Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Paninaro]

Nice comment, and a good summary. I hope you are right.

The comments that Bongiorno is trying to distance Sollecito from Knox is true in some ways, though. And she should of course do exactly that for her client.

While she maintains that Knox and Sollecito is both innocent, she points out - for example with the Jessica Rabbit parable if I have understand it correctly - that there is even less evidence against Sollecito than against Knox.

A false confession by Knox is not good evidence against Sollecito, even if the court against reason should conclude it's good evidence against Knox.

 

[Grinder]

I almost agree! But the point I'm trying to make is that I think it's overreaching to state that absence of evidence is proof of innocence. I think the proper argument to be made here is that absence of evidence of Knox/Sollecito in the murder room is highly indicative of their non-participation in the murder. My point is that I don't think one can say it's any sort of proof of non-participation.

Get your point but people (read judges) discount what people are selling them. They will reduce it to highly indicative but had she of started at highly indicative they would reduced it to somewhat indicative

 

[RWVBWL]

Amanda Knox needs to toughen up, and look the court straight in the eye, and tell them what she exactly what she wrote in her diary, per page 230 of Murder in Italy:
"I was stressed and pressured by the police. They brainwashed me."

She also needs to state, once again, that she did not stab her friend to death, she was not at the cottage when Meredith was killed, she did not stage a break-in, she did not perform a clean-up, she was at Raffaele's apartment, with him, the whole night long.
And repeat it, repeat it, repeat it...

I did not kill Meredith Kercher.
I did not kill Meredith Kercher.
I did not kill Meredith Kercher.

Gee, that's all it takes then? That's easy.

Sounds like : DENY

DENY

DENY.

Hi LionKing,and CapeAladin,
Amanda and Raffaele's lawyers, as we are seeing right now, should dismantle all of the prosecutions evidence. Heck, Gulia Bongiorno seems to be doing a great job of this, from what I read today...

In my opinion, Amanda, when she finally speaks in court, should not get bogged down in minute details, she should stand up straight, hold her head up high, and simply deny what I wrote of above.

The cops stressed me out, they confused me, they brainwashed me.

She should also ask, while looking Judge Hellmann in the eye,
where are the audio or video tapes of that night she was questioned?

And lastly, being a guy who had a jury of 8 women and 4 men find me innocent of the crime of the rape of a female friend in a civil, not criminal, trial, well I think that Amanda should tell the Court judges, and the 5 women, and 1 male on the jury panel, with her own words that "I did not kill Meredith Kercher."

My opinion only.
Have a nice day,
RW

 

[Bruce Fischer]

For nearly 4 years, the side that supports innocence has done everything possible to show respect for Meredith Kercher. You will never see a photo or video clip of Meredith's body with regard to anything produced by FOA or IIP. We have this policy because when it is all said and done it is our side that is Pro-Meredith.

Maresca's stunt was extremely disrespectful to Meredith Kercher and the outcry should be loud and clear from all sides. It is very telling that only one side of this debate is speaking out against Maresca's extremely poor decision.

 

[ForTruth]

I almost agree! But the point I'm trying to make is that I think it's overreaching to state that absence of evidence is proof of innocence. I think the proper argument to be made here is that absence of evidence of Knox/Sollecito in the murder room is highly indicative of their non-participation in the murder. My point is that I don't think one can say it's any sort of proof of non-participation.

From a purely logical perspective, I agree with you LJ. I think from a pure courtroom messaging perspective after the exaggeration, outright lies, repetition of disproven ideas of Maresca, Paccelli, Mignini and Comodi - a little license to exaggerate a point is granted.

I had often worried that saying that because they weren't involved in the crime that the room would be expected to be 100% absent of their DNA or any other traces. After all, Amanda could have easily left a finger print in the room from being invited in there by Meredith the day before she died. Raffaele could have dropped dandruff in the there the day before.

Since the body of evidence related to the murder room is pretty much static at this point, I think it is safe for her to say that especially with the damning result of the C&V independent DNA review which obliterates anything related to their DNA traces in the room.

Even if the C&V report upheld the traces on the bra clasp, it should have been deemed a statistical outlier worthy of a non-probative classification with a whole other explanation compared to what Rudy left behind. And since the knife wasn't even found in the room and can more easily be ruled out (than ruled in) as the murder weapon, it is irrelevant.

 

[DarkStar2011]

Get your point but people (read judges) discount what people are selling them. They will reduce it to highly indicative but had she of started at highly indicative they would reduced it to somewhat indicative

And that's exactly it. In terms of strict Aristotelian logic, LondonJohn is right...but this isn't being held before the judging panel of the Oxbridge Debating Society. In a criminal trial, particularly one as notorious as this, where emotions are running high, there's a place for logic and there's a place for rhetoric. Having been told for several days that there's no doubt whatsoever -- and, actually, a "mountain" of evidence -- that the "spell-casting witch she-devil" and her erstwhile boyfriend committed the murder, it probably does no good to say that the evidence is "highly indicative" that they didn't do it. While we'd like to think that jurors will rule strictly on "reasonable doubt" grounds, when the prosecution has amped-up the emotional level as they have in their summations, it's safe to assume that some jurors may instead be balancing whether the possibility that they might be unwittingly freeing two "satanic" killers would be worse than incarcerating two people of which there's only a "highly indicative" chance that they're not guilty. In that real-world situation, there's a strong basis for rhetorically "fighting fire with fire" -- in other words, countering the prosecution's absolute certainty as to their guilt with absolute certainty that the evidence shows they're innocent. Maybe it's a little bit of cheating on a purely logical level, but I'm sure that one's innocent clients would prefer to stay out of jail, even at the cost of some logical precision.

 

[Wildhorses]

I can't help but think that most of the lawyers in this trial (and the Massei trial previously) have allowed the massive media attention to influence their performances. I strongly suspect that with the exception of Bongiorno, all the other lawyers on all sides of the case have never before been involved in a case with such intense (and international) media scrutiny and presence. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if this has made them speak and act in ways that they would never have done in their usual courtroom work.

I think there's plenty of evidence that certain lawyers have got totally swept up by the occasion, and have started grandstanding and employing excess melodrama. Pacelli appears to be the worst culprit, but Mignini, Comodi and Maresca have all - in my opinion - shown similar tendencies. I wonder how many of them think that they could make a name for themselves through their work in this case.

Yes, clearly. IMO much prosecutorial zeal has been driven by enjoyment of the limelight. I suspect that because Mignini, Commodi, and Maresca have been swept up, they'd be be delighted to go a third round.

Maresca began his summation with a comment about how the eyes of the world were on the trial (read him). Mignini frequently referred to international public interest in the case, a fact he used to manipulate the jury in several different ways (for example, by urging them not to succumb to U.S. pressure and blaming the defense for media interest). Still, it points up the extent to which his reputation and the prominence of the case are on his mind.

I don't know if lawyers are allowed to accept payment for interviews and TV appearances... either way, I reckon the key players have been basking in and taking full advantage of their fifteen minutes -- and above all, viewing the closing arguments as their Clarence Darrow/Perry Mason/Alan Dershowitz moment.

Lord knows they all chewed the scenery.

On a related subject, I think Maresca had full buy-in from the Kerchers. When I heard they would not be in court, I knew exactly what was coming. He blew it. His shock tactic was too transparent and came across as gratuitous. Nevertheless, I suspect the family sanctioned it as a way to bring the focus back on Merdith.

 

[ForTruth]

ndalberth noel dalberth

My comments here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/newsdebate/f/t-10237146/p-1/index.html
(under philosopher29)

Are currently being tweeted by someone who's been following the case on Twitter, Noel Dalberth.
I wonder if anyone knows if she posts here/IIP?

ndalberth noel dalberth
The whole PR supertanker is a fantasy that betrays a complete ignorance of the way media /PR actually works in the real world #AmandaKnox
14 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply
»
noel dalberth
ndalberth noel dalberth
b) enlist the support of a small PR firm to help schedule media interviews. PR companies can't buy positive press. #AmandaKnox
14 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply
»
noel dalberth
ndalberth noel dalberth
Interesting comment on Daily Mail trashy story site:Amanda's supporters decide to (a) speak to media & correct portrayal of her #AmandaKnox

I too have started to get curious about her. She doing a great job of tweeting in support of Amanda and Raffaele!
Anyone know anything about her - is she one of us?!

 

[RoseMontague]

BBC Dude updates.

BBCDanielS Daniel Sandford
So far in #amandaknox closing speeches we have had hydra, eskimo nose-rubbing, Jessica Rabbit, two-faced she-devil. I am not sure it helps.
24 minutes ago
»

BBCDanielS Daniel Sandford
I think point is that investigation was a Hydra. Each time a piece of evidence against #amandaknox was killed there was another one created.
27 minutes ago
»

BBCDanielS Daniel Sandford
Weird. Now Maori is showing a slide of a Hydra in #amandaknox case.
29 minutes ago

He forgot some, witch comes to mind as well.

 

[Justinian2]

For nearly 4 years, the side that supports innocence has done everything possible to show respect for Meredith Kercher. You will never see a photo or video clip of Meredith's body with regard to anything produced by FOA or IIP. We have this policy because when it is all said and done it is our side that is Pro-Meredith.

Maresca's stunt was extremely disrespectful to Meredith Kercher and the outcry should be loud and clear from all sides. It is very telling that only one side of this debate is speaking out against Maresca's extremely poor decision.

Definition of NECROPHILIA : obsession with and usually erotic interest in or stimulation by corpses.

Opinion: I always have felt that there was a strong interest in necrophilia by the EOA (Enemies of Amanda). This case has attracted all the buzzards. They have great patience and circle continually.

I would hate to be loved by necrophiliacs.

Opinion #2: The trial reminds me of a football game that is kept close by biased officiating. One side is much more powerful than the other, but biased officiating keeps the score even.

 

[RoseMontague]

And that's exactly it. In terms of strict Aristotelian logic, LondonJohn is right...but this isn't being held before the judging panel of the Oxbridge Debating Society. In a criminal trial, particularly one as notorious as this, where emotions are running high, there's a place for logic and there's a place for rhetoric. Having been told for several days that there's no doubt whatsoever -- and, actually, a "mountain" of evidence -- that the "spell-casting witch she-devil" and her erstwhile boyfriend committed the murder, it probably does no good to say that the evidence is "highly indicative" that they didn't do it. While we'd like to think that jurors will rule strictly on "reasonable doubt" grounds, when the prosecution has amped-up the emotional level as they have in their summations, it's safe to assume that some jurors may instead be balancing whether the possibility that they might be unwittingly freeing two "satanic" killers would be worse than incarcerating two people of which there's only a "highly indicative" chance that they're not guilty. In that real-world situation, there's a strong basis for rhetorically "fighting fire with fire" -- in other words, countering the prosecution's absolute certainty as to their guilt with absolute certainty that the evidence shows they're innocent. Maybe it's a little bit of cheating on a purely logical level, but I'm sure that one's innocent clients would prefer to stay out of jail, even at the cost of some logical precision.

Welcome to the forum where we expect each succeeding post to be better than the previous one.

 

[daydreamer]

..... On a related subject, I think Maresca had full buy-in from the Kerchers. When I heard they would not be in court, I knew exactly what was coming. He blew it. His shock tactic was too transparent and came across as gratuitous. Nevertheless, I suspect the family sanctioned it as a way to bring the focus back on Merdith.

My view on this is that Maresca gave them a heads up that he would show pictures without going into details of the pics. Similarly, I doubt if the Kerchers have really seen a lot of the details personally, who would want to know the grim details of their daughter's murder? Instead, they rely on their lawyer to fill them in. And he obviously puts his slant on things, especially whem it comes to AK. Its no wonder they have the view that they have.

 

[RoseMontague]

Barbie update:

BLNadeau Barbie Latza Nadeau
Maori shows the outline in blood of the murder weapon left on #meredithkercher bedsheet, not compatible with knife with #amandaknox DNA.
19 minutes ago
»

BLNadeau Barbie Latza Nadeau
Maori going to focus on knife b/c it was found in #sollecito 's kitchen. Why did they take the 1st knife they found? #amandaknox
24 minutes ago
»

BLNadeau Barbie Latza Nadeau
Maori says he's not going to talk about the bra because Bongiorno did, the independent experts did, there's nothing left 2 say. #amandaknox
26 minutes ago

 

[Dougm]

For nearly 4 years, the side that supports innocence has done everything possible to show respect for Meredith Kercher. You will never see a photo or video clip of Meredith's body with regard to anything produced by FOA or IIP. We have this policy because when it is all said and done it is our side that is Pro-Meredith.

Maresca's stunt was extremely disrespectful to Meredith Kercher and the outcry should be loud and clear from all sides. It is very telling that only one side of this debate is speaking out against Maresca's extremely poor decision.

Thanks, Bruce.

I think it is a clear sign of integrity and fair thinking when people are willing to speak out on occasion contrary to what the others in their group are saying. For no one on the pro-guilt side to disagree with this disgusting tactic by Maresca, and some to cheer it on, shows clearly who has respect for Meredith, and who is just on a vendetta against an innocent couple.

 

[RoseMontague]

Opinion #2: The trial reminds me of a football game that is kept close by biased officiating. One side is much more powerful than the other, but biased officiating keeps the score even.

For me it is a PBJ sandwich. On one side is sticky, gooey, and sticks to your craw. The other side is sweet, fruity, and goes down easy.

 

[Dougm]

My view on this is that Maresca gave them a heads up that he would show pictures without going into details of the pics. Similarly, I doubt if the Kerchers have really seen a lot of the details personally, who would want to know the grim details of their daughter's murder? Instead, they rely on their lawyer to fill them in. And he obviously puts his slant on things, especially whem it comes to AK. Its no wonder they have the view that they have.

I have no detailed facts on this obviously, but based on my observations of the parties, and "how life works", this is my gut feeling.

* Maresca told the Kerchers what he was going to do, meaning he told them he was going to need to show some of the crime scene photos, including some of the wounds, etc. to clearly make the point.
* He did not tell them that the press and other spectators would be there this time, and he did not forget to clear them
* There is a good chance they are currently quite upset at what happened. If not now, they will be later.

 

[Wildhorses]

And that's exactly it. In terms of strict Aristotelian logic, LondonJohn is right...but this isn't being held before the judging panel of the Oxbridge Debating Society. In a criminal trial, particularly one as notorious as this, where emotions are running high, there's a place for logic and there's a place for rhetoric. Having been told for several days that there's no doubt whatsoever -- and, actually, a "mountain" of evidence -- that the "spell-casting witch she-devil" and her erstwhile boyfriend committed the murder, it probably does no good to say that the evidence is "highly indicative" that they didn't do it. While we'd like to think that jurors will rule strictly on "reasonable doubt" grounds, when the prosecution has amped-up the emotional level as they have in their summations, it's safe to assume that some jurors may instead be balancing whether the possibility that they might be unwittingly freeing two "satanic" killers would be worse than incarcerating two people of which there's only a "highly indicative" chance that they're not guilty. In that real-world situation, there's a strong basis for rhetorically "fighting fire with fire" -- in other words, countering the prosecution's absolute certainty as to their guilt with absolute certainty that the evidence shows they're innocent. Maybe it's a little bit of cheating on a purely logical level, but I'm sure that one's innocent clients would prefer to stay out of jail, even at the cost of some logical precision.

Strongly agree. This is no time for hair-splitting. So many irrelevant, biased, and emotionally charged points have been presented that logical formalities will be lost on the jury.

I wish the defense -- and particularly the less mesmerizing speakers -- had prepared a simple PowerPoint presentation to rebut each allegation one by one. Allegation on one half of the slide: facts on the other. It would have provided a nice reference document for the jury's deliberations.

 

[Grinder]

Strongly agree. This is no time for hair-splitting. So many irrelevant, biased, and emotionally charged points have been presented that logical formalities will be lost on the jury.

I wish the defense -- and particularly the less mesmerizing speakers -- had prepared a simple PowerPoint presentation to rebut each allegation one by one. Allegation on one half of the slide: facts on the other. It would have provided a nice reference document for the jury's deliberations.

No powerpoints - microsoft should market the product as a sedative.

They could print out the PP and hand it out to the judges.

 

[JREF2010]

Good he's showing the knife doesnt fit the bedsheet pattern,

the knife, the bedsheet pattern doesn't fit....keep going...there's a whole liost leading to the poor police work, Stef not having organizeed data, and close it at the C&V report being a big mistake by the prosecution....

a huge mistake by the prosecution....

Maori is the one who proved the 112 call successfully for the defense, as I understand it,

hopefully he'll return to the cell logs before hes done. get to the ToD issue too...

the lesser data driven types begin to talk about Jessica Rabbbit again....so sad, people cant keep attention to data discussion....instead they drift back to Michelle Moore and Mignini fights instead of details of science...

luckily C&V were extremely clear and bold about the Knife, for the masses to understand.

is there a short attention span for Barbie and the twitter generation?

 

[Katody Matrass]

Maori is devastating the prosecution case point by point. Good.