Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

So, your convinced that RS and Knox will be aquitted?

Wow - now a straw man! We're racking them up tonight!!

I am not convinced that they will be acquitted. I believe they ought to be acquitted, based on the evidence I have. I also don't believe that I am not privy to any "sooper seekrit" evidence of guilt that has somehow slipped through the dual net of contemporaneous court reporting and the Massei Report.

 

[LondonJohn]

That's an outrageous suggestion

Withdraw it at once Madam !!

An interesting, informative and educative contribution to the debate about this case, as per usual. Well done.

 

[komponisto]

You think that Giulia Bongiorno (I assume that it's her you're referring to) is really the best criminal defence lawyer for a murder defendant in Italy, do you? Care to list how many murder defendants she's defended in her entire career before Sollecito? (Hint, the answer is less than 1 but greater than -1). Care to list the previous clients she's defended, and what they were charged with? (Hint: it's not even crimes of violence). Care to tell us what proportion of her time and energy she's been able to devote to defending Sollecito to date?

I have to disagree here. Bongiorno is formidable, in my opinion. Sollecito's appeal document -- which I'm fairly sure she wrote, as it sounds like her -- is excellent.

To say she is a heavyweight would almost be putting it mildly. She holds a position in the Italian parliament equivalent in U.S. terms to the chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee (I'm not sure what the U.K. counterpart is called). She knows what she's doing, and she knows the system. Given this kind of background, I don't think it matters much that her previous clients weren't murder defendants.

There are many explanations for the woes that have befallen Amanda and Raffaele; inadequate representation of the latter does not figure among them, IMO.

 

[Kaosium]

The attempt to pervert the course of justice by RS's family was worse than the Knox family behaviour ... I'll accept that.

What do you believe the Sollecito family did to 'pervert the cause of justice?'

Specifically.

 

[LondonJohn]

I have to disagree here. Bongiorno is formidable, in my opinion. Sollecito's appeal document -- which I'm fairly sure she wrote, as it sounds like her -- is excellent.

To say she is a heavyweight would almost be putting it mildly. She holds a position in the Italian parliament equivalent in U.S. terms to the chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee (I'm not sure what the U.K. counterpart is called). She knows what she's doing, and she knows the system. Given this kind of background, I don't think it matters much that her previous clients weren't murder defendants.

There are many explanations for the woes that have befallen Amanda and Raffaele; inadequate representation of the latter does not figure among them, IMO.

As I said before, I think that she's a very good criminal defence lawyer. This means that she is very good at performing her role in the trial process: she makes good, strong, logical arguments, and has very strong presentational skills and interpersonal skills. I've also got no doubt that she has a very strong legal mind, and the ability to think on her feet.

But you cannot underestimate the two things that I listed as the reasons why she was far from Sollecito's optimum choice for his defence: her lack of experience in murder cases, and her lack of full-time (or near full-time) availability. Since she had zero experience in murder cases, she would have had no previous contact with the sort of people who are important in murder trials: pathologists, ballistics experts, forensics experts, criminal psychologists, etc. As a result, I believe that she selected experts poorly for Sollecito's defence, and she prepared them poorly.

But more important to me than her lack of murder trial experience (which, as you say, is not insurmountable) is her lack of availability. Anyone defending a suspect in a major murder trial should be devoting the vast majority of his/her work time and effort to the case. Bongiorno effectively has a full-time job working as an Italian MP and a member of various parliamentary committees. It's ludicrous to imagine that she can work in these areas all week, then slip on her "Sollecito defence lawyer" hat at the weekends. It's unethical and detrimental, and this alone should have caused Bongiorno (in my opinion) to turn down the case.

 

[platonov]

If only she had watched courtroom dramas as a child.

As I said before, I think that she's a very good criminal defence lawyer. This means that she is very good at performing her role in the trial process: she makes good, strong, logical arguments, and has very strong presentational skills and interpersonal skills. I've also got no doubt that she has a very strong legal mind, and the ability to think on her feet.

But you cannot underestimate the two things that I listed as the reasons why she was far from Sollecito's optimum choice for his defence: her lack of experience in murder cases, and her lack of full-time (or near full-time) availability. Since she had zero experience in murder cases, she would have had no previous contact with the sort of people who are important in murder trials: pathologists, ballistics experts, forensics experts, criminal psychologists, etc. As a result, I believe that she selected experts poorly for Sollecito's defence, and she prepared them poorly.

But more important to me than her lack of murder trial experience (which, as you say, is not insurmountable) is her lack of availability. Anyone defending a suspect in a major murder trial should be devoting the vast majority of his/her work time and effort to the case. Bongiorno effectively has a full-time job working as an Italian MP and a member of various parliamentary committees. It's ludicrous to imagine that she can work in these areas all week, then slip on her "Sollecito defence lawyer" hat at the weekends. It's unethical and detrimental, and this alone should have caused Bongiorno (in my opinion) to turn down the case.

Oh but its much worse than that apparently.

According to your and Rolfe's arguments she didn't even understand the importance of the 'ToD vs Alibi' issue which most 11 yr olds who watch TV can figure out.

Unless she is in on the conspiracy.

 

[Kevinfay]

Forgot to say that last Monday to Friday on BBC radio 4 the were a series of five programmes about deception, questioning suspects etc. The programmes are available for 7 days after broadcast on the BBC radio site. I think that it was Wednesday's was the best ... the latest research suggests that suspects should be asked to tell their story 'backwards' .. the guilty will always have rehearsed the story told 'forwards' but fall into inconsistancies, etc. much more when questioned 'backwards'.

Also, a long time ago, I found a great documentary on crime scene DNA, TOD etc. its on youtube, I posted the link to PMF, I'll see if I can find it tomorrow.

Big day tomorrow?, I'll be trying to finish my work early, I'll also ring Corriere dell Umbria about the audios again.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh but its much worse than that apparently.

According to your and Rolfe's arguments she didn't even understand the importance of the 'ToD vs Alibi' issue which most 11 yr olds who watch TV can figure out.

Unless she is in on the conspiracy.

Yes, I think that both Knox's and Sollecito's defence teams slipped up significantly with their failure to properly argue this issue in the first trial. But it was not entirely their fault: the prosecution took the extraordinary step (which was even more extraordinarily allowed by Massei) to push back its ToD in closing arguments.

But it's clear through the appeal submission that the defence teams have realised the importance of this issue and the ability to resolve it in their clients' favour. So it hasn't gone unnoticed or unaddressed.

 

[Kevinfay]

What do you believe the Sollecito family did to 'pervert the cause of justice?'

Specifically.

Have you not followed that case?

They attempted to get the then Minister of Justice to have two police officers moved off the case. There are telephone intercepts of them doing this.

Last I heard, they will be in the dock tomorrow.

 

[komponisto]

Since she had zero experience in murder cases, she would have had no previous contact with the sort of people who are important in murder trials: pathologists, ballistics experts, forensics experts, criminal psychologists, etc. As a result, I believe that she selected experts poorly for Sollecito's defence, and she prepared them poorly.

I can't imagine that, as a politician specializing in matters relating to the justice system, she wouldn't have a network of contacts adequate to getting the best people. But regardless, I honestly don't think it made any difference. After all, Knox's lawyers were able to get Carlo Torre, and you probably can't do much better than that. Yet his words fell on deaf ears, just as much as those of Tagliabracci or Pasquali (who also gave what should have been perfectly adequate arguments).

Bongiorno effectively has a full-time job working as an Italian MP and a member of various parliamentary committees. It's ludicrous to imagine that she can work in these areas all week, then slip on her "Sollecito defence lawyer" hat at the weekends. It's unethical and detrimental, and this alone should have caused Bongiorno (in my opinion) to turn down the case.

You might have a point here, though, ironically, you might also be applying standards more appropriate to Anglo-Saxon systems than the Italian one. In the U.S., for example, I'm not even sure members of Congress are allowed to have other jobs. On the other hand, in Italy, criminal justice seems to be viewed as a leisurely affair that can be done on weekends and stretched out over months; so perhaps the kind of thing Bongiorno is doing is accepted or even typical practice in that country, where so many assumptions are different.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Oh but its much worse than that apparently.

According to your and Rolfe's arguments she didn't even understand the importance of the 'ToD vs Alibi' issue which most 11 yr olds who watch TV can figure out.

Unless she is in on the conspiracy.

What time do you think Meredith Kercher died, Platonov, and what evidence leads you to that conclusion?

 

[Kaosium]

Have you not followed that case?

Indeed I have.

They attempted to get the then Minister of Justice to have two police officers moved off the case. There are telephone intercepts of them doing this.

Where I come from there's nothing sinister about going to your elected representatives, that's what they're there for. His son was arrested with no evidence on a ludicrous charge, I don't blame him for trying to do whatever he could. Personally I believe everyone involved would have been better off had someone stepped in and removed Mignini from the case.

Last I heard, they will be in the dock tomorrow.

Is that the reason they're going to court?

 

[Kevinfay]

I really don't understand where the guilters think they are going with this meme.

Is the implicit argument "You cannot really believe this to be true, or else you would be doing X, Y and Z?". If so it's an irrelevant argument because whether or not something is true is independent of whether any particular person really believes it to be true. You might as well say "If you really believed that there are ongoing atrocities in the Congo, you would have lobbied your government to intervene further. If you have not lobbied your government then it follows that there are no ongoing atrocities in the Congo".

Or is the implicit argument merely "If you believe this to be true and are not doing X, Y and Z you are a bad person"? If so this is equally irrelevant. You might as well argue "You are a bad person for not lobbying your government to intervene in the Congo, hence there are no ongoing atrocities in the Congo".

Either way it's a stupid argument.

Either AK and RS have the best lawyers in the universe or they do not. What LondonJohn may or may not secretly believe about it or have privately done about it is neither here nor there.

Why not focus on the available hard facts about whether or not AK and RS have the best lawyers in the universe? My guess is that the guilters don't focus on that because any discussion that stays focused on hard facts rather than attacks on personalities isn't going to go well for the guilters, and they know it.

Kevin,

I know that you are a philosopher, but I can't understand what your talking about ... does anybody else?

I think your trying to say that LondonJohn shouldn't give RS the benefit of his expertise on Italian Lawyers .... but I can't follow your reasoning as to why?.

The only thing I'm sure of is that your not objecting to the price of a stamp!!

 

[pilot padron]

You know very well what they did...specifically

What do you believe the Sollecito family did to 'pervert the cause of justice?'

Specifically.

Surely you jest.

How about *for openers*, specifically.....
...releasing an evidence video to Telenorba that was provided only to Families of defendants and showed the victim, Meredith Kercher, nude...

Raffaele’s family: Francesco Sollecito (his father), Vanessa Sollecito (his sister), Mara Papagni (his stepmother) Giuseppe Sollecito (his uncle) and Sara Achille (his aunt) all from Bari have been charged with leaking a crime scene video out of the 10,000-plus pages plus of evidence and exhibits to Telenorba, a Bari television station.

The charges are as follows: defamation, invasion of privacy, and publication of arbitrary acts of a criminal case.

Additionally, Vanessa was fired from her plum Lieutenant position for unethical attempts to pervert the course by using influence with higher ups, etcc.
This specifically proven via wiretaps

Cognizant that these actions may well be just a common everyday Southern Italian tactic *to help water to run uphill* per chance, but none the less frowned upon by ILE *specifically* as an indictable criminal act, and cause for dismissal, as well as horribly insensitive to the Kercher Family.

Or are you simply seeking to embark upon the 'house specialty' here and lets spend pages arguing whether deliberately leaking the video, and the resultant quite specific criminal charges are the really the same or just close to the same or maybe not exactly the same, but some may think they are the same (ad nauseam) as 'perverting the cause of justice'

Having read your comments on Maundy's Blog, I noted your earlier 'confusion' about the Sollecito Family's actions, but thought you were sufficiently enlightened by Maundy before leaving there.
Therefore your above well worn question seems somewhat shocking to me, and at best questionably motivated

http://maundygregory.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/bloggergate-update/

 

[platonov]

Kevin,

I know that you are a philosopher, but I can't understand what your talking about ... does anybody else?

I think your trying to say that LondonJohn shouldn't give RS the benefit of his expertise on Italian Lawyers .... but I can't follow your reasoning as to why?.

The only thing I'm sure of is that your not objecting to the price of a stamp!!

Well they are over priced - see Wittgenstein or Bayes for a fuller explanation.

But I must warn you its very complex - beyond the understanding of mere mortals

 

[Kaosium]

Surely you jest.

How about *for openers*, specifically.....
...releasing an evidence video to Telenorba that was provided only to Families of defendants and showed the victim, Meredith Kercher, nude...

Raffaele’s family: Francesco Sollecito (his father), Vanessa Sollecito (his sister), Mara Papagni (his stepmother) Giuseppe Sollecito (his uncle) and Sara Achille (his aunt) all from Bari have been charged with leaking a crime scene video out of the 10,000-plus pages plus of evidence and exhibits to Telenorba, a Bari television station.

The charges are as follows: defamation, invasion of privacy, and publication of arbitrary acts of a criminal case.

Cognizant that this action may well be just a common everyday Southern Italian tactic *to help water to run uphill* per chance, but none the less frowned upon by ILE *specifically* as an indictable criminal act, as well as horribly insensitive to the Kercher Family.

Or are you simply seeking to embark upon the 'house specialty' here and lets spend pages arguing whether deliberately leaking the video, and the resultant quite specific criminal charges are the really the same or just close to the same or maybe not exactly the same, but some may think they are the same (ad nauseam) as 'perverting the cause of justice'

Having read your comments on Maundy's Blog, I noted your earlier 'confusion' about the Sollecito Family's actions, but thought you were sufficiently enlightened by Maundy before leaving there.
Therefore your above well worn question seems somewhat shocking to me, and at best questionably motivated

http://maundygregory.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/bloggergate-update/

I think Maundy is a clown and just cribbing from TJMK and doesn't know the case but is too arrogant to realize how ignorant he is. The second-long (or so) fuzzy clip of the victim is irrelevant to why it was televised or prosecuted, and that was to show the utter incompetence and downright strange actions of the Polizia Scientifica as they raced out to the crime scene to 'procure' more 'evidence' against their victim, Raffaele Sollecito. This after the Sollecito family exposed the mindless confirmation-bias error of the police who proved a bright six year-old could recognize patterns better than they.

I think Raffaele should be proud his family cares that much about him, and I think Mignini should eventually go to jail for filing these charges, and all the rest, in an abusive attempt to save his backside from the meathook he so richly deserves.

 

[platonov]

TV or not TV (as John Logie Bard might have said)

Yes, I think that both Knox's and Sollecito's defence teams slipped up significantly with their failure to properly argue this issue in the first trial. But it was not entirely their fault: the prosecution took the extraordinary step (which was even more extraordinarily allowed by Massei) to push back its ToD in closing arguments.

But it's clear through the appeal submission that the defence teams have realised the importance of this issue and the ability to resolve it in their clients' favour. So it hasn't gone unnoticed or unaddressed.

Hold on are you backtracking or obfuscating (I was expecting a more verbose response/denial/word salad but still)

Did the defence lawyers understand, in the first trial, the 'ToD vs Alibi' issue or not ??

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kevin,

I know that you are a philosopher, but I can't understand what your talking about ... does anybody else?

I'll try stating it in simpler terms just this once and see how that works.

You keep running the line of argument "If you really believe X, have you done Y?".

It is a dumb argument because rational person only cares about the evidence for X. They do not care whether some other person really believes X, or whether their actions are consistent with really believing X.

I think your trying to say that LondonJohn shouldn't give RS the benefit of his expertise on Italian Lawyers .... but I can't follow your reasoning as to why?.

No, you got that wrong, as I hope you can see now.

I don't care whether LondonJohn intervenes in the matter or not. I only care whether he is right or not. To answer that question we need facts about the lawyers, not facts about LondonJohn. Examining LondonJohn's behaviour to see if RS and AK's lawyers are competent is like going through Rolfe's trash to see what the time of death was.

No rational person would do that. A rational person would go straight to the facts.

 

[theRealBob]

I felt Bongiorno was a dreadful representative for Raff in the first trial.

I thought the thought put into his appeal statement was quite clever and incisive when it first came out...

 

[pilot padron]

I think Maundy is a clown and just cribbing from TJMK and doesn't know the case but is too arrogant to realize how ignorant he is. The second-long (or so) fuzzy clip of the victim is irrelevant to why it was televised or prosecuted, and that was to show the utter incompetence and downright strange actions of the Polizia Scientifica as they raced out to the crime scene to 'procure' more 'evidence' against their victim, Raffaele Sollecito. This after the Sollecito family exposed the mindless confirmation-bias error of the police who proved a bright six year-old could recognize patterns better than they.

I think Raffaele should be proud his family cares that much about him, and I think Mignini should eventually go to jail for filing these charges, and all the rest, in an abusive attempt to save his backside from the meathook he so richly deserves.

I think including in your above argument tangential and somewhat strange slurs against Maundy, TJMK, Poliziza Scientifica, and of course the Prosecutor, coupled with all the other ILE you similarly repeatedly slur in past arguments does little other than add to the reasons that opponents here come to the understandable conclusion that the innocence argument contains a lot of conspiracy underpinnings.

His son was arrested with no evidence on a ludicrous charge, I don't blame him for trying to do whatever he could.

Also, if you sincerely believe that releasing that not for public consumption video as well as the blatant attempt to 'call in chips' from influential politicos is a *to be admired act of a caring family*, I simply depart in utter disbelief.

I also maintain complete bewilderment at your indifference to repeated entreaties from Knox herself, her lead Attorney, and so many others to cease and desist from the senseless counterproductive ILE bashing.