Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

By the way, in relation to what I posted above, I find it thoroughly unpleasant to see pro-guilt commentators elsewhere expressing the following sentiment: that they will be disgusted/sickened/horrified/revulsed if Knox (and, presumably, Sollecito) are acquitted. These expressions clearly indicate that such posters will refuse to accept that the acquittals are correct and proper, but rather that Knox/Sollecito will have been vicious murderers who somehow "beat the system" and "beat the rap". But then again, such people have rarely - if ever - shown logic, reasoning, intellect or fair-mindedness in relation to their "analysis" of this sad crime and associated trials. So I guess I shouldn't really be surprised. I suspect that after the acquittals there are going to be some ugly, nasty things said and written by a small hard core of unpleasant, unintelligent, belligerent individuals.

 

[LondonJohn]

Pilot and Stint7 (you read here)

As I have pointed out twice, your read on Marriott having his influence in part because he was a CBS anchor is erroneous. I've linked to his bio that proves he was a reporter for a local affiliate.

Yet you refuse to graciously say you were wrong. This issue is of low importance except for the fact that it is an excellent example of how false arguments are perpetuated.

If you would like the link one more time, please request. May the truth be found.

Not only that, but the restaurant table interview in the SBS Dateline piece was not lifted from CBS footage. The interview was arranged and filmed by SBS itself. I believe that the SBS reporter, Amos Roberts can be heard at one point in the interview asking a question. Pilot padron is just plain wrong in his attempted backtrack assertion that SBS somehow used a CBS interview in its programme.

 

[LondonJohn]

The question is whether the defense lawyers WILL knock the ball out of the park, or go after the prosecution like attack dogs. While there was plenty of bickering in the courtroom in the first trial, I didn't see a high value placed on the kind of logical arguments American (and I presume British) lawyers are trained in. For example, the quote Halides1 just provided (from an earlier post by someone else):



WE all know that the argument that Amanda tried to protect Rudy can be knocked down with questions like, "Then why didn't she flush the toilet?" and "Why did they supposedly clean up their own DNA but not Rudy's?" but the defense lawyers don't seem inclined to employ those kinds of blunt challenges (judging from what we have seen, anyway).

LondonJohn did a good job of describing the problems resulting from "a combination of the unwieldy transition from inquisitorial to adversarial justice, plus quite possibly the post-fascism insularity of the Italian judiciary.the Italian system is trying to adapt from inquisitorial to adversarial."

It would be nice to see the defense attorneys exhibit a stronger thirst for blood this time.

I think that the defence teams will quite reasonably want to focus on the primary objective: acquittals for their clients. I think that any diversionary attacks on prosecutors contain the risk that they might detract from the main job at hand. But I strongly suspect that the defence teams will make sure that Hellmann has more than enough information for the court to be able to draw its own withering conclusions about the behaviour and integrity of prosecutors in this case.

As I've said before, I detect a change in the clarity and strength of defence arguments in this appeal phase, as opposed to everything up to and including the Massei trial. And I can only suppose that this is mainly due to the behind-the-scenes injection of consultancy advice from heavy-hitting defence experts. If that is the case, then I hope Knox's/Sollecito's families consider it money well spent: it looks that way. It is certainly a far more appropriate way for the families to be using scarce funds than the mythical "million dollar PR campaign"....

 

[Dan O.]

Do those arguing for guilt have any arguments left that haven't been soundly defeated?

 

[Diocletus]

Interesting quote in the Guardian from Steve Moore: "My heart accounts for less than 5% of my body. But it's the part without which I cannot live. Nothing [in the trial verdict] makes sense if the DNA doesn't hold up."

I can't totally agree, though. Barbie Nadeau proves that it's possible to live without a heart. And a brain.

 

[katy_did]

As I've said before, I detect a change in the clarity and strength of defence arguments in this appeal phase, as opposed to everything up to and including the Massei trial. And I can only suppose that this is mainly due to the behind-the-scenes injection of consultancy advice from heavy-hitting defence experts. If that is the case, then I hope Knox's/Sollecito's families consider it money well spent: it looks that way. It is certainly a far more appropriate way for the families to be using scarce funds than the mythical "million dollar PR campaign"....

How so, LJ? I don't think there are many new arguments from the defence, really - for instance, pretty much everything in C&V had been argued before, it's just that this time it was the independent experts rather than the defence who were saying it. There are a few new things, like the Curatolo disco bus evidence for example, but I don't think this made too much difference. I think the main change in the appeal has been the way these arguments have been received, rather than the arguments themselves.

 

[pilot padron]

Well put, RW

That's too funny Fine!
I bet Ficara forgot where she put that Memorandum in the garage, hahaha...
I wanted to put in my 2 cents about a coupla posts today, so here it is:

Hi everyone,
We've had some good debate and arguments about this tragic, brutal murder case. I agree with PilotPadron, it was a personal attack. As hard as it sometimes is, let us try and attack the argument, not the arguer. Let's keep it kinda friendly, heck that guilter or innocentisti might change his or her point of view. Heck, I used to believe in guilt too, as I am sure many others here have too...

With that said, please allow me to comment on a quote that RoseMontague posted earlier today:

So let me get this straight.
Amanda Knox did not run away because the cops told her not to?

Isn't Amanda the gal who supposedly participated in a very personal, brutal, bloody murder, one where she supposedly is the person who stabbed Meredith, the 1 who felt that knife penetrate the skin of the neck of her friend, that same friend with whom she had eaten lunch with in the kitchen the day before, and shared wine with while out on the town the evening before that?

Didn't Amanda attend a Jesuit school in her days of youth?
Surely she must have read that passage "Thou shalt not kill".
Jeez, I've even read that passage! No matter how stoned, drunk or f'ed up a person gets, a person without any prior history of violent tendencies can remember "Thou shalt not kill".

If Amanda Knox,
however stoned she was, did not obey that commandment and did murder Meredith Kercher, why would she obey and listen to what some cop says a few days later when they tell her that she can not leave?

Wasn't Amanda still gettin' high on THC after Meredith's murder?
Bein' an old guy that has comfortably gotten high on THC off+on for many years, I would have been sooo nervously paranoid about dealing with cops while buzzed on THC. Especially if I was guilty of any participation in a murder. Heck, I'd be nervous talkin' to the cops even without bein' high on THC.

That she was becoming aware of being under suspicion seeing that she said: 'They are treating me like a criminal." and that she did not flee the country for the safety of the U.S.A., nor lawyer up as her 2 Italian housemates did, helped re-inforce my opinion a long time ago that Amanda did not shove that knife into her friend Meredith's neck...

See ya,
RW

RW, I agree with your introductory remarks that are well reasoned and timely.

A coupla' "facts " of the case that I doubt will change anyone's opinion, but nonetheless:

1) Knox in her own words described her religious convictions as Agnostic.
Therefore, I submit that the Jesuit influence, the Commandments and Knox's personal adherence to them is not at all a factor in proving innocence.
Despite the fact that you place such emphasis on them, I believe these religious factors may have had no more effect on her committing murder than it had on her frequent fornicating.

2) May I also in the best 'skeptical' traditions, say that when Police in her own words tell her she cannot leave.
Just maybe she interpreted that as a bit more than the polite 'telling her something' as you infer.
Like maybe "you will be punished if you try to leave" ?

3) The charge of 'lawyering up' as you use it in a derogatory manner is also misleading.
"Lawyering up" is not usually applied to persons presently employed in lawyers' offices and seeking legal advice from their own boss
This is a more accurate and less leading description than your "lawyering up" of what the two roommates naturally would do.

Therefore, I cannot share the significance of your reasons why Knox "did not shove that knife into her friend Meredith's neck".

But it was an interesting discussion about the case anyway.

 

[katy_did]

If Amanda Knox,
however stoned she was, did not obey that commandment and did murder Meredith Kercher, why would she obey and listen to what some cop says a few days later when they tell her that she can not leave?

I thought the same thing, RW. Having just committed murder, why would she have unthinkingly obeyed the police? Especially since it sounds like they made a request, not an order. She could have been in Germany before they even realized she'd gone. To say she didn't leave because the police asked her to stay is almost as silly an argument as the suggestion they didn't throw away the knife because it was on the landlord's inventory!

 

[davefoc]

By the way, in relation to what I posted above, I find it thoroughly unpleasant to see pro-guilt commentators elsewhere expressing the following sentiment: that they will be disgusted/sickened/horrified/revulsed if Knox (and, presumably, Sollecito) are acquitted. These expressions clearly indicate that such posters will refuse to accept that the acquittals are correct and proper, but rather that Knox/Sollecito will have been vicious murderers who somehow "beat the system" and "beat the rap". But then again, such people have rarely - if ever - shown logic, reasoning, intellect or fair-mindedness in relation to their "analysis" of this sad crime and associated trials. So I guess I shouldn't really be surprised. I suspect that after the acquittals there are going to be some ugly, nasty things said and written by a small hard core of unpleasant, unintelligent, belligerent individuals.

Many people were saddened when OJ Simpson was acquitted and it seems like the Simpson is innocent crowd might have felt about them as the AK/RS is guilty crowd will feel if RS/AK are found innocent. You might find this unpleasant but it seems like it is inevitable to me.

My view about all this shaped by my view that confirmation bias plays a huge role in human belief and when the police and prosecutor created a case in the public's mind that AK/RS were guilty a percentage of that public was not going to alter their beliefs once they had formed them regardless of what additional information became available. And these people are going to be none too happy if RS/AK are found innocent.

I thought a reporter repeating evidence that was completely discredited four years after this began was pretty good evidence that my ideas about confirmation bias and this case were accurate. I tried to explore this a bit in this thread with some of the posters who have argued for guilt to see how they reacted to the use of completely discredited information by a reporter who shared their views about the guilt of RS/AK.

None of them chose to respond. This seems like anecdotal evidence at least that confirmation bias is a big part of what is driving the AK/RS are guilty group even in the JREF forum. People that are seeking truth are willing to stipulate to facts even when those facts don't support their overall view.

As an aside, I became aware of the details of this case long after it started. But I have looked back at some of the old posts and some of the old articles and it is amazing to me that anybody could have thought that AK/RS were innocent. The characterization of the evidence that was released appeared to be overwhelming proof of guilt and I have little doubt that I would have formed a view that they were guilty. It is difficult to know exactly what I would believe today if I had formed such a strong belief in their guilt early on. I like to think that I would have been objective enough to realize that the information that I based my views on was incorrect and based on new information I would have changed my views.

 

[Diocletus]

I thought the same thing, RW. Having just committed murder, why would she have unthinkingly obeyed the police? Especially since it sounds like they made a request, not an order. She could have been in Germany before they even realized she'd gone. To say she didn't leave because the police asked her to stay is almost as silly an argument as the suggestion they didn't throw away the knife because it was on the landlord's inventory!

Yeah, really.

If somebody really committed a murder, and then the police came up and said "don't leave town," what is that person more likely to do: (a) head for the hills, or (b) hang around the police station and wait to get arrested.

In fact, if that someone really did commit a murder, they wouldn't hang around long enough for the police to say "don't leave town." They would actually flee to oh, say, Germany.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I want to make a spontaneous nosebleed

They say that the stress caused her to start bleeding spontaneously. They used this spaghetti toss because the small mark on her neck showed no sign of bleeding.

Grinder,

I am reminded of the prosecutor in the Mixer murder case against Gary Leiterman. At one point he posited John Ruelas's having a nosebleed over the crime scene to explain the presence of both Leiterman's an Ruelas's DNA on evidence items from the murder that were tested many years after the crime. Trouble is that Ruelas was four years old at the time of the murder, and he lived in another city.

 

[katy_did]

Yeah, really.

If somebody really committed a murder, and then the police came up and said "don't leave town," what is that person more likely to do: (a) head for the hills, or (b) hang around the police station and wait to get arrested.

In fact, if that someone really did commit a murder, they wouldn't hang around long enough for the police to say "don't leave town." They would actually flee to oh, say, Germany.

Yes, if she'd really wanted to leave, I doubt the police saying "No, it's best you don't" would have stopped her!

I wonder if they actually had any legal power to stop her going. Considering Matteini said she was arrested shortly before her mother arrived in order to stop her fleeing, it sounds to me like they would need to have arrested her to prevent it. And of course they didn't have any grounds to arrest her at that point.

 

[RandyN]

I think that the defence teams will quite reasonably want to focus on the primary objective: acquittals for their clients. I think that any diversionary attacks on prosecutors contain the risk that they might detract from the main job at hand. But I strongly suspect that the defence teams will make sure that Hellmann has more than enough information for the court to be able to draw its own withering conclusions about the behaviour and integrity of prosecutors in this case.

As I've said before, I detect a change in the clarity and strength of defence arguments in this appeal phase, as opposed to everything up to and including the Massei trial. And I can only suppose that this is mainly due to the behind-the-scenes injection of consultancy advice from heavy-hitting defence experts. If that is the case, then I hope Knox's/Sollecito's families consider it money well spent: it looks that way. It is certainly a far more appropriate way for the families to be using scarce funds than the mythical "million dollar PR campaign"....

I disagree.

The defense has played nice for 4 years now and it has allowed a weak poorly constructed case made by an abusive prosecutor and propped up by lies, and leaks by police along with the most blatant conflicts of interest where lab directors serve as hired consultants of the prosecution and cronyism seems to be the order of the day and that this behavior has allowed 2 innocent persons to be jailed for 4 years now is obscene!

The defense has been weak and ineffective so far. They need to step up to the plate and squarely face the ball. It is proper and correct for them to attack the prosecution and its weak case. That just in the last weeks we have had Comodi try to enter false documents about control samples provided by police (Stefanoni) and also that she threatened a defense witness in court and further that she gave an interview to reporters that these appeal judges are unfair to the prosecution and that these defendants will go free due to this stated corruption of the appeal judges puts the finest point on the case that this prosecution will go to any length to confirm this conviction.

Add to that the fact that you have the maniac Mignini spouting off about appeals of 2 year delay of request for DNA review and it is clear that it is time for these defense lawyers to get off their asses and get down to business. I want to hear some objections and arguments about this railroad job from hell. This defense has been ineffective and or absent in court sessions. Its time to take off the gloves and "go to the mattresses".

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, if she'd really wanted to leave, I doubt the police saying "No, it's best you don't" would have stopped her!

I wonder if they actually had any legal power to stop her going. Considering Matteini said she was arrested shortly before her mother arrived in order to stop her fleeing, it sounds to me like they would need to have arrested her to prevent it. And of course they didn't have any grounds to arrest her at that point.

No, the police had no powers whatsoever to compel or force Knox to remain in Italy. they "instructed" her to do so, but there would have been nothing to stop her buying a plane ticket from Rome to Seattle and leaving. Of course, if police/prosecutors had subsequently declared her a suspect in a murder case, they could have summoned her back to Perugia to face questioning and possible charges. I think it's almost certain that the US would have extradited Knox under such circumstances, under the terms US/EU (and preceding US/Italy) extradition treaty. But it probably would have taken anything up to a year before Knox had stood in a Perugia courtroom.

But between November 2nd and the evening of November 5th, the police had absolutely no powers to prevent Knox leaving Italy. As you point out, it was even explicitly brought up in Matteini's courtroom that prosecutors needed to get Knox arrested in order to prevent her mother taking her back to Seattle. This on its own confirms the fact that arrest (and/or charging) was the only mechanism for mandating Knox's presence in Perugia.

 

[Diocletus]

Question

Why didn't Knox just say that the police in their statements misstated what she was saying during the interrogation? Both of the statements make perfect sense if you replace "I saw" (or similar) with "I imagine" in just a couple of places. And, "imagine" is what the police were actually asking her to do.

It's easy to believe that even a police interpreter would not have accurately translated the difference between something actually seen and something imagined (i.e., seen in the mind only).

Although, thinking this through, if her Italian was not great at this point, she would not have been capable of precisely understanding the 1:45 and 5:45 statements until after she got a lawyer, and obviously, by this time, she had written the "gift memo".

I just wonder why she's never said "I said that I imagined it, not that I actually saw it." Since the cops won't cough up the tapes, they could never disprove this contention.

 

[LondonJohn]

Many people were saddened when OJ Simpson was acquitted and it seems like the Simpson is innocent crowd might have felt about them as the AK/RS is guilty crowd will feel if RS/AK are found innocent. You might find this unpleasant but it seems like it is inevitable to me.

My view about all this shaped by my view that confirmation bias plays a huge role in human belief and when the police and prosecutor created a case in the public's mind that AK/RS were guilty a percentage of that public was not going to alter their beliefs once they had formed them regardless of what additional information became available. And these people are going to be none too happy if RS/AK are found innocent.

I thought a reporter repeating evidence that was completely discredited four years after this began was pretty good evidence that my ideas about confirmation bias and this case were accurate. I tried to explore this a bit in this thread with some of the posters who have argued for guilt to see how they reacted to the use of completely discredited information by a reporter who shared their views about the guilt of RS/AK.

None of them chose to respond. This seems like anecdotal evidence at least that confirmation is a big part of what is driving the AK/RS are guilty group even in the JREF forum. People that are seeking truth are willing to stipulate to facts even when those facts don't support their overall view.

As an aside, I became aware of the details of this case long after it started. But I have looked back at some of the old posts and some of the old articles and it is amazing to me that anybody could have thought that AK/RS were innocent. The characterization of the evidence that was released appeared to be overwhelming proof of guilt and I have little doubt that I would have formed a view that they were guilty. It is difficult to know exactly what I would believe today if I had formed such a strong belief in their guilt early on. I like to think that I would have been objective enough to realize that the information that I based my views on was incorrect and based on new information I would have changed my views.

Yes I think your analysis is very accurate here. I myself started out as one who believed in the guilt of Knox and Sollecito. This was based upon a very casual, low-level following of the first trial, knowledge of the result of the trial, and a reading of the book "Darkness Descending". A combination of these inputs led me to initially believe that Knox and Sollecito were correctly found guilty in Massei's court.

Ironically, the only reason I ever developed any sort of online interest in this case was because I wanted to clarify a couple of things I'd read in "Darkness Descending" that didn't quite add up for me. Most specifically, I was actually trying to argue at that point that it was perfectly possible that Knox was improperly coerced (including some physical violence) into making her infamous "confession/accusation" on the 5th/6th, but that this wasn't at all inconsistent with her being guilty of the murder itself. I also wanted to point out that it wasn't necessary to near-venerate Meredith Kercher in order to believe that her murder was tragic, senseless and horrible, and to believe that anyone involved in her murder needed to be identified and fully punished. Needless to say, the irrational and unpleasant responses that "greeted" me were an education in themselves.

But apart from gaining an ever-growing understanding about the strange polarisation of opinions (especially strange on one side of the debate), I learned more and more about the actual case. I soon discovered that "Darkness Descending" had either misrepresented or flat-out invented certain crucial elements of the case which had been fundamental to my initial belief in guilt. It didn't take me long at all to realise that this was quite evidently a reasonable-doubt case at the very least. At that point, I changed my position on the legal guilt of Knox and Sollecito and became tentatively of the opinion that the guilty verdicts in the Massei trial were unjust and wrong. As time went on, I came increasingly to believe that not only was this a clear reasonable-doubt case, the balance of probabilities was actually leaning towards Knox and Sollecito having nothing whatsoever to do with the murder.

I believe that decent, sceptical, rational, objective, non-partisan individuals should be able not only to reach opinions based on the evidence available to them but - critically - that they should be constantly re-evaluating their position as and when new evidence comes to light. That's what I would say happened in my case, and I think it's also visible in the case of many people now arguing for acquittal or innocence. I personally cannot see how anyone can still cling stubbornly to a belief in guilt with all the evidence now available.

 

[katy_did]

No, the police had no powers whatsoever to compel or force Knox to remain in Italy. they "instructed" her to do so, but there would have been nothing to stop her buying a plane ticket from Rome to Seattle and leaving. Of course, if police/prosecutors had subsequently declared her a suspect in a murder case, they could have summoned her back to Perugia to face questioning and possible charges. I think it's almost certain that the US would have extradited Knox under such circumstances, under the terms US/EU (and preceding US/Italy) extradition treaty. But it probably would have taken anything up to a year before Knox had stood in a Perugia courtroom.

But between November 2nd and the evening of November 5th, the police had absolutely no powers to prevent Knox leaving Italy. As you point out, it was even explicitly brought up in Matteini's courtroom that prosecutors needed to get Knox arrested in order to prevent her mother taking her back to Seattle. This on its own confirms the fact that arrest (and/or charging) was the only mechanism for mandating Knox's presence in Perugia.

Thanks LJ, I suspected that was the case. So basically she was free to leave any time she wanted, and unless they arrested her (or declared her a suspect) the police would have had no power to stop her.

 

[Grinder]

As an aside, I became aware of the details of this case long after it started. But I have looked back at some of the old posts and some of the old articles and it is amazing to me that anybody could have thought that AK/RS were innocent. The characterization of the evidence that was released appeared to be overwhelming proof of guilt and I have little doubt that I would have formed a view that they were guilty. It is difficult to know exactly what I would believe today if I had formed such a strong belief in their guilt early on. I like to think that I would have been objective enough to realize that the information that I based my views on was incorrect and based on new information I would have changed my views.

Dave, I was reading about it from day one and took the other path. Things that made me question their guilt were the sex game theory and Mignini's history, the interrogation (particularly the chief's remarks which immediately made it look like they coerced her statement ), the notes being released the next few days and what they contained, the substitution of Rudy for Patrick, the convenient DNA bra evidence discovered the day after Raf's defense had shown the shoe prints were Rudy's, the DNA found on the "clean" knife being the only evidence putting Amanda at the cottage during the murder, Rudy's leaked secretly taped Skype call denying Amanda's presence and more.

All of the above was known before the end of the year. At that time they had no Nara, no Quintavalle, no Curatolo and no Kokomani. All of these key witnesses were unknown to all until well into 2008, well after they could have read about all in the local press.

 

[LondonJohn]

I thought the same thing, RW. Having just committed murder, why would she have unthinkingly obeyed the police? Especially since it sounds like they made a request, not an order. She could have been in Germany before they even realized she'd gone. To say she didn't leave because the police asked her to stay is almost as silly an argument as the suggestion they didn't throw away the knife because it was on the landlord's inventory!

Ah, but this is all part of the "evil genius" meme (hehe). The "argument" goes along the lines that Knox and Sollecito had the massive brass cojones to try to bluff it out. Therefore they decided to hid the murder knife in plain sight in Sollecito's kitchen drawer, and to make no attempt to flee. In addition, neither of them made any attempt to get legal or consular advice - advice which would have been in no way indicative of culpability (viz. Filomena and Laura), but advice which would self-evidently have been to their advantage if they had indeed been involved in the murder. And not only that, they also (for "evil genius" reasons, of course!) decided to place themselves at the heart of the discovery of the body, when it doesn't take a non-evil genius to figure out that by far the best option for them - had they been involved in the murder - would have been for them to clean up the scene as best they could and then to either wait out at Sollecito's apartment or go to Gubbio as arranged.

 

[billyryan]

I disagree.

The defense has played nice for 4 years now and it has allowed a weak poorly constructed case made by an abusive prosecutor and propped up by lies, and leaks by police along with the most blatant conflicts of interest where lab directors serve as hired consultants of the prosecution and cronyism seems to be the order of the day and that this behavior has allowed 2 innocent persons to be jailed for 4 years now is obscene!

The defense has been weak and ineffective so far. They need to step up to the plate and squarely face the ball. It is proper and correct for them to attack the prosecution and its weak case. That just in the last weeks we have had Comodi try to enter false documents about control samples provided by police (Stefanoni) and also that she threatened a defense witness in court and further that she gave an interview to reporters that these appeal judges are unfair to the prosecution and that these defendants will go free due to this stated corruption of the appeal judges puts the finest point on the case that this prosecution will go to any length to confirm this conviction.

Add to that the fact that you have the maniac Mignini spouting off about appeals of 2 year delay of request for DNA review and it is clear that it is time for these defense lawyers to get off their asses and get down to business. I want to hear some objections and arguments about this railroad job from hell. This defense has been ineffective and or absent in court sessions. Its time to take off the gloves and "go to the mattresses".

RandyN I have seen it written that Comodi is once again going to deal with the DNA evidence in the final arguments,interested after she is quoted as having said the the judge is against the prosecution,she would no doubt charge Nick Pisa with calumnia only for the tricky business of he having her on tape,not as easy to get rid of Pisa's tape as it was for the police to vanish the tapes of the interrogation,I expect the prosecution to stoop to new depts in an attempt to re-float their case over the next two days