Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[zeb]

Under stand where the Judge stands

LJ just asking a question.
If the Judge thinks the case has no real facts from the prosecution side, can the judge be very safe to say there is no case.
I under stand what you say about the Judge Hellmann has got follow the rules, he got to start at A then go to B and then go to C.
At this moment the prosecution is just buying time how do you think that will stand, with the thinking of the judge.

 

[Diocletus]

How many police etc know the "truth" and have either lied about it or ignored it? I have read many times that if these people simply told the truth, AK and RS would not have been convicted. How wide was this conspiracy and why has it lasted so long?

Let's start here:

Do you agree that Stefanoni lied about the negative blood tests on the footprints?

Do you agree that the Postal Police lied about getting to the flat before Raf's call?

Do you agree that Stef. lied about doing a Real Time quantification of Sample B that demonstrated "several hundred picograms" of DNA?

 

[LondonJohn]

How many police etc know the "truth" and have either lied about it or ignored it? I have read many times that if these people simply told the truth, AK and RS would not have been convicted. How wide was this conspiracy and why has it lasted so long?

What do you mean by "the truth"? Are you implying that if Knox and Sollecito had no involvement in the crime, the police/prosecutors would know this to be true, and would deliberately therefore be conspiring to convict people whom they know are innocent?

Is it not possible that the police genuinely believed early on that they'd "solved the crime", and that they have experienced tunnel vision and confirmation bias in their investigation ever since?

As a slight - but relevant - aside, how do you explain Stefanoni's extreme obstruction in handing over source DNA data to the defence, and even to the independent court-appointed DNA experts? How do you explain Mignini's and Napoleoni's inexplicable faith in Curatolo - even when they both must have known that he was under investigation for heroin dealing dating back to 2004 (yet they failed to disclose this fact to the court)? How do you explain the postal police officers lying to the court about the time they arrived at the cottage on 2nd November, and about the level to which they contaminated the crime scene in Meredith's bedroom?

 

[Rolfe]

The court did. This finding hasn't been overturned. Let's see how the appeal goes.

If you're only interested in the outcome of the appeal, and you don't think anyone posting in this thread has anything worthwhile to say about the matter, why do you keep posting here?

I mean, we know you're not here just to provoke and annoy people so that you can report them for breaking the rules, because that would be beyond pathetic. So if you're not interested in discussing the evidence either, why?

Rolfe.

 

[Diocletus]

What I meant was that civil litigation against authorities and entities like cities and states is very common in the US.

True. But if you think about what has happened in the Kercher case, the raft of civil litigation against authorities in the US seems like a very good idea and I think helps keep everyone (well, some people) stay honest. I feel empowered knowing that I have remedies against people like Mignini if they misuse their authority and get crazy on me. That's good litigation. Cunilungia or whatever it's called--bad litigation.

 

[lionking]

This just seems like "argument from authority" by another name. No matter how compelling the arguments made by those who believe the case for guilt doesn't stack up, you just give the whole lot a body-swerve and refuse even to consider them, on the grounds that some other people came to a different conclusion, and you think that would have been a "conspiracy" if they were wrong, so you can't contemplate that they might be wrong.

News flash. Wrongful convictions happen all the time. There are many, many examples of such convictions finally being overturned on the second or even third appeal. (I think it took about six separate court hearings before Sion Jenkins got justice.)

Usually, examination of the circumstances of the initial railroading reveals groupthink and confirmation bias as the main explanation for the investigators and then the prosecution going singlemindedly after the wrong person. I don't
see where this case is any different quite frankly.

Rolfe.

Perhaps. I can't believe that there isn't at least one whistleblower though in such a high profile case. I think all those involved in the prosecution of this case believe they are right.

 

[Mary_H]

True. But if you think about what has happened in the Kercher case, the raft of civil litigation against authorities in the US seems like a very good idea and I think helps keep everyone (well, some people) stay honest. I feel empowered knowing that I have remedies against people like Mignini if they misuse their authority and get crazy on me. That's good litigation. Cunilungia or whatever it's called--bad litigation.

I agree. I think those who have been damaged in this case should sue the pants off those who did the damaging.

(What's that you say about the 1983 earthquake in Coalinga, California?)

 

[Rolfe]

Just as an aside, has anyone in this thread actually proposed a full-on conspiracy such as Lionking suggests? I mean, that the prosecutors and police know Knox and Sollecito to be innocent, but are deliberately fabricating a case against them?

I haven't seen any such accusation. I've seen plenty suggestions of groupthink and confirmation bias and backside-covering, which are the usual explanations for this sort of affair. The arrogance of people who have made up their minds and know they are right, and who are in a position to impose their reading on the narrative, should never be underestimated.

I was speaking to a law professor about this earlier in the week, and I remarked that one of the things I found most frustrating about the legal mindset was the view that their findings create reality. These people become used to having the power to declare that A happened and not B, and having this accepted as confirmation that A is what actually happened. They have the power to ensure that their narrative is the one which is given the status of mainstream, and they fight tooth and nail to prevent anyone introducing a different narrative once they have decided on their position - no matter how premature that decision was.

This isn't a conspiracy. It's situation normal for the police and criminal justice system in most countries. If the narrative they espouse happens to be the true one, fine. If it isn't, God help anyone who happens to be in their way.

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

LJ just asking a question.
If the Judge thinks the case has no real facts from the prosecution side, can the judge be very safe to say there is no case.
I under stand what you say about the Judge Hellmann has got follow the rules, he got to start at A then go to B and then go to C.
At this moment the prosecution is just buying time how do you think that will stand, with the thinking of the judge.

I think that your scenario only really applies in the first trial. This is the first time that the evidence is properly tested in a full trial process (as I've said, it's not too far off the mark to consider the first trial as the equivalent of a preliminary trial). If the judge in the first trial thinks the prosecutors have no case whatsoever, (s)he can grant a defence motion to order a directed acquittal (i.e. to instruct the judicial panel to acquit there and then, on his/her authority).

But my understanding is that if the case makes it through the first trial, then it's highly unlikely that any defence motions for directed acquittal in the appeal would ever succeed - even if evidence from the first trial were shown to be unreliable or inadmissible in the appeal trial. I think it's incumbent on the appeal judge to hear the whole case, and to allow the judicial panel to deliberate properly.

With regard to the "buying time" issue, I agree that the prosecution seems to be seeking to elongate or stall the appeal trial in certain ways. And there seem to be similar indications that Hellmann may be growing weary of the delays (as evidenced by his attempt to restart early after the Summer recess, and his expedition of the hearings during the argument phase). But I think Hellmann has enough experience and integrity to realise that the appeal trial has to be run in a scrupulously proper manner, with full consideration given to every party involved.

Personally, I believe that Hellmann's publicly-observed actions to date indicate that he may be leaning towards acquittal - but not only may this be an incorrect inference to draw, it also must be realised that the verdict will be decided only by the judicial panel. Hellmann leads the judicial panel, but there needs to be a majority vote from the eight members of the panel (which includes Hellmann, another professional judge, and six "lay judges" - who are ordinary members of the public, but ones who have to be educated to a higher level than those in the first trial).

 

[Diocletus]

Perhaps. I can't believe that there isn't at least one whistleblower though in such a high profile case. I think all those involved in the prosecution of this case believe they are right.

It's not like that, though. It's more like a bunch of cells that don't know what the other parts of the conspiracy are up to. The postal police don't know about Stefanoni's lies and misdeeds and vice versa. It's a loosely connected, cellular conspiracy. More like diarrhea than a good, proper turd.

 

[lionking]

Is it not possible that the police genuinely believed early on that they'd "solved the crime", and that they have experienced tunnel vision and confirmation bias in their investigation ever since?

But if the evidence is so obvious, as you and others claim, why are they sticking to their story? Are they just stupid? Is the conspiracy that strong? Or is the truth not quite as obvious as you portray on this thread?

 

[lionking]

It's not like that, though. It's more like a bunch of cells that don't know what the other parts of the conspiracy are up to. The postal police don't know about Stefanoni's lies and misdeeds and vice versa. It's a loosely connected, cellular conspiracy. More like diarrhea than a good, proper turd.

These people don't have access to internet forums which would put them straight, obviously.

 

[Antony]

The time of death is contested. Let's see what the appeal makes of it. What I don't accept, as I have said many times, is a massive conspiracy of police, forensic scientists, prosecutors and possibly judges necessary for the innocentisti narrative to pan out.

What is it about this "conspiracy" (your description, not anyone on the innocence side) that you find less believable than the prosecution narrative against AK and RS?

This would be in spite of numerous similar cover-ups and closing of ranks in other confirmed miscarriage of justice cases.

 

[Rolfe]

Perhaps. I can't believe that there isn't at least one whistleblower though in such a high profile case. I think all those involved in the prosecution of this case believe they are right.

Yes! I totally agree with you. That is nearly always the case.

However, that doesn't mean they are right. Groupthink, confirmation bias, defensive mindset after having jumped the gun on something - these are huge factors in people clinging blindly to beliefs that are objectively preposterous.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

But if the evidence is so obvious, as you and others claim, why are they sticking to their story? Are they just stupid? Is the conspiracy that strong? Or is the truth not quite as obvious as you portray on this thread?

Did you even read the words "tunnel vision" and "confirmation bias" in the post you responded to?

You seem to imagine the police and prosecuting authorities to be some sort of impartial, scrupulously disinterested, super-logical beings. News flash. They are human beings with a lot of human failings, and not even outstandingly intelligent. Or frankly they would be doing something else.

They are in a position of power where they are able to impose their narrative on the inquiry, and close ranks to confirm to each other how right they are and reject alternative readings of the evidence. They do this.

This isn't unusual. To say "oh but that would be a conspiracy so it's impossible" is simply ridiculous.

Rolfe.

 

[Mary_H]

But if the evidence is so obvious, as you and others claim, why are they sticking to their story? Are they just stupid? Is the conspiracy that strong? Or is the truth not quite as obvious as you portray on this thread?

By now there may be some people who were part of the original trend who have recognized the problems with the case. However, criticizing or even publicly disagreeing with the police or the magistrates is strongly frowned upon.

 

[Antony]

The question in this last paragraph is really for everyone. As skeptic observers of the case, isn't it just wishful thinking to reason otherwise? Solid evidence is one thing and the police slipping up due to malice or incompetence is one thing, but if Stefanoni isn't lying about everything, doesn't honesty require us to acknowledge this? The trial aside, what is the main reason to say that it's more likely that Sollecito's DNA on the clasp is due to contamination, transfer or planted evidence than the fact that he really touched it either before or after the murder of Meredith Kercher?

Any thoughts?

The suggestion that DNA could get onto that little hook during the attack is completely implausible (particularly without leaving DNA anywhere else). I cannot see any way that an attacker would touch that part of the bra, or have reason to attempt to do so.

Proof of involvement requires corroboration of different items of evidence. The idea that a single item proves the participation of each of the 2 in the attack (the bra-clasp for Raff, the knife for Amanda) is one of the absurd aspects of this case. And no, I don't go along with the guilter claim that the other "evidence" against them means anything at all.

 

[Rolfe]

Just a thought. Look at the posts on PMF to get an idea of how this happens.

These people firmly believe in the guilt of Knox and Sollecito. To that end they twist the interpretation of every piece of evidence to fit their preconception. They also have a very strong groupthink going, where they converse sneeringly among themselves about "Nita and Biff", referring to Knox as a "crazed sex killer", and reinforcing the group perspective.

They either ban or determinedly sideline any poster with a contrary view. The sound of arguments ricocheting off tightly closed minds is seldom even heard, because the arguments seldom get that far.

That isn't a conspiracy either. You might as well declare that Knox and Sollecito must be guilty because the posters on PMF believe them to be guilty, as that they're guilty because the police and the prosecution believe that. It's exactly the same phenomenon, once minds have been made up.

Rolfe.

 

[lionking]

Did you even read the words "tunnel vision" and "confirmation bias" in the post you responded to?

You seem to imagine the police and prosecuting authorities to be some sort of impartial, scrupulously disinterested, super-logical beings. News flash. They are human beings with a lot of human failings, and not even outstandingly intelligent. Or frankly they would be doing something else.

They are in a position of power where they are able to impose their narrative on the inquiry, and close ranks to confirm to each other how right they are and reject alternative readings of the evidence. They do this.

This isn't unusual. To say "oh but that would be a conspiracy so it's impossible" is simply ridiculous.

Rolfe.

You're entitled to your opinion. I worked for Victoria Police for 7 years and the Justice Department for another 5. I don't accept that a large number people necessary to hide the truth in this case would close ranks for over four years. Without a leak. Without an anonymous disclosure to the press. a superhuman achievement for those not outstandingly intelligent.

 

[Mary_H]

You're entitled to your opinion. I worked for Victoria Police for 7 years and the Justice Department for another 5. I don't accept that a large number people necessary to hide the truth in this case would close ranks for over four years. Without a leak. Without an anonymous disclosure to the press. a superhuman achievement for those not outstandingly intelligent.

It's happened a few times in human history.

By the way, how do we know there haven't been anonymous leaks to the press?