Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[HumanityBlues]

Love this quote from the article:

"Peggy Ganong, an Italian-speaking Seattle blogger who followed the case closely, said: “The implication was that Italian forensics are inferior to American forensics, and I think that’s just not true. The forensic evidence was a lot stronger than her supporters said.”"

Umm. I'll have the opposite of whatever she had.

Right, this Ganong-joke woman really appreciates Italian forensics, except when it's the judge's own independent experts. They of course don't represent the great Italian forensics. Last I read about this person she was going off about how the Mafia might have influenced the independent expert report or something like that.....

 

[Kaosium]

Love this quote from the article:

"Peggy Ganong, an Italian-speaking Seattle blogger who followed the case closely, said: “The implication was that Italian forensics are inferior to American forensics, and I think that’s just not true. The forensic evidence was a lot stronger than her supporters said.”"

Umm. I'll have the opposite of whatever she had.

Follain too? OMFG! He had a reputation once! The other two are nobodies, does anyone overseas have the slightest idea how the US media works? Is the British media still centered around Fleet Street or whatever? Everyone together, might be more easily influenced by those around them? Wait a minute, they ought to be able to figure it out, the British media has relatively clearly defined editorial stances, at least the ones I read, Mail, Telegraph, Times, Independent, Guardian, they ought to be able to realize the whole mass of American media can't be manipulated by one little PR firm or patriotism.

This might make a case study for a media studies class. Stay away from the kooky websites. Learn how to evaluate sources! Somebody has to write a book on this.

Now I bet I know why his book is being delayed, he saw what happened to his 'source' (or confirmation) for all that disinformation in that article starting circa October.

 

[Kaosium]

Alt+F4,

After the verdict John Follain wrote an error-filled article subtitled, "Amanda Knox snared by her lust and her lies," for the Sunday Times. So apparently someone believed Mignini's bologna.

This could get interesting. His article is the one that Mignini chose for the calunnia trial. Is this part accurate:

In December 2006 she posted a story on MySpace in which a young woman drugs and rapes another woman. It reads in part: “She fell on the floor, she felt the blood on her mouth and swallowed it. She couldn’t move her jaw and felt as if someone was moving a razor on the left side of her face.”

I don't recall coming across this one anywhere, I thought the 'rape story' references were to the story about Vicky. Is there one that includes this quote, or is this from that one and I forgot?

 

[Onofarar]

I was really trying to make the point that I didn't panic because of the concurrence of the two events of not hearing back from my boyf and seeing the blood, and were anything to have happened to him (heaven forbid) and confirmation bias was in effect, my reaction could be construed as suspicious.
As to what type of explanation comes to mind, as it turned out, my 'explanation' turned out to be incorrect, and we think the cat went hunting. I think that women (who don't work as doctors, nurses, police etc) probably most closely associate blood with menstrual blood (especially in the context of a bathroom), and that menstrual problems (which I believe was as specific as Amanda got on this subject, rather than sticking hands in panties ) is therefore a perfectly natural thing for Amanda to think. If I recall correctly Amanda considered it as among one of a few non-worrying scenarios of how it got there.....

Hi Bri1
First, thanks for your recent comments they have certainly added insight and perspective to the case.

Second, before responding to Alt again read carefully London John's comment immediately following your post above especially this part:

"After all, that's a reasonable proposition for the presence of the blood in the small bathroom, isn't it? It would take a biased, unreasonable, deliberately provocative commentator to make a flip comment along the lines of 'your roommate got her period, stuck her hand in her panties and smeared blood on the faucet...just because! wouldn't it....?"

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Not sure of their best option

LondonJohn,

I have previously posted quotes and links from lawyers that suggest exactly what you do, that putting a defendant on the stand is not a good idea, unless he or she can provide information that no one else can. i agree entirely with the idea that prosecutors can make one look deceptive, even when it is contrary to the facts, as Comodi did with Knox and the nonexistent phone call to her mother at noon. However, I have also suggested that this might be a good situation in which to throw away the regular play book (although I am not entirely convinced that it is). I think that Sollecito's lawyers should not make a final decision on this until they assess the risks and benefits, based upon how well or poorly they think that the appeal is going.

 

[LondonJohn]

And another thing

Some pro-guilt commentators are getting themselves deep into a spiral of circular reasoning and confirmation bias over the "Filomena's window vs balcony door for the break-in" issue. They seem to have convinced themselves that the balcony door would be a far easier and more obvious proposition for a "real burglar" than Filomena's window, and that therefore the choice of Filomena's window was one made by stagers rather than a genuine burglar. The latest piece of information they have added into the confirmation-bias mix is Knox's testimony about the fact that there was some light coming in via the balcony doors when she took her shower the morning after the murder. They mistakenly take this to mean that the exterior shutters covering the balcony doors were wide open - rather than, say, slightly ajar. but we'll come back to that later.

So, let's address the issue of the suitability of ingress points for a burglar seeking to break and enter that premises. Firstly, we can rule out all the windows that had metal bars over them - which only leaves Filomena's window, the balcony doors or the small kitchen window. Secondly, we can rule out the front door, since it was a heavy, modern door with a good, strong lock. And it was brightly lit by a porch light.

So, which of the windows (and balcony doors) was most suitable for a break-in. Well, one of the most critical factors is the design and strength of the window itself. And it's here that there is a crucial difference between Filomena's window and the balcony doors (and the kitchen window). Filomena's window was a very old wooden casement window with thin, single-pane glass and no lock on the catch. It was therefore extremely easy to break the glass, to reach through to unlock the catch, and to fully open the window in order to enter through the opening.

But the balcony doors were of a modern design (probably with either aluminium or UPVC frames), and were almost certainly not only double-glazed but also glazed with strengthened glass (to meet modern safety standards). And they locked together securely. Therefore, it would have been extremely difficult - if not virtually impossible - for a would-be intruder to break through the glass without specialist equipment. What's more, even if the intruder managed to break the glass, there was still the lock to negotiate if the intruder wanted to avoid having to step through a jagged hole in the glass pane. The small kitchen window was similarly of a modern design, and it was also a small and difficult entry point.

And it's here that I make a new proposition: what if Guede actually scaled the balcony and tested the balcony doors as a first option for breaking in? To me, it seems entirely feasible that Guede might have got up onto the balcony, opened the exterior shutters, and assessed the suitability of the balcony doors. If he had done so, he would have discovered that he had little chance of either breaking the glass or forcing the lock. And if he'd discovered that, then the chances are that he'd have climbed/jumped back down to the ground and looked for other possible entry points. And his next logical point of call would have been Filomena's window.

I still think there are other reasons why Guede would have elected to choose Filomena's window over the balcony doors: ease and speed of escape if discovered/interrupted, clear view of the balcony from the street and many of the apartments above the car park. But it's also entirely possible that Guede did indeed try the balcony doors first - and discovered that they he couldn't get into the cottage that way. Additionally, if he'd opened the exterior shutters partially to check the balcony doors, he might well have left the shutters partially (or even fully) open, such that they provided light to Knox's room the following day.

 

[LondonJohn]

LondonJohn,

I have previously posted quotes and links from lawyers that suggest exactly what you do, that putting a defendant on the stand is not a good idea, unless he or she can provide information that no one else can. i agree entirely with the idea that prosecutors can make one look deceptive, even when it is contrary to the facts, as Comodi did with Knox and the nonexistent phone call to her mother at noon. However, I have also suggested that this might be a good situation in which to throw away the regular play book (although I am not entirely convinced that it is). I think that Sollecito's lawyers should not make a final decision on this until they assess the risks and benefits, based upon how well or poorly they think that the appeal is going.

Yes: the received wisdom is that aside from the specific conditions you've outlined above, defence lawyers usually only ever advise their clients to take the stand as a last-ditch (and proportionately high-risk) attempt to salvage a losing defence case. And even then, it rarely has the desired effect

 

[Kaosium]

Thinking this through...

A cursory glance didn't reveal anything more that actually quoted Peg Ganong, so maybe that's it. However, this trial will be over soon, and at that time anyone who quoted her, referred to PMF, or implied there was some sort of conspiracy to control the US media centered around the firm Gogerty-Marriott is really going to have egg on their face.

What is the only reason someone might be quoting her? She runs Perugia Murder File, that's it, she has no status in the case. She develops these bizarre conspiracy theories involving known people like Paul Ciolino, Douglas Preston, David Marriott, Steve Moore etc ad absurdum that can easily be disproven by interviews with any of these people and passing knowledge of the US media. Some of these suckers fell for that, and it cannot be denied they've been nothing but a propaganda outlet for the guilt of Amanda and Raffaele since the conviction. Nothing can be erased at this point, it's all been archived elsewhere, and in there is a lot of hateful statements about Amanda, her family, anyone associated with basically with the innocence of Raffaele and Amanda.

They've been 100% wrong about everything major since right around the time the appeal started. Curatolo was laughed out of court, the DNA experts were appointed and their report was damning, that's the only evidence that can be construed to put either in the murder room and the only 'witness' to break the alibi. Anyone quoting any of them or referring to their 'theories' has made absolute fools of themselves, I happen to know more about it but that's not germane, but were someone to go back and check articles written by Andrea Vogt and Barbara Nadeau and cross-reference contemporaneous discussion from PMF that turned out to be utterly false and easily checkable elsewhere like the bra clasp, knife, or the common sense to realize Curatolo could hardly stand up in any court but Massei's in that environment there might be consequences. I dunno about Follain, he was writing a book, so he might be spared some of the indignity.

He's busted on the bra-clasp and knife though, basically the only way one could come to the conclusion they were good forensic science after the DNA experts' letter is to accept the possibility they were the 'tools' the Gogerty-Marriott/FOA Supertanker of Doom conspiracy if they're going to be quoting Peg Ganong about it. For crissakes, all they had to do is ask anyone with a passing familiarity with either entry-level forensics or science. Or for that matter read the posts of Halides1 here.

Does anyone know how to get info on the size of the Gogerty-Marriott PR firm? I've from Seattlites it's not exactly huge concern, and since I'd never heard of it, I know it's not a huge national presence, hell, one look at Pat Gogerty's blog ought to tell anyone that, what Republican would hire him for anything big? There's plenty of other firms available that don't have a partner openly proclaiming contempt for the ideals of a fair amount of the movers and shakers in the business community, thus it strikes me likely that firm serves a niche market in the Seattle area and for Dem politicos there.

This is hilarious!

 

[PhantomWolf]

Same can be said for the Casey Anthony trial and the jury stood up to the pressure and still did the right thing. No reason to believe the jury in this case didn't also.

I've said it before, and will say it again. Based purely on the evidence presented in the first trial, I've have voted Guilty.

The trouble isn't the jury's verdict, they made the right one based on the evidence before them, the issue is that evidence in most cases was a pack of lies.

When I read through the Massei report it is more than clear to me that for the most part he just accepted the prosecution's claims without any critical thought about them. This was the major failing of the Massei court, it didn't challenge the Prosecution's claims, and the Defence fell down because a) they didn't have the experience, and b) because information was being with-held from them.

The problems with this case weren't in the courtroom (though I do beleive that Massei does have a bias towards the Prosecution and that came out in his decisions on what to allow and disallow) but rather in the police work that went on beforehand.

The problem with the court was that they failed to shine the spotlight on the reality of Mignini's claims, rather they simply accepted them as the truth.

The DNA on the knife - Accepted as true despite questions raised
The Bathmat footprint being Raffaele's - Accepted as true despite questions raised
The mixed blood - Accepted as true despite questions raised
Curatolo's account - Accepted as true despite questions raised
The heard scream - Accepted as true despite questions raised
The DNA on the bra clasp - Accepted as true despite questions raised
The bloody footprints in the hallway - Accepted as true despite questions raised
The staged break-in - Accepted as true despite questions raised
The Time of Death - Accepted as true despite questions raised
The lack of computer usage - Accepted as true despite questions raised
The nice chat leading to confession - Accepted as true despite questions raised

These things together make for a massively strong case and a finding for guilt, it's shame that not one of them is actually true. Had they looked deeper and discovered how each melts away under examination (and for the most part they did have the information to do that, they simply refused to accept it) then Massei wouldn't have been left in the position where he had to justify the Guilty verdict by putting forward a very weak and non-skeptical case in his report.

To me, I find it hard to understand how anyone can read the Massei Report and not stop and say "Hold on, that makes no sense at all" or "How did he jump to that conclusion based on what he's said?" The whole thing is premised on the idea that the police, the prosecution, and the wittnesses were all telling the truth (a great ideal and what they should do.) Unfortunately, Hellmann's Court has been showing that in fact they weren't, they were all telling a bunch of porkies, and when the evidence is viewed with this in mind, it falls apart very fast no matter how strong it first appeared.

I stuns me that supposedly rational people with critical thinking skills still can't see this.

 

[JREF2010]

whatever is left today with only AK and RS lied. About alibi's I take it, as s(he) claims RS is still going with a story about AK leaving at 9 PM and returning at 1AM during which time he RS ate, smoked and surfed.

I agree, I was thinking the same thing that the setup and motive is really weak for the prosecution, at least their 11:30pm theory, with Nara "Super Ears. "

But if the Guilters take on that scenario, the 9pm to 1am Amandas out alone, then Curatolo is definitely thrown to the trash.

And the knife is gone, so they will have to show proof she was there with Rudy, which he is documented as not supporting that Amanda was there alone.

But I admit, Raffaele said the oddest things and his diaries and forgetfulness, would probably lead any investigator to question him again.

I'd like to see the pc activity gone over in more detail, by competent experts this time, not the bumbling bozos' who destroy hardrives and surf the internet...or was it intentional?

 

[Kaosium]

This is strange...

...I found a very interesting quote. From John Follain's Times piece, the one that got Amanda's parents charged with libel:

"In December 2006 she posted a story on MySpace in which a young woman drugs and rapes another woman. It reads in part: “She fell on the floor, she felt the blood on her mouth and swallowed it. She couldn’t move her jaw and felt as if someone was moving a razor on the left side of her face.” Her family claims to have spoken to the teacher who made her write this as a course assignment. She was told to write everything that happens right up to a crime. Curt says: “Amanda was graded down because the story she wrote wasn’t dark enough. It wasn’t what the teacher wanted.” University authorities have banned staff from talking publicly about Knox." "


From PMF.net:


"Edgar dropped to the floor and tasted the blood in his mouth and swallowed it. He couldn't move his jaw and it felt like someone was jabbing a razor into the left side of his face. His eyes blurred and became focused intermittently and he gently shook this off, watching his hands until they came into focus. He looked up at Kyle and waited a moment to focus there too. Kyle's hands covered his face."

This is bizarre! Could .net have it wrong? How could they? It would make no sense in the context of the story. In the context of the article it makes the parents out to be liars, or at least disingenuous. What the hell? If anyone's ever noticed, I almost never use double-quotes. That's because I used to post regularly on the board of a British newspaper, and I was tamed! Some stuffy old guy, I always imagined Sir John Gielgud's orotund Shakespearean tones when I read his posts, took one look at my seat of the pants, kinda stream of consciousness, what's grammar (?) style and told me: 'You barbarous colonial, if you're going to use our language you're damn well going to do it right!' He then proceeded to point out every possible flaw in my post, especially my tendency to miss little words in quotes which was unforgivable in his view. I thanked him for the free copy-editing and we went back and forth a little while and I decided I liked the guy, so I held my ground on everything else but decided he had a point on the quotes so I decided to paraphrase almost everything from there on out.

However he used to tell me it was very important to get quotes right, especially newspapers, there were laws and such. I've seen LJ say similar things I do believe. So what I'm wondering is how on earth could someone mess up a quote this bad? This piece is going to come up again, it's not some forgotten Mail piece, it's the Sunday Times for crissakes! Wouldn't this have been actionable? How could someone make an error like this? It's summer '08, so I wouldn't think there's be any influence from...elsewhere...but this is bizarre! What's the statute of limitations on libel? Would this qualify? Does the fact the article was written in Seattle make it exempt at this time?

Did he get the quote from a tabloid article when they trashed her with the myspace stuff? Is that how the mistake could have been made? I'm not getting how something like this could have happened in the Times without consequence, and this will come up again.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

six of one, half a dozen of the other

Yes: the received wisdom is that aside from the specific conditions you've outlined above, defence lawyers usually only ever advise their clients to take the stand as a last-ditch (and proportionately high-risk) attempt to salvage a losing defence case. And even then, it rarely has the desired effect

LondonJohn,

In Murder in Italy I seem to recall reading that some of the jurors shuddered when they saw Raffaele. He might need to address this problem. Of course Amanda did testify and Raffaele did not, and they were both convicted.

 

[RandyN]

...I found a very interesting quote. From John Follain's Times piece, the one that got Amanda's parents charged with libel:

"In December 2006 she posted a story on MySpace in which a young woman drugs and rapes another woman. It reads in part: “She fell on the floor, she felt the blood on her mouth and swallowed it. She couldn’t move her jaw and felt as if someone was moving a razor on the left side of her face.” Her family claims to have spoken to the teacher who made her write this as a course assignment. She was told to write everything that happens right up to a crime. Curt says: “Amanda was graded down because the story she wrote wasn’t dark enough. It wasn’t what the teacher wanted.” University authorities have banned staff from talking publicly about Knox." "


From PMF.net:


"Edgar dropped to the floor and tasted the blood in his mouth and swallowed it. He couldn't move his jaw and it felt like someone was jabbing a razor into the left side of his face. His eyes blurred and became focused intermittently and he gently shook this off, watching his hands until they came into focus. He looked up at Kyle and waited a moment to focus there too. Kyle's hands covered his face."

This is bizarre! Could .net have it wrong? How could they? It would make no sense in the context of the story. In the context of the article it makes the parents out to be liars, or at least disingenuous. What the hell? If anyone's ever noticed, I almost never use double-quotes. That's because I used to post regularly on the board of a British newspaper, and I was tamed! Some stuffy old guy, I always imagined Sir John Gielgud's orotund Shakespearean tones when I read his posts, took one look at my seat of the pants, kinda stream of consciousness, what's grammar (?) style and told me: 'You barbarous colonial, if you're going to use our language you're damn well going to do it right!' He then proceeded to point out every possible flaw in my post, especially my tendency to miss little words in quotes which was unforgivable in his view. I thanked him for the free copy-editing and we went back and forth a little while and I decided I liked the guy, so I held my ground on everything else but decided he had a point on the quotes so I decided to paraphrase almost everything from there on out.

However he used to tell me it was very important to get quotes right, especially newspapers, there were laws and such. I've seen LJ say similar things I do believe. So what I'm wondering is how on earth could someone mess up a quote this bad? This piece is going to come up again, it's not some forgotten Mail piece, it's the Sunday Times for crissakes! Wouldn't this have been actionable? How could someone make an error like this? It's summer '08, so I wouldn't think there's be any influence from...elsewhere...but this is bizarre! What's the statute of limitations on libel? Would this qualify? Does the fact the article was written in Seattle make it exempt at this time?

Did he get the quote from a tabloid article when they trashed her with the myspace stuff? Is that how the mistake could have been made? I'm not getting how something like this could have happened in the Times without consequence, and this will come up again.

Kaosium,

I agree this is slanderous and important for a number of reasons. Mainly, from what I understand about the British slander laws and I’m certain LJ can explain this far more correctly than my poor memory allows, but the law there seems favorable to the accuser. Something about burden of proof being different than anywhere else. I remember a discussion that it would be best to file the first slander charges in jolly ole England.
There certainly seems no lack of meat and potato available there.

The story was published by and in and for an English audience...I cant imagine that where the interview was held matters.


JREF2010,

I’m not at all sure this supposed statement of RS is sound and or sure. While I don’t have any particulars of where and when it was suppose to occur...I believe it was decided that that particular statement was in reference to Halloween night and not Nov 1st. Amanda left RS at 9PM on the 31st to go to LeChic to meet friends. At least that's the way I understand it. She returned home at 1 AM 1 Nov 2007. I don’t think there is ever any confusion about the night of the 1st and early morning of the 2nd. Excepting one small issue which I feel confident RS stated as sarcasm (which I bet he regrets) and that is when police ask him...How can you be certain Amanda was there all night if you were asleep? He quipped, well I cant know that for sure then....
A better answer (in hindsight its always easy) might be ....Well I’m a light sleeper and I certainly would have woke up if Amanda had left....what a silly question...smirk smirk...
But he was smoked up and stupid. Its obvious they were both stupid. But that’s not a crime yet far as I know. I know what Id have done had my phone rang late at night and the caller id showed Questura...Id have let it go to voicemail, locked my door and gone to bed. Maybe first Id have called daddy for advice and he would certainly have had an attorney there that very night...but they were dumb innocent naive and not all that street smart college students....who knew?

 

[Mary_H]

Alt+f4,

The DNA on the faucet is Amanda's; therefore, the blood drops might also be Amanda's. She initially speculated that it was from her ears, then saw blood on the mat and thought about menstrual blood. Her initial speculation might be correct about the blood on the faucet, but it would be helpful to know in greater detail where they sampled for DNA on the faucet.

That is correct. From Amanda's e-mail home:

...it was after i stepped out of the shower and onto the mat that i noticed the blood in the bathroom.

it was on the mat i was using to dry my feet and there were drops of blood in the sink. at first i thought the blood might have come from my ears which i had pierced extrensively not too long ago, but then immediately i know it wasnt mine becaus the stains on the mat were too big for just droplets form my ear, and when i touched the blood in the sink it was caked on already. there was also blood smeered on the faucet. again, however, i thought it was strange, because my roommates and i are very clean and we wouldnt leave blood in the bathroom, but i assumed that perhaps meredith was having
menstral issues and hadnt cleaned up yet. ew, but nothing to worry about....

 

[Mary_H]

What does this have to do with anything? Rape is about violence, anger and power more than being about sex.<snip>

Alt+F4, I don't think anyone here would disagree with you about that. However, bucket of tea, who is not here right now, but who was here last week, thought differently:

Context is all. I wouldn't regard it as sexist. You see, it was a violent sexual crime. Sex is on the table. "...does not disdain multiple frequentations" is about as neutral as it is possible to word it. And it appears to be true, as well.

Nope. No misogyny there as far as I can see.

Thus, bucket of tea got us started on what has been an extended exchange about delving into the defendants' sexual histories.

 

[Mary_H]

Yes, why wouldn't they? Are you suggesting that under the Italian system the presiding judges determine the verdict and that the lay judges are just there for show?

I would suggest that. The magistrates are the most powerful group of authority figures in Italy, much more powerful than the politicians. For example, the judges can send the president to prison, but the president cannot lift one finger against the judges, unless other judges approve. I have not gotten the impression that Italy is full of rugged individuals who like to show that they cannot be intimidated, by standing up to The Man.

More important, though, is the three-trial system, which I see as a routine game intended to keep the magistrates and lawyers employed. Two components of this system, at least as we have been informed, are, first, that trial decisions are routinely overturned on appeal, and, second, that lay judges are drawn from the same pool of citizens repeatedly offering their services as lay judges.

This case is, without a doubt, rare in the amount of attention that has been paid to improving the case for the defense in the first appeal trial versus the initial trial. My guess is that most second trials (first appeals) do not differ all that much in terms of evidence from the trials that preceded them. Normally, worldwide attention is not paid to correcting the errors in the prosecution's original case, nor do the judges usually call for independent expert evaluations.

If my information and assumptions are correct, then the primary difference between the initial trial and the first appeal trial in most cases is the judge. Comparatively, the roles of the evidence and the jury appear to be minor.

 

[LondonJohn]

Follain too? OMFG! He had a reputation once! The other two are nobodies, does anyone overseas have the slightest idea how the US media works? Is the British media still centered around Fleet Street or whatever? Everyone together, might be more easily influenced by those around them? Wait a minute, they ought to be able to figure it out, the British media has relatively clearly defined editorial stances, at least the ones I read, Mail, Telegraph, Times, Independent, Guardian, they ought to be able to realize the whole mass of American media can't be manipulated by one little PR firm or patriotism.

This might make a case study for a media studies class. Stay away from the kooky websites. Learn how to evaluate sources! Somebody has to write a book on this.

Now I bet I know why his book is being delayed, he saw what happened to his 'source' (or confirmation) for all that disinformation in that article starting circa October.

Follain's book is almost certainly delayed because of the possibility of acquittal in the appeal trial. And there are probably three reasons for this:

1) There will very likely be a spike of public interest in the case around the time of the appeal court verdict (although there would be far less interest and coverage if the appeal court returned guilty verdicts as opposed to acquittals), and higher public interest = higher book sales and newspaper serialisation fees;

2) Follain would probably want to make his book as relevant and up-to-date as possible, by including a full account of the appeal trial;

3) Lastly (and by no means least), the whole tone of the book would likely change if (when) Knox and Sollecito are acquitted in Hellmann's court - I wouldn't be at all surprised if Follain has prepared two different manuscripts: one predicated on guilty verdicts in the appeal, and the other predicated on acquittals.

Personally, I believe that Follain now sees clearly which way the wind is blowing in this case. He's a pretty experienced broadsheet investigative journalist, and it appears to me that he now sees that he has the opportunity to write the definitive book on the case from an acquittal perspective. It would be very interesting to try to find out what his current opinion is.

 

[LondonJohn]

I've said it before, and will say it again. Based purely on the evidence presented in the first trial, I've have voted Guilty.

The trouble isn't the jury's verdict, they made the right one based on the evidence before them, the issue is that evidence in most cases was a pack of lies.

When I read through the Massei report it is more than clear to me that for the most part he just accepted the prosecution's claims without any critical thought about them. This was the major failing of the Massei court, it didn't challenge the Prosecution's claims, and the Defence fell down because a) they didn't have the experience, and b) because information was being with-held from them.

The problems with this case weren't in the courtroom (though I do beleive that Massei does have a bias towards the Prosecution and that came out in his decisions on what to allow and disallow) but rather in the police work that went on beforehand.

The problem with the court was that they failed to shine the spotlight on the reality of Mignini's claims, rather they simply accepted them as the truth.

The DNA on the knife - Accepted as true despite questions raised
The Bathmat footprint being Raffaele's - Accepted as true despite questions raised
The mixed blood - Accepted as true despite questions raised
Curatolo's account - Accepted as true despite questions raised
The heard scream - Accepted as true despite questions raised
The DNA on the bra clasp - Accepted as true despite questions raised
The bloody footprints in the hallway - Accepted as true despite questions raised
The staged break-in - Accepted as true despite questions raised
The Time of Death - Accepted as true despite questions raised
The lack of computer usage - Accepted as true despite questions raised
The nice chat leading to confession - Accepted as true despite questions raised

These things together make for a massively strong case and a finding for guilt, it's shame that not one of them is actually true. Had they looked deeper and discovered how each melts away under examination (and for the most part they did have the information to do that, they simply refused to accept it) then Massei wouldn't have been left in the position where he had to justify the Guilty verdict by putting forward a very weak and non-skeptical case in his report.

To me, I find it hard to understand how anyone can read the Massei Report and not stop and say "Hold on, that makes no sense at all" or "How did he jump to that conclusion based on what he's said?" The whole thing is premised on the idea that the police, the prosecution, and the wittnesses were all telling the truth (a great ideal and what they should do.) Unfortunately, Hellmann's Court has been showing that in fact they weren't, they were all telling a bunch of porkies, and when the evidence is viewed with this in mind, it falls apart very fast no matter how strong it first appeared.

I stuns me that supposedly rational people with critical thinking skills still can't see this.

I agree with everything you say here. As I wrote a day or two ago, I think that systemic problems within the Italian criminal justice system* have contributed heavily to what happened in the Massei trial. And high up on that list is the improper strength of the relationship between prosecutors and judges, and the seemingly-uncritical acceptance by both prosecutors and judges of the competence/neutrality of the police.

I think that much of what we saw in Massei's court was highly redolent of what we saw in some of the high-profile UK miscarriages of justice in the 1970s (which were exposed in the 80s and 90s): police bent - or broke - rules in order to support a thesis of guilt against suspects, and prosecutors and courts essentially refused to countenance any police malpractice.


* Which is not to say that there aren't also systemic problems with Anglo-Saxon criminal justice systems (or any other type, for that matter), or that there aren't some very good elements of the Italian system. However, I do also think that the 20th century history of Italy has probably resulted in a far more fiercely independent and reactionary judiciary than in most other industrialised nations, with the result that the Italian judiciary may be slower and more reluctant to change practices or to admit mistakes.

 

[LondonJohn]

Kaosium,

I agree this is slanderous and important for a number of reasons. Mainly, from what I understand about the British slander laws and I’m certain LJ can explain this far more correctly than my poor memory allows, but the law there seems favorable to the accuser. Something about burden of proof being different than anywhere else. I remember a discussion that it would be best to file the first slander charges in jolly ole England.
There certainly seems no lack of meat and potato available there.

The story was published by and in and for an English audience...I cant imagine that where the interview was held matters.

I'd make the following observations on this matter: firstly (purely as a point of clarity), the potential offence here would be libel, rather than slander. Secondly, in civil libel actions the onus is entirely upon the defendant (i.e. the person accused of having made the slander) to prove the veracity of his/her statements. So, if this matter ever resulted in a libel action by Knox, it would be totally incumbent upon Follain to prove that he had correctly represented Knox's story. And in this case, it seems that he would be unable to do so, and that therefore Follain would fail the "truth test" element of any libel case.

But one last point is by far the most important in the context of this case: in a libel action, if the defendant can't prove the accuracy/veracity of the disputed statements, the plaintiff (here, Knox) then has to show that the inaccurate remarks are injurious to his/her reputation in order to win the case. And at the time Follain wrote his article, Knox was sitting in a prison cell on remand, having been charged with the murder, and having been arraigned into custody by a judge. I therefore think it would be highly, highly unlikely that Knox would stand any chance of winning a libel action, since I don't think she could demonstrate any injury to her reputation at the time the article was written.

I think that Knox and Sollecito would be very well advised to completely discount everything written about them - no matter how unpleasant, biased and/or factually incorrect - up until the date of their acquittals. From that point on, they should look out for any articles that use unproven facts to support any detrimental comments against them.

 

[LondonJohn]

LondonJohn,

In Murder in Italy I seem to recall reading that some of the jurors shuddered when they saw Raffaele. He might need to address this problem. Of course Amanda did testify and Raffaele did not, and they were both convicted.

I don't think that Sollecito getting onto the stand would alter that situation. If some of the judicial panel had already pre-judged Sollecito to be a vicious murderer, then it's highly likely that they would make judgements of Sollecito's appearance through that prism. It's incredibly common for people's confirmation bias to lead them to convince themselves of a person's "look of evil" - even though in most cases the person objectively looks as "normal" as anyone else.

Had Sollecito turned up in court with a ten-day beard, long greasy straggly hair, wild staring eyes and a snarl, then observers might have a valid point in judging his appearance (even though it shouldn't have any bearing at all on how they judge the case, such an appearance would be bound to have some subliminal effect). But of course Sollecito presented himself smartly and appropriately in court. My view is that the same jurors who apparently shuddered at his physical appearance would have come to similar flawed judgements if Sollecito took the stand (e.g. "Oh, he sounds so creepy!").