Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Rolfe]

I could point you towards all those who have reported (with certainity) that they have seen a UFO or Bigfoot. I'm a skeptic and a critical thinker, that's why I post on this forum. Just show me the actual evidence/verbatim testimony, not what others say the evidence and testimony is. Why is this so difficult? You would expect nothing less if it was a claim of a UFO or Bigfoot.

Now you see, that's where I disagree. I think that blind acceptance that someone else knows best because the have privileged information not available to others, is profoundly unsceptical.

You say you haven't seen the evidence. And yet you are very aggressive in your insistence that Knox and Sollecito are factually guilty. You rightly want to see the evidence as regards Bigfoot or a UFO, but you will vehemently insist that a couple of students murdered their friend, without seeing the evidence.

You must be working on some other definition of scepticism I'm not familiar with.

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

Hang on are you saying that if they lost their 1st appeal or first appeal or is that second appeal no it’s 2nd trial they would be released, really how would that work? Please do keep your response simple as though you are talking to an epsilon semi moron.

Sorry - I misread what you wrote. I thought that you'd asked what happened if they won their first appeal.

If they lose the first appeal, then they remain in custody while the case goes for final review to the Supreme Court of Italy. This court's only jurisdiction is over points of law - in other words, it will check that the law was properly applied and followed in the first trial and the first appeal.

If the Supreme Court finds that the law was not followed or applied correctly, and that this failing had an adverse impact on the defendant(s), it will acquit but (I think) order a retrial. If it confirms that the law was correctly followed, then it will confirm the verdicts and apply the convictions and sentences (both of which might have been modified by the first appeal court). Knox and Sollecito would then begin the sentences as convicted criminals, but would have time spent in custody to date deducted from the length of the sentences.

Once convicted, Knox and Sollecito would have a potential path to the ECHR, if they could argue that their fundamental right to a fair trial had been breached. Frankly, however, I would find it hard to envisage a situation where the Italian Supreme Court would overlook such a breach and confirm the verdicts - in other words, if the Supreme Court convicts them, I can't think they'll have much of a case before the ECHR.

Even after all these avenues, they would still have the "conventional" right to apply to appeal, if new exculpatory evidence came to light (for example, suppose that in five years' time, a Perugia man were to come forward to confess to the murder, and was able to produce Meredith's purse and keys). This sort of appeal would be similar to the anglo-saxon model, where the defence would have to actively show that the original convictions were unsafe and incorrect.

 

[Paninaro]

My suspicion was Aviello was simply to show the prosecution, in their 'quest for the truth' in the inquisitorial system didn't due do diligence in the last trial. In other words simply to raise the possibility of reasonable doubt. I still wonder why someone didn't just go and look to see if the keys and knife were there, though it might be he wouldn't say exactly where they were until he got his day in court. I recall something to that effect but never spent much time on the story, maybe someone will go look now. It is an interesting coincidence he was living four houses down at the time of the murder though, as per Nick Pisa's article (I think) in the Telegraph.

It is not just Alessi though, two others said the same thing, and as I outlined in a post earlier, they're bringing in the guy who chatted with Rudy over the Skype and two policeman from the questura as well next week. I haven't seen confirmation but I would guess they'd be the guys who instigated that part of the investigation. Now they may well have to confirm that Rudy said Amanda wasn't involved and was contradictory about he said about Raffaele, and then say they didn't believe him, but still that would make for six people admitting they heard Amanda wasn't involved and more or less the same about Raffaele. I think that may be important.

I agree. I think there is a tendency here to underestimate the value of the testimonies from people saying that both before and after Guede implicated Knox and Sollecito in the murder he has told them a different story where the pair wasn't involved at all. As I understand it these testimonies count as evidence in Italy as there are no rules about hearsay to make them inadmissable. They have to be taken into consideration together with all the other evidence.

I don't know for sure of course. Does anyone know to what extent there is a free evaluation of evidence in Italy? There seems to be some rules, but nothing like in a common law system.

If Alessi's testimony is judged to be trustworthy, mainly because it is backed up by others, even though he's a child killer, then the judges may come to the conclusion that Guede probably could have told the truth about Knox and Sollecitos noninvolvement, even if his story as a whole doesn't make sense. After all, there is no reason for the judges to think he is protecting Knox and Sollecito, in his story to Alessi. If that was his purpose, why did he implicate them at all earlier on?

So if Curatolo is out, which is likely, and the DNA-evidence is out, which is possible, then this may add up to reasonable doubt. No murder weapon, no breaking of alibi, no placing on murder scene at the time of the crime, and a convicted third murderer who is going round telling different people they were not involved.

 

[platonov]

'remarkable similarity' & 'running commentary' ?

It's similar in that someone extremely close to the murder victim (in one case a father, in the other a foster-mother) believes that the person found guilty of their loved one's murder should have no right to the legal process of appeal, because they find this upsetting.

Never mind how well-founded the grounds of appeal are, it shouldn't be allowed.




What I find interesting (though not quite interesting enough to use a coloured font) is your infinite inventiveness in coming up with ways to discuss the process, rather than the evidence.

What time do you think Meredith died, and on what do you base that opinion?

Rolfe.

Come back with those goalposts and put the strawmen down.

I would like to see evidence of the 'remarkable similarity' & 'running commentary' and a response dealing with the points made in my post.

If you don't have any (as your generic 'whats the evidence' Q shows) - fine.

 

[Alt+F4]

We've already seen more than enough evidence...

Ask yourself, what evidence have you actually seen vs. what evidence you have read about.

 

[Rolfe]

Ask yourself, what evidence have you actually seen vs. what evidence you have read about.

Right. So what evidence have you actually seen that makes you so virulently certain that Knox and Sollecito carried out the murder?

Is it sceptical, simply to accept the word of people you have faith know more than you do?

Rolfe.

 

[Alt+F4]

Right. So what evidence have you actually seen that makes you so virulently certain that Knox and Sollecito carried out the murder?

I'm not certain. Are you?

 

[LashL]

Ask yourself, what evidence have you actually seen vs. what evidence you have read about.

Alt+F4, I don't really understand your posts in this regard. You seem to be suggesting that those who think the convictions at first instance may be unsafe haven't seen enough evidence to make that determination, and yet at the same time, you seem to be suggesting that you believe the convictions to be safe and appropriate even though you haven't seen any more evidence than those who disagree with you.

Many of your posts also seem to be suggesting that 'the court got it right because they must have seen some secret stash of evidence that the rest of us haven't seen and that's good enough for me' - which is decidedly non-skeptical and decidedly antithetical to critical thinking.

In fact, the suggestion that there is some secret stash of evidence that the court relied upon, but that was never mentioned mentioned in the 400+ pages that make up the Massei sentencing report, never mentioned in the press, and never mentioned in the appeal documents - not even by the prosecution who are simultaneously appealing - strikes me as patently ridiculous.

 

[Rolfe]

No, it means that, unlike you, I haven't spent thousands of hours obsessing over various conspiracy theories regarding this case.

If I cared enough, I would have Googled it.

Now, this is what I don't understand. The inference here seems to be that Knox is believed to have carried out the murder, because the verdict of the first hearing was guilty. If someone who knows nothing about the specifics of the case and doesn't even care enough to Google it is arguing passionately for guilt, that seems to be the only explanation.

But then, the verdict of the second hearing may overturn the first. What then? If the court verdict is the be-all and end-all, then hey, Knox was innocent all along. Hallelujah! Right?

...as it took an absurdly corrupted system out of touch with reality to produce that verdict in the trial of the first instance.

If she is found not guilty on appeal, then your statement is correct.

I didn't bother reading the rest.

It is important to keep every detail straight, in a case like this. Small technicalities like this are how murderers like Amanda Knox get off sometimes.

Apparently not. Even if the verdict at the second hearing is "not guilty", it appears that Knox is still to be believed to be guilty. Even though the final verdict at the end of the judicial process is not guilty, and even though the opinion has been arrived at without any knowledge at all of the specifics of the case or the evidence.

I don't know what this is, but it is not sceptcism.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm not certain. Are you?

When did I ever say I was? However, your own posts have made it perfectly clear that you are for all practical purposes utterly convinced of guilt.

I could explain those pieces of evidence which have been presented here which incline me to the belief that neither Knox nor Sollecito had anything to do with it, but you don't want to discuss the evidence. You seem only to want to declare that nobody who wasn't on the jury knows anything, but you have such blind faith in their authority that the verdict cannot be questioned.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Come back with those goalposts and put the strawmen down.

I would like to see evidence of the 'remarkable similarity' & 'running commentary' and a response dealing with the points made in my post.

What does it matter? I thought there was a similarity with the Lois Jenkins conundrum, you disagree. It's not worth wasting another electron on.

If you don't have any (as your generic 'whats the evidence' Q shows) - fine.

And this post is yet another example of your obsession with peripherals and process, combined with a perverse refusal to address the actual evidence.

Not impressed, I have to say.

Rolfe.

 

[Alt+F4]

Alt+F4, I don't really understand your posts in this regard. You seem to be suggesting that those who think the convictions at first instance may be unsafe haven't seen enough evidence to make that determination, and yet at the same time, you seem to be suggesting that you believe the convictions to be safe and appropriate even though you haven't seen any more evidence than those who disagree with you.

Let me clarify. My belief in the pairs guilt (which doesn't follow exactly with the prosecution's case) is very much based on the limited evidence that is available to the public.

Many of your posts also seem to be suggesting that 'the court got it right because they must have seen some secret stash of evidence that the rest of us haven't seen and that's good enough for me' - which is decidedly non-skeptical and decidedly antithetical to critical thinking.

I've never said there is a secret stash of evidence but then what is one to think when an important prosecution witness was later claimed to be a deaf, crazy shut-in? You don't think that's an important piece of information?

In fact, the suggestion that there is some secret stash of evidence that the court relied upon, but that was never mentioned mentioned in the 400+ pages that make up the Massei sentencing report, never mentioned in the press, and never mentioned in the appeal documents - not even by the prosecution who are simultaneously appealing - strikes me as patently ridiculous.

I think it's patently ridiculous to believe, as many do, that the pair are 100% innocent and that there is "no evidence against them" without reading the trial transcript. My opinion.

 

[Alt+F4]

...but you don't want to discuss the evidence...

Show me the evidence, please.

 

[platonov]

What does it matter? I thought there was a similarity with the Lois Jenkins conundrum, you disagree. It's not worth wasting another electron on.

It doesn't apparently - its just electrons

And this post is yet another example of your obsession with peripherals and process, combined with a perverse refusal to address the actual evidence.

Not impressed, I have to say.

OK. I can certainly live with that.

After 50k posts thats a common refrain ! Should the evidence be discussed again it would be just electrons (till the next time).


But my ........

What I find more interesting is the vitriol aimed at K. Snr and his motives and the contrast with the 'the baby killer' & co who's motives are apparently as pure as the driven snow and have absolutely no connection with the defence lawyers. Whether the 'court' sees it that way is a different matter.

YMMV. Apparently it does.

...............stands. Cruelty to electrons notwithstanding

 

[Rolfe]

Let me clarify. My belief in the pairs guilt (which doesn't follow exactly with the prosecution's case) is very much based on the limited evidence that is available to the public.

Then why do you consistently refuse to discuss that evidence? That's what most other people seem to be doing, and such discussion would seem to be the main motivation for anyone to post here, I would have thought.

To take the view that Knox and Sollecito are guilty, based on the evidence that is in the public domain, but then to meet every attempt to discuss this evidence with the assertion that no conclusion is possible without knowing details that are not in the public domain, seems perverse.

I've never said there is a secret stash of evidence but then what is one to think when an important prosecution witness was later claimed to be a deaf, crazy shut-in? You don't think that's an important piece of information?

I'd need to understand the context. What is one to think when one is told that Meredith began her last meal at about 6.00 to 6.30, and that at post mortem her duodenum was empty and there were recognisable chunks of semi-digested pizza in her stomach? You don't think that's important?

Maybe she took the pizza home and microwaved it and ate it at 9.15. Or maybe the post mortem report has been misreported, and there was actually ample ingesta in the duodenum and half way down the jejunum.

Failing either of these eventualities, Meredith died before ten o'clock, probably quite a bit before ten o'clock. Whether anyone thought they heard a scream at a later time, and what their psychological problems may or may not have been is neither here nor there in that context.

I think it's patently ridiculous to believe, as many do, that the pair are 100% innocent and that there is "no evidence against them" without reading the trial transcript. My opinion.

And has anyone wholly disagreed with you on this? However, 100% proof of innocence is not required for an acquittal. By the same token, I think it's patently ridiculous to believe, as you do, that the pair are 100% guilty on the basis of what evidence is in the public domain.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Let me clarify. My belief in the pairs guilt (which doesn't follow exactly with the prosecution's case) is very much based on the limited evidence that is available to the public.

Show me the evidence, please.

THAT evidence. Why do you set your face against discussing it?

Rolfe.

 

[theRealBob]

Does anybody know why Monica Napoleoni is being recalled as a witness next Monday week,to do a little more lying as Frank Sfarzo thinks,she was a reluctant witness when the absurdity of Curatolo as a witness to anything was revealed for all to see,in one of Franks last posts before it became necessary for Frank to change the address where he spends the night regularly for his own safety,he slated Monica for her part in bringing about this miscarriage of justice,according to Frank Mignini's blind faith in Monica is the reason why so many innocent lives have being irreparably damaged,it would be nice indeed if she was being set up as a scape goat

I can't see her being in Hellman's good books.

The thought of Mignini being dragged into the appeal process to be made a scapegoat has crossed my mind after seeing Hellman's interest in having independent DNA tests.
Plus the despatching of Curatolo...

 

[Paninaro]

To bad he didn't die right there in the court room.

I agree he is a low life and that his testimony isn't a trustworthy as an ordinary law abading citizen. But since he's backed up by others and his testimony makes sense it's still evidence in the eyes of the court.

Why would RG want Alessi to like him better? I hear that child killers aren't very popular in prison.

Well, I'm thinking in terms of self defence and self preservation. Guede needs to be liked by his cell mate and he' s probably ridden with some sort of guilt. A young black man alone with a murderer who uses shovels to kill kids. Maybe he's afraid? My idea was that he can't face this guilt and like a lonely child he invents this imaginery friend he can put the blame on.

My take on this is that the defense is trying make the point that it's possible that persons other than AK and RS committed this murder. The defense knows they won't win with a "lone wolf" theory so they have to suggest others were involved.

I have to respectfully disagree. My opinion is that the defence still can argue the lone killer theory, despite the verdict against Guede. Anyhow, I don't think it matters either way, cause all the defence has to do is show reasonable doubt, not build a theory of the crime themselves. But that's already been discussed at length. We will get the answer.

Your English seems fine to me.

Very nice of you to say that.

 

[Kaosium]

Skepticism.



Ouch.

You ought to try it!

Perhaps this hasn't been made perfectly clear, but let me try again. In the Italian system there are (almost) automatically three trials.

1. The first one, which handed down the dubious 'guilty' verdict which many of us are skeptical of as it requires that biology, physics, forensics, logic and common sense to be different in the state of Umbria. It was also prosecuted by a corrupt kook, which means that even had Amanda and Raffaele been found not guilty, they'd still have had to endure another trial--this one--because the prosecution has the latitude to appeal even a not guilty verdict. They can also appeal the sentence, which Mignini did, thus they now face life in prison as 25 & 26 year sentences weren't enough for him.

2. Now we are at the second one, the first appeal which is another completely new trial, with witnesses and everything as you've seen! Even if Raffaele and Amanda are found guilty by this court, it will go to the next level automatically. If they are found not guilty it may also go to the next level, as the prosecution could appeal that as well.

3. Then it goes to the Supreme Court which in this case, in the unlikely event it gets that far, will almost certainly find Amanda and Raffaele not guilty and release them. Then they will start paying them money for the wreckage this inane system has done to their lives. That's because in a case like this it is virtually impossible for a rational and scientifically literate person to conclude they were involved beyond a reasonable doubt. Especially when science says it's almost impossible they could have even been there, that's what all those people talking about computer records and stomach contents are trying to get across.

If for some bizarre corrupt reason it gets past the Supreme Court, then it will go to the ECHR and they have lots of experience rectifying the errors of the Italian Court System.

Since this is a severe pain in the ass and takes forever, guilty people (for the most part) often opt for a 'fast track' procedure which abbreviates the first trial, skips the second one and sends it to the Supreme Court. They receive a one third reduction from their final sentence as a reward. That's what Rudy Guede did, which is why he has already been found guilty.

The people that you might have known who thought them guilty, weren't doing so on the basis of rationality, or skepticism. It mainly comes down to political views or the assumption the cops were so incompetent they could have been guilty anyway despite the fact the evidence accepted by the last court is all irrelevant or bogus.

 

[Paninaro]

dp