Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[komponisto]

You really believe that the way the trial is reported can affect the outcome within the court? Seriously?

You would doubt this? Seriously?

Media reporting can have a huge effect on people's perceptions. This is surely an elementary point!

(Are you familiar with this case at all?)

Now, as it happens, in this particular instance, because we're talking about a report intended for an audience outside the country where the trial is taking place, you're probably right to suggest that Sky News' error (that really feels like too mild a word) is unlikely to have much effect on the outcome of the trial.

However, I would urge you to consider the wider implications of this error. What does the fact that Sky News was capable of this suggest about the accuracy of news reports in general?

I think some people on this thread need to keep some perspective.

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are live humans, with actual neurons firing in their brains. (So, for that matter, was Meredith Kercher.) I hold that it is okay to be upset when bad things happen to live humans.

And, as hard as it may be for some to believe, the world is not waiting on the outcome of the appeal with bated breath.

That's easy to say when you're not the one trapped in a prison cell.

Just out of curiosity, what do various posters on this thread plan to do if the outcome of the appeal is contrary to their stated belief?

If her guilt is re-affirmed by the court, will those convinced of her innocence accept this and move on with their lives?

If you were an innocent convict whose guilt was re-affirmed by an appeals court, would you "accept" the ruling and "move on with your life"?

Right -- that would be kind of hard, wouldn't it?

So I don't see why similar reasoning -- perhaps to a lesser degree -- shouldn't extend to supporters of an innocent person.

 

[uk_dave]

But evidence from notable miscarriages of justice tend to suggest that a miscarriage is more likely if there is a prevailing public (and media) negative view of the defendant(s) before and during the trial process.

But hardly a statement spoken in italian, in an italian court, to italian judges, but then mis-reported by a UK news station.

Perspective.

 

[LondonJohn]

That Knox family must be a bunch of morons compared to you!

In the immortal words of Vic and Bob: "You wouldn't let it lie!"

 

[uk_dave]

..... suggest about the accuracy of news reports in general.


.

Oh I agree with you 100%. I think over-reliance on news reporting of both the trial and the appeal is where alot of those who believe her to be innocent are going wrong. Which is why I believe, and others have stated, that what happens in the court, with the cases made by defence and prosecution, is the only arena in which guilt or otherwise is going to be decided. The internet, blogs, books, tv reporting .... the whole media circus is not important.

 

[Alt+F4]

However, I would urge you to consider the wider implications of this error. What does the fact that Sky News was capable of this suggest about the accuracy of news reports in general?

The Sky News error doesn't say anything about news reports in general. Sky News, the BBC, The New York Times and ever other media outlet has at one time or another had errors in their reporting. It's inevitable when flawed humans have to do the reporting. I've seen no evidence that the main stream media is rife with bad reporting.

 

[Alt+F4]

If you were an innocent convict whose guilt was re-affirmed by an appeals court, would you "accept" the ruling and "move on with your life"?

I wouldn't, but I might be inclined to change my strategy.

 

[LondonJohn]

But hardly a statement spoken in italian, in an italian court, to italian judges, but then mis-reported by a UK news station.

Perspective.

I was making a comment in reply to this specific post by halides:

uk_dave,

What I think is that the trials should have been held in another city, due to pretrial publicity. And I think that Italy would benefit by studying and adapting the rules that govern what UK prosecutors (and police?) can say during the pretrial period. LondonJohn commented on this some time ago. Those kinds of things can have an effect. MOO.

Now, I don't know about you, but I was under the impression that this post was about the wider issue of pretrial publicity and extra-judicial publicity. That was the issue i was addressing.

But yes, if you want to keep things to the narrow issue of misreporting of court proceedings, then I totally agree with you that such instances should have little or no tangible effect on the judicial process. Perspective, indeed.

 

[Diocletus]

Alessi lied and perjured himself on the stand last week when he said he didn't recognize the photo of the child he murdered.

Maybe. But a statement by Alessi that he did not know the child would I'm sure be consistent with whatever legal position he took in that case. Probably would have been smarter for him to have said "that's the child that I am unjustly accused of murdering." But he's not in jail for being smart.

Again, his story is corroborated by two other witnesses, so while you might accept that Alessi is a liar, you can totally disregard his testimony only if you assume a conspiracy among these three witnesses to provide false testimony for no apparent reason.

 

[komponisto]

Oh I agree with you 100%. I think over-reliance on news reporting of both the trial and the appeal is where alot of those who believe her to be innocent are going wrong.

What about those who believe her to be guilty?

Which is why I believe, and others have stated, that what happens in the court, with the cases made by defence and prosecution, is the only arena in which guilt or otherwise is going to be decided. The internet, blogs, books, tv reporting .... the whole media circus is not important.

I beg to differ. In a free and open society, it is crucially important that the institutions of government -- which certainly includes the criminal justice system -- be subjected to public scrutiny. Unquestioning deference to courts is not modesty, it is authoritarianism. The problem here is not "the media circus". The problem here is the false information produced by the media circus. And so the solution to this problem is not to ignore the media, abandon our critical thinking, and simply leave the courts to their business. The solution is to use more critical thinking, and hold journalists to account just like we (should) hold courts to account.

 

[LondonJohn]

Kevinfay!!!

How did you get on with your calls to Sky Corporation and the ex-head of Sky Music Italia? I am desperate to find out!

 

[platonov]

So - What have we learned today.

It appears Sky News are in on the conspiracy ? [ I'll never trust them again; they are usually a paragon of good journalism and accurate reporting ]
This thing is even bigger than you guys thought !!








ps
In another related but seemingly unimportant development RG has confirmed on the stand his letter of last year - that AK & RS were at the crime scene and are responsible for the murder.
While he obviously has credibility issues - It's up to the court to weigh that up - its hardly helpful to the defence to put it very mildly.

Also there is a suggestion that the defence have been seeking to 'buy' witnesses.

All in all - a very good day for the defence ??

 

[Katody Matrass]

Does anyone know what happened to that Skype buddy that was to testify today?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the role of blogs and books

I was making a comment in reply to this specific post by halides:

"uk_dave,

What I think is that the trials should have been held in another city, due to pretrial publicity. And I think that Italy would benefit by studying and adapting the rules that govern what UK prosecutors (and police?) can say during the pretrial period. LondonJohn commented on this some time ago. Those kinds of things can have an effect. MOO."

Now, I don't know about you, but I was under the impression that this post was about the wider issue of pretrial publicity and extra-judicial publicity. That was the issue i was addressing.

But yes, if you want to keep things to the narrow issue of misreporting of court proceedings, then I totally agree with you that such instances should have little or no tangible effect on the judicial process. Perspective, indeed.

LondonJohn,

You are correct about what my post addressed.

uk_dave,

Would the three Duke lacrosse student-athletes still have been acquitted without the work of the bloggers who completely disassembled and discredited the prosecution's narrative? I think it is more likely than not that they would have been. However, the three players would not have been able to recover their reputations to the degree that they have without blogs and books on the subject. Moreover, the work of authors and bloggers can affect whether or not people get involved at a grass-roots level. I wonder whether or not you are aware of how much of the pre-trial information on this case that ILE leaked to the press was bogus. What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Katody Matrass]

But yet you believed the Sky "translation" without reservation - even though all logic would mitigate against that belief for the reasons that I've already been through.

Oh dear what a massive blunder. That some posters so uncritically embraced it is symptomatic.

 

[LondonJohn]

So - What have we learned today.

It appears Sky News are in on the conspiracy ? [ I'll never trust them again; they are usually a paragon of good journalism and accurate reporting ]
This thing is even bigger than you guys thought !!

No. it appears that Sky News is incompetent.

In another related but seemingly unimportant development RG has confirmed on the stand his letter of last year - that AK & RS were at the crime scene and are responsible for the murder.
While he obviously has credibility issues - It's up to the court to weigh that up - its hardly helpful to the defence to put it very mildly.

Also there is a suggestion that the defence have been seeking to 'buy' witnesses.

All in all - a very good day for the defence ??

All in all, a neutral day for the defence at worst. Many people seem to keep forgetting (I wonder why?) that the defence did no more than ask the court to bring these witnesses to testify, so that everyone could properly evaluate their credibility and veracity. The defence did not present these witnesses, far less did it suggest that either of the groups of inmates was necessarily telling the truth. The defence claim was always nothing more than that they should rightfully be heard, and their claims should be assessed accordingly.

But, further than that, I think the defence now actually has some ammunition for the argument phase of the trial, in that it now has the letter written by Guede in which he definitively accuses Knox and Sollecito, together with his testimony from today in which he made the same accusations. The defence can now set this evidence alongside the Skype call that he made to Benedetti in mid-November 2007, in which he was vague and noncommittal about the presence of Sollecito or Knox. I think the defence therefore has a potentially strong argument based on Guede's memory seeming (near-miraculously) to improve markedly between a time thee weeks after the murder and a time six months after the murder (and thereafter).

I would expect the allegations made against Bongiorno to be rigorously and rapidly investigated - they are potentially extremely serious allegations made against a lawyer who is also a very prominent parliamentarian. If they can't be proven, then those who made the allegations can look forward to a fair few extra years tagged onto their existing sentences.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

incomprehensible and inexcusable

Oh dear what a massive blunder. That some posters so uncritically embraced it is symptomatic.

Katody Matrass and UK_Dave,

How did Sky News make such an error? It is difficult to comprehend unless one invokes conscious or subconscious bias. That's the real story here. MOO.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

incredible

I would expect the allegations made against Bongiorno to be rigorously and rapidly investigated - they are potentially extremely serious allegations made against a lawyer who is also a very prominent parliamentarian. If they can't be proven, then those who made the allegations can look forward to a fair few extra years tagged onto their existing sentences.

London John,

I would like to know why Mr. Maresca found the people making them to be credible.

 

[platonov]

Rudy who ? - Oh that guy .... pfft

Katody Matrass and UK_Dave,

How did Sky News make such an error? It is difficult to comprehend unless one invokes conscious or subconscious bias. That's the real story here. MOO.

Absolutely !!!

I'll wager a princely sum that is what is exercising the minds of AK & RS, the defence teams, the prosecution and the court.

 

[LondonJohn]

Katody Matrass and UK_Dave,

How did Sky News make such an error? It is difficult to comprehend unless one invokes conscious or subconscious bias. That's the real story here. MOO.

It does seem strange. Especially as Pisa himself makes no reference to it before or after it is shown within his report. Whoever "translated" it has a big problem - the "translation" is so different from the actual Italian words spoken by Knox that it's almost risible in its inaccuracy.

Anyway, fear not, because Kevinfay is on the case even as we speak, rattling cages among the bigwigs at the Sky Corporation to find out what went wrong. I look forward to his debrief report with anticipation.

 

[LondonJohn]

Absolutely !!!

I'll wager a princely sum that is what is exercising the minds of AK & RS, the defence teams, the prosecution and the court.

No, I'll wager a princely sum that it is exercising quite a few minds at editorial levels in Sky's Isleworth HQ. And nowhere else.