Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

I've seen this happen at PMF, but not here.

Yep. It's interesting (and very instructive) to observe certain journalists being unquestioningly lionised by pro-guilt commentators if they express a pro-guilt stance, but that the same commentators miraculously find plenty of reasons to question (or even discredit) journalists who express any pro-acquittal stance. And the most curious thing of all is when the same journalist is involved! Nadeau and Pisa both fall into this category: they've been lauded and proclaimed the "voice of truth" when writing credulous pro-guilt pieces, but even a slight wavering towards any doubt over the prosecution case immediately earns them criticism and scorn. Fascinating to watch in action.

Oh, and the name "Ann Coulter" also springs immediately to mind, for some strange reason....

 

[Magister]

LJ
I made my comment about Costagliola for the very reason that his behaviour was in marked contrast to his previous position of remaining "virtually mute" throughout the appeal trial.
Prior to handing over to Mignini today he asked the court to consider the Kercher family's ordeal before accusing AK and RS of the murder.
There have been several musings here that Costagliola was trying to avoid going down with the ship.

 

[Paninaro]

Her closing sentence was particularly poignant to me
"No matter what happens, her (Knox's) fate will most certainly be much better than Kercher’s."

Well, Nadeau should try spending four years in jail for a crime she didn't commit herself before writing that kind of nonsense. Yes, Knox could have been murdered by "the poor black guy Guede" instead of Kercher, but to suggest that Knox therefore should be thankful for four year behind bars instead of being killed is a bit too much to stomach.

 

[LondonJohn]

LJ
I made my comment about Costagliola for the very reason that his behaviour was in marked contrast to his previous position of remaining "virtually mute" throughout the appeal trial.
Prior to handing over to Mignini today he asked the court to consider the Kercher family's ordeal before accusing AK and RS of the murder.
There have been several musings here that Costagliola was trying to avoid going down with the ship.

But if Colstagliola had not even stood up during the prosecution's closing argument (which is by far the most crucial part of any trial, and where each side actually presents its argument to the court), it would have been utterly astonishing, since he's nominally the lead prosecutor. So I argue that nothing whatsoever can be read into the fact that Costagliola actually spoke.

But it think the far more salient point is that Costagliola only presented a preamble, and appears to have abdicated the real bulk of the prosecution closing argument to other prosecutors. In normal circumstances, the lead prosecutor would handle the bulk of the closing argument, perhaps handing over to deputy prosecutors if there was very specific (e.g. scientific) argument to present, with which another prosecutor had much more knowledge/experience.

So I still think that there is every indication that Costagliola is distancing himself from the prosecution argument to the greatest extent possible, given that he is the nominal lead prosecutor. I think you would struggle to find another criminal trial where the lead prosecutor simply stood up at the start of closing arguments to make an anodyne (and by all accounts very uninspiring) speech which didn't really even attempt to argue for guilt based on any evidence, and then hand everything over to other prosecutors.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I must say that I'm very worried. The defense can not afford to let the other prosecution "evidence" go unchallenged. When it's time for them to give their closing arguments, the defense must stress the counter explanations for the "bloody footprints", "bathmat footprint", "mixed-blood", etc. I hope they don't spend the majority of their time debunking the DNA evidence because at this point that would be like beating a dead horse. A lot of focus should be on Rudy Guede and the evidence against him (especially his history as a cat burglar) because that is paramount in establishing the most plausible scenario of what happened that night. The similarity between his burglary of that lawyer's office and the break-in through Filomena's window needs to be emphasized.

The "mixed-DNA" issue I am especially worried about. While the last judge correctly disregarded the idea that the samples in question were of "mixed blood", he erroneously concluded that because they were mixed, they must have been deposited at the same time -- implicating Amanda. There are scientific studies that refute this notion, but is the new judge even aware of this? How about the defense team?

I think all of your worries are well founded. We cannot be sure the defense will cover all of the above. They may fail miserably. I am not at all certain of acquittal. I believe it is 50/50 and we can only pray it tips in favor of the defense. I believe there is a strong, strong case for innocence, but as you point out, it may get lost in the shuffle, and the DNA dead horse thing may ruin all....

 

[LondonJohn]

Well, Nadeau should try spending four years in jail for a crime she didn't commit herself before writing that kind of nonsense. Yes, Knox could have been murdered by "the poor black guy Guede" instead of Kercher, but to suggest that Knox therefore should be thankful for four year behind bars instead of being killed is a bit too much to stomach.

Exactly right. It's a crass, meaningless and irrelevant comparison to make. No person of sound mind would ever question the tragedy that was Meredith Kercher's murder, nor the extraordinary and horrific levels of suffering that she must have endured in the moments before her death. And no person of sound mind would ever question the trauma and grief that must have been experienced by Meredith's family and close friends since her murder, and the pain that must be being caused by them as courts seek to apply justice to her killer(s). But that is a totally separate issue, and one that is utterly improper to bring up as some sort of appeal to emotion.

I have every sympathy for Meredith's family/friends, and I feel sick at the though of what Meredith must have gone through; but that doesn't bar me from entitlement to also feel sympathy for Knox and Sollecito (and their families/friends) over what I view as an unnecessary and unjust period of incarceration (in a foreign country for Knox). The moment that prosecutors or journalists start to propose a "whose suffering is worse" type of argument is the moment most rational people can start to clearly assess the motives and/or intelligence of those attempting to make such an argument.

 

[pilot padron]

Oh, Ok if you want to play that game

I had to smile at how Barbie's posting of a ripple being caused could be pounced upon as something significant on a day devoted to prosecution arguments!

rip·ple1 [rip-uhl] Show IPA verb, -pled, -pling, noun

verb (used without object)

1. (of a liquid surface) to form small waves or undulations, as water agitated by a breeze.
2. to flow with a light rise and fall or ruffling of the surface.
3. (of a solid surface) to form or have small undulations, ruffles, or folds.
4. (of sound) to undulate or rise and fall in tone, inflection, or magnitude.

Silly me, I forgot:
Arguers here have a fetish for pedantic, parsing, dissecting and nit picking of words
(But usually not complete with dictionary lessons...in color.)

Why don't you then argue by dissecting every aspect of the opening headliner sentence of her Article.
This since you find the 'ripple' terminology below your personal minimums.

"Since her appeal began, Amanda Knox has appeared to be sailing toward an acquittal—but the prosecution’s powerful closing argument today could alter her fate once again.

Does Barbie's terminology "alter her fate" perhaps meet your test of sufficient adversity of today's events for those expecting acquittal ??

Apparently it has for a few others arguing innocence here today.

Or maybe this sentence from the Article will ring louder than a ripple for you (as it has for others)

"In all, it was a damning day for Knox, who sat solemnly at her lawyers’ table".

 

[charlatan]

I had a look at the coverage of the end of the first trial today and the memories came flooding back. Mignini painted a vivid portrait of Amanda as a temptress who first roped Rudy and Raffaele into a sexual assault and then savagely delivered the fatal blow herself. Believable or not, that story certainly took hold in the imagination. By contrast today's remarks seemed unfocused and defensive. In my view the emphasis has shifted to saving face -- the prosecution has been forced to defend its work rather than go after the accused with guns blazing. Despite the brave face Mignini puts on for the cameras even he seems to know the old narrative no longer has the punch it once did.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think all of your worries are well founded. We cannot be sure the defense will cover all of the above. They may fail miserably. I am not at all certain of acquittal. I believe it is 50/50 and we can only pray it tips in favor of the defense. I believe there is a strong, strong case for innocence, but as you point out, it may get lost in the shuffle, and the DNA dead horse thing may ruin all....

The defence teams will absolutely certainly cover all of those issues. It's my view that the defence teams are now very focused on the specific areas of the case where they need to demonstrate either unreliability of prosecution evidence or the real feasibility of an alternative explanation that doesn't involve the culpability of Knox/Sollecito. I believe they have all their ducks in a row, and I expect to see an extremely robust, extremely well-constructed and extremely well-coordinated series of defence closing arguments next week.

 

[LondonJohn]

Silly me, I forgot:
Arguers here have a fetish for pedantic, parsing, dissecting and nit picking of words
(But usually not complete with dictionary lessons...in color.)

Why don't you then argue by dissecting every aspect of the opening headliner sentence of her Article.
This since you find the 'ripple' terminology below your personal minimums.

"Since her appeal began, Amanda Knox has appeared to be sailing toward an acquittal—but the prosecution’s powerful closing argument today could alter her fate once again.

Does Barbie's terminology "alter her fate" perhaps meet your test of sufficient adversity of today's events for those expecting acquittal ??

Apparently it has for a few others arguing innocence here today.

Noting your careful avoidance of Clouseau's qualifying word "could". How would you define that word?

(Although this is somewhat of a moot point, since Clouseau's meanderings on this case are of extremely marginal value (at best) to anyone attempting to get a proper, objective, intelligent, informed point of view.)

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Silly me, I forgot:
Arguers here have a fetish for pedantic, parsing, dissecting and nit picking of words
(But usually not complete with dictionary lessons...in color.)

Why don't you then argue by dissecting every aspect of the opening headliner sentence of her Article.
This since you find the 'ripple' terminology below your personal minimums.

"Since her appeal began, Amanda Knox has appeared to be sailing toward an acquittal—but the prosecution’s powerful closing argument today could alter her fate once again.

Does Barbie's terminology "alter her fate" perhaps meet your test of sufficient adversity of today's events for those expecting acquittal ??

Apparently it has for a few others arguing innocence here today.

Or maybe this sentence from the Article will ring louder than a ripple for you (as it has for others)

"In all, it was a damning day for Knox, who sat solemnly at her lawyers’ table".

I see LondonJohn beat me to it and noted your omission of the word 'could' (immediately preceding 'alter her fate') and er...the word 'ripple' was Barbie's, NOT mine. I was merely pointing out that her article is not exactly mind-blowing (is it?) considering that today was set aside for prosecution arguments?

Seeing as you appear to want to 'play a game' (judging from the title of your 'response' to me) how do you feel about this little snippet from Barbarella?

''...believe that she was falsely convicted based on a damning report by independent forensic experts condemning the police and laboratories that processed the crime scene....''

 

[pilot padron]

Once again, your own words are my best argument

Noting your careful avoidance of Clouseau's qualifying word "could". How would you define that word?

(Although this is somewhat of a moot point, since Clouseau's meanderings on this case are of extremely marginal value (at best) to anyone attempting to get a proper, objective, intelligent, informed point of view.)

Oh Dear...
I mean I quoted her verbatim.
How pedantic and ridiculous are we becoming??
Yes, the sun could not come up tomorrow
One also could understandably tire of this 65000 post repetitive "moot" parsing, posing as arguments.

It was not a good day for Knox and Sollecito.
Read it, weep, and picayunishly parse away to your heart's content.
Use colored dictionary cut and pastes to accentuate your word fetish as necessary
However, please pardon my absence in such pointless empty endeavors

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh Dear...
I mean I quoted her verbatim.
How pedantic and ridiculous are we becoming??
Yes, the sun could not come up tomorrow
One also could understandably tire of this 65000 post repetitive "moot" parsing, posing as arguments.

It was not a good day for Knox and Sollecito.
Read it, weep, and picayunishly parse away to your heart's content.
Use colored dictionary cut and pastes to accentuate your word fetish as necessary
However, please pardon my absence in such pointless empty endeavors

You: "The Sun could not come up tomorrow"

Nadeau: "...the prosecution’s powerful closing argument today could alter her fate once again."

So assigning the same meaning to the word "could" to Nadeau's sentence as you employ in your sentence actually leads to you defeating your own argument.

I believe this may be what da yoof call an "epic fail"

 

[Poppy1016]

Hi Pilot
I was wondering what your take is on Frank being cuffed and hauled out of the courtroom. I thought this to be a bit odd, but I'm not well enough informed of the circumstances.

 

[JREF2010]

Mignoni bringing out the condoms and vibrator, the naxi and racism BS, just proves he is trying to demonize the Knox girl. Raffaele is pretty much forgotten, maybe they should let him go home now.

It does seem like either they didnt present much of anything or I'm totally missing the "emotional" factor in the courtroom/Perugia.

Instead of clear, precise, setup of the crime, it seems Day 1 of closing was very generic and deflated for the prosecution. Kind of throwing anything out there but in a very weak way. Is this "all the other evidence" they've been speaking about?

Will the 2nd day of closing, be Commodi all day discussing Forensic's?
The same as we just heard a week ago?

I dont see the point in that? Hellman's not going to disagree with his own appointed neutral-experts.

But with Commodi blabbering ignorant things to the news reporters about the Judge and whining about C&V , I dont see how effective she will be in this courtroom.

Its hard to un-do damage like she caused.

 

[JREF2010]

Franks got a new post...fyi

 

[smkovalinksy]

The defence teams will absolutely certainly cover all of those issues. It's my view that the defence teams are now very focused on the specific areas of the case where they need to demonstrate either unreliability of prosecution evidence or the real feasibility of an alternative explanation that doesn't involve the culpability of Knox/Sollecito. I believe they have all their ducks in a row, and I expect to see an extremely robust, extremely well-constructed and extremely well-coordinated series of defence closing arguments next week.

You know more about all of this than I do, so I will take heart in what you set forth here...thanks.

 

[Diocletus]

http://www.corrieredellumbria.it/news.asp?id=35 reports:

… Poison the tension is also linked to the latest letter, sent by some anonymous to the presiding judge, to the court consultants, to the experts for the parties and to Corriere dell’Umbria, in which it accuses the Scientific Police of not having (respected) complied with international standards and of other improper conduct in terms of discovery and in the laboratory. The letter has no impact on the trial, although it will be placed on the records, precisely because is anonymous. Although it is possible that investigations will be carry out to find out who is the "deep throat" who did write it and sent it.

So, somebody sent an "anonymous" letter saying that the scientific police violated standards? And they call this person "deep throat"?

Deep throat might want to read the C&V report.

On the other hand, it would be interesting to see whether this letter contains any detail about the scientific police screw ups, lies and decepits.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I had a look at the coverage of the end of the first trial today and the memories came flooding back. Mignini painted a vivid portrait of Amanda as a temptress who first roped Rudy and Raffaele into a sexual assault and then savagely delivered the fatal blow herself. Believable or not, that story certainly took hold in the imagination. By contrast today's remarks seemed unfocused and defensive. In my view the emphasis has shifted to saving face -- the prosecution has been forced to defend its work rather than go after the accused with guns blazing. Despite the brave face Mignini puts on for the cameras even he seems to know the old narrative no longer has the punch it once did.

Well said.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I think you'll find that Nadeau (aka Clouseau) is not respected at all here, regardless of what she's writing. She is not intelligent or balanced enough to be reporting objectively or accurately about this case, and her "opinions" have changed on the wind more than once. Today she has once again demonstrated her ignorance and lack of separation/balance as she seems to have been swayed by the simple fact that prosecutors were granted the entire day in court to argue their case - and there was nothing that anyone (including Nadeau) had not heard before. So if she had a certain opinion about the case yesterday, there's simply nothing that should have made her change her view about it today. I can be virtually certain, for example, that when it's the days of the defence closing arguments, Clouseau will probably be back to writing stuff about how acquittal is lookin g more likely. She's lightweight, susceptible to extreme short-termist opinionating rather than looking at the wider picture, and already over-invested in the case for guilt ("Angel Face: The true story of student killer Amanda Knox", anyone...?). She's a stringer for failing news outlets, and I doubt anyone will see her byline popping up anywhere significant after the acquittals.

Oh, and the final sentence of her latest piece encapsulates pretty much all that is worthless about her journalistic credibility and intelligence. As Matthew Chance of CNN pointed out earlier today, it's a false and misleading (and intentionally misleading in most instances) comparison to measure Knox's (and, ahem, Sollecito's, Barbie) suffering to that endured by Meredith Kercher. If Knox and Sollecito had nothing to do with Meredith's murder, they have unjustly suffered at least 3.5 out of the near-4 years they have spent incarcerated, and their families have suffered commensurately. Nobody denies that the greater loss happened to Meredith Kercher and her family/friends, but that's irrelevant in this context.

If Knox/Sollecito had nothing to do with the murder, they had no more right to have spent the past few years of their lives in prison than you, me or Prince William. Such comparisons to the ultimate suffering of Meredith Kercher, and the ongoing suffering of her family, are nothing more than an unpleasant appeal to emotion which has no place in an objective assessment of Knox's/Sollecito's role in the murder.

Right, the appeal to emotion is cheap, irrelevant, sneaky, underhanded, off the mark, and getting old. Imprisoned for a crime one did not commit is very bad by anyone's standards.