criminal justice system to understand the difference, and is making false comparisons with the US/UK system.

And I have no interest in editing the Wikipedia article. I know that some people on both sides of the debate are intensely interested (sometimes to the point of near-obsession) with what appears about this case on Wikipedia. I am not one of those people. I couldn't care less (or, if you're American, "I could care less" - which makes no sense whatsoever logically) what Wikipedia says right now.If Knox is ultimately convicted, the article will reflect that, and if she's acquitted, the article will reflect the updated situation very quickly.

I have no idea what analogy you're trying to make with the Neil Armstrong stuff. But the answer is yes, that is the time and date when he set foot on the surface of the Moon.

 

[LondonJohn]

There was no question. Just an "eh?" at the end of a comment.

How do you think Amanda's brain-dead parents will fare in their upcoming trial?

I think served fairly well as a question. But if you're pedantic enough to want it rephrased as a direct question, then I will change one letter, and here you are:

Do you reckon Knox is/was a serial killer in training, who was only stopped from slaying more people by the intervention of the Perugia authorities?

And I think "Amanda's brain-dead parents" will see their trial adjourned until the end of the year. I think that what happens then will largely depend upon the outcome of the murder appeal trial in the Autumn.

 

[stilicho]

I think served fairly well as a question. But if you're pedantic enough to want it rephrased as a direct question, then I will change one letter, and here you are:

Do you reckon Knox is/was a serial killer in training, who was only stopped from slaying more people by the intervention of the Perugia authorities?

And I think "Amanda's brain-dead parents" will see their trial adjourned until the end of the year. I think that what happens then will largely depend upon the outcome of the murder appeal trial in the Autumn.

I answered your question/comment. We won't know if Knox is a prospective serial killer because she's in prison. It's actually a Groupie™ from your side of the fence who's pushing the Knox-As-Serial-Killer angle so she can get her own Wikipedia page. Truth be told, she's far more similar to Dennis Rader and displays much of the same hubris.

It's a mistake to pretend that Amanda's brain-dead parents' (as you call them) trial is an event whose outcome is dependent on another unconnected event. (Or scarcely connected).

I'm surprised, though. I think they'll be acquitted and that will be the end of it. The reason I say so is that the Italians are notoriously lenient and because the brain-dead parents can easily furnish plenty of evidence that they are simply stupid and not necessarily criminally contemptuous.

 

[yeti101]

Wrong, see above.

well i don't think childhood false memories is relevant to this case its an odd example. Also we're talking about knox not remembering what she was doing.

Its amnesia conditions you really want. I don't think she's been diagnosed with anything though.

 

[LondonJohn]

I answered your question/comment. We won't know if Knox is a prospective serial killer because she's in prison. It's actually a Groupie™ from your side of the fence who's pushing the Knox-As-Serial-Killer angle so she can get her own Wikipedia page. Truth be told, she's far more similar to Dennis Rader and displays much of the same hubris.

It's a mistake to pretend that Amanda's brain-dead parents' (as you call them) trial is an event whose outcome is dependent on another unconnected event. (Or scarcely connected).

I'm surprised, though. I think they'll be acquitted and that will be the end of it. The reason I say so is that the Italians are notoriously lenient and because the brain-dead parents can easily furnish plenty of evidence that they are simply stupid and not necessarily criminally contemptuous.

I didn't ask whether you (or we) will ever know if Knox would have been a serial killer. I asked whether you thought that she would have become one if she hadn't been "stopped".

And is "stupidity" (as opposed to legal insanity) a valid defence for breaking the law in Canada? Because I'm certain that it's not a valid defence in the UK. Or Italy.

 

[katy_did]

Not trying to pick a fight it just would be good to have a scan of the original rather than a translation and also to know where it came from - but I guess the source doesn't want to be revealed - I also want to know e.g. Are the quotes fro Drew Griffin direct?

Must admit, I'd prefer it if the original were posted as well (not a scan necessarily, since I don't doubt the document's genuine, but at least the original Italian). I'm sure the translation's accurate, it's just that there's always an element of interpretation* going on in any translation so it would be good to have the original to read too.

*I don't mean bias, just that even choosing one word rather than another similar word gives a slightly different meaning.

 

[spartacus]

well i don't think childhood false memories is relevant to this case its an odd example. Also we're talking about knox not remembering what she was doing.

Its amnesia conditions you really want. I don't think she's been diagnosed with anything though.

It's the creation of false memories through hours of overnight interrogation with a tag team of 12 police officers who claim that they have proof that she was there (lies) at the murder scene and that RS does not corroborate her aliby (also a lie since he just conceded the possibility she could have slipped out while he was asleep) and then getting her to "imagine" a scene which they wrote down and had her sign but then it wasn't admissible in court anyway.