Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Diocletus]

Assuming justice is served, Amanda won't be leaving for another 20+ years. That's a long wait!

20 years would be quite a while. But the only one who will be in jail after the verdict is Rudy. Lucky for him that he'll be out in about 10.

 

[Justinian2]

I don't think pilot was asking for us to worship him or bring his words down from the mountaintop. In this particular case, I agree with him. It was a pretty lame explanation.

If he (Mr Moore) wanted to comment he should have said something along the lines of she lost her temper, should not have done that in a public setting, and regrets the sideshow.

Just my opinion.

EOA? I don't care for labels like this, again my opinion.

After the war, many former enemies become friends. KKK members have married black women. Muslims have married Americans. Indians have married white people. Nazi's have married people they have denounced. People aren't always enemies and people change. Never the less, I stick to my present time statement that Mignini is now evil and the people attacking Amanda are now her enemies.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Michelle--Most of us here agree with your sentiments and respect what you and your husband have done for Amanda. That said, I would respectfully suggest that you delete your post until you and Amanda are out of Italy. And then, by all means, fire away! Good luck.

I second that!

Those people are desperate because many careers depend on the outcome of this trial. They want to provoke you and then spin your reaction in their favour. Do not allow them to do that.

 

[Grinder]

Not sure this has been linked yet, but The Guardian took up the witch idea.

maybe they are reading here

 

[RoseMontague]

Even though I appreciate Popper's rapid fire translation/summaries today, I disagree with a few of his opinions:

this shows they do not understand even the language spoken in court by their own defense imagine how they understood well all the documents of the whole case which they never received

I guess I take this one a bit personally because I have given a lot of effort to both obtaining documents and trying to get them translated. Right now my understanding is Komponisto is working on translation of some of the early witness testimony in this case which would be something both sides should value. I have not seem him around much lately, probably because of this. Both PMF and JREF as well as other places devoted to the case discussion have both Italian and non-Italian speakers and I doubt few, if any have read the entire case file including transcripts of some of the more recent appeal hearings.

It is precisely because CE is "grave precisa and concordante" that Maori has to try and deny each single piece of it, nothing excluded ... an enormous job. By trying to deny he reminded each piece of evidence to the Court [which did not need to be reminded I am sure] and stressed each is very important, sufficient for a conviction even without clasp and knife.

My opinion is that he denied each and every single piece of it because it is all worthless, in dispute, or not reasoned correctly on by the first court. The reasonable doubt threshold on this case has long since been exceeded.

 

[RoseMontague]

Assuming justice is served, Amanda won't be leaving for another 20+ years. That's a long wait!

We will see in a week or less.

 

[Grinder]

Michelle--Most of us here agree with your sentiments and respect what you and your husband have done for Amanda. That said, I would respectfully suggest that you delete your post until you and Amanda are out of Italy. And then, by all means, fire away! Good luck.

Michelle, I'd suggest discussing this and other postings with an attorney. If I were you I would be very careful about describing your behavior on a public forum - in fact I'd be careful about what I said in private communications.

You may be there longer than Amanda.

 

[RoseMontague]

Michelle--Most of us here agree with your sentiments and respect what you and your husband have done for Amanda. That said, I would respectfully suggest that you delete your post until you and Amanda are out of Italy. And then, by all means, fire away! Good luck.

I agree, and if she is not coming back to read further comments, someone who has her email should suggest this to her.

There is a time and a place for such things.

 

[JREF2010]

It is shocking that Marriott neglected to serve everyone in court espressos.

and foot massages..

 

[Justinian2]

The prosecutors did a great job of summing up the truth in this case: http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/26/world/europe/italy-knox-appeal

Hopefully the court will continue to evaluate the evidence fairly (as they have done all along) and not only keep convicted murderer Amanda Knox in prison, but also lengthen her sentence, as has been suggested. All we ask for is justice for Meredith!

Truth

(1): the state of being the case : fact
(2): the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality
(3)often capitalized: a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b: a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c: the body of true statements and propositions

We differ on the definition of truth. I understand truth as something that has almost universal agreement - such as mathematical axioms.

Our perceptions may vary, but we can agree on light blue as being the color of the sky. Who knows, you may see the sky as light pink, but you see the color of other light blue colors as pink also. So when we talk about the color of the sky, we are both in agreement. Unless you are color blind. But truth needs qualification to cover the exceptions.

The things in your link refer to disputed things and, therefore, they are not truths, but contentions. The speculations in the quoted link are not qualified and have no fundamental source that is believed true.

 

[davefoc]

The prosecutors did a great job of summing up the truth in this case: http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/26/world/europe/italy-knox-appeal

Hopefully the court will continue to evaluate the evidence fairly (as they have done all along) and not only keep convicted murderer Amanda Knox in prison, but also lengthen her sentence, as has been suggested. All we ask for is justice for Meredith!

I am not sure what to make of this. Central Scrutinizer seems to believe that RS/AK are guilty. He is a poster I respect so I suspect that he has some basis for his opinion other than that he wants to stir the pot.

Has Central Scrutinizer analyzed the time of death arguments and determined that they are not valid? I requested several times for a pro-guilt poster to talk about the "mixed blood" evidence and discuss whether it was appropriate for the prosecution to attempt to use such completely discredited evidence. Nobody that argued for guilt responded.

On a similar subject, does Central Scrutinizer have an opinion about the bloody footprint "evidence".

We only have Central Scrutinizer's statement that he apparently believes in the guilt of RS/AK. I am not sure why he would come here and make a post like that and a few other posts that offer no more insight into what his thought process was in regards to this case.

Admittedly, I have now become a person that not only believes that the almost complete lack of probative evidence that implicates AK/RS justifies a not guilty verdict, I also believe that the totality of the evidence is enough to judge that it is wildly unlikely that they are guilty. Nonetheless I hope that Central Scutinizer will respond with at least an outline of how he arrived at his conclusion. I hope that I will be open minded enough to think about it objectively.

With respect to Central Scrutinizer, I suspect that he has arrived at his conclusion by making the reasonable assumption that given the mass of evidence that was claimed by the prosecution against RS/AK that it is very unlikely that the prosecutors would be mistaken or lie about everything so that there must be at least enough evidence left over when the misrepresented evidence is discounted to prove guilt. In most cases that logic is probably right. This is not such a case. There seems to be no requirement on the prosecution that they represent evidence truthfully or that they engage in anything like a search for truth. This prosecution appears to be a classic witch hunt and I hope that Central Scrutinizer will take the time to explain why he thinks that isn't so.

 

[Mary_H]

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.

Absolutely true. The first trial was a perfect example of rhetoric and emotion ruling logic. Most of us, based on our experience of legal proceedings in our own countries, were confident the defendants would be acquitted. As it turned out, the evidence and the law were practically irrelevant in that trial. As the lawyers in the last few days have demonstrated, in a Perugian courtroom, emotion is the thing.

Viva Michelle Moore!

 

[js202]

Viva Michelle Moore!

Kudos. It is as simple as that.

 

[pilot padron]

Really ? ?

I agree with all of this. And might I just add in that .org seems to have devoted a significant chunk of its discussion today to examining Michelle Moore's words to Mignini in ever-increasing detail. It's almost as if they think that this sideshow issue somehow has any relevance to the appeal trial of Knox and Sollecito. It's almost as if they are uncomfortable discussing Bongiorno's and Maori's closing arguments for Sollecito. It's almost as if some pro-guilt commentators would prefer to dissect a minor and irrelevant incident - simply because it paints a particular pro-acquittal individual in a bad light - rather than deal with the issues of real importance. I wonder how many of them now realise that Knox and Sollecito are about to be acquitted, how many are ignorant of that (perhaps deliberately, perhaps through an inability to understand what's going on in the appeal trial), and how many are still in deep denial of that?

Judging from results of latest informal poll I saw today,*there are indeed a lot of:
1) ignorant

2) unable to understand

3) deep denial

individuals
out there who do not share your endlessly expressed opinion that they are not guilty and acquittal is inevitable.
This irregardless of how authoritatively you argue it and how many times you redundantly repeat it.

*Guilt outnumbered innocence by over two to one in nearly 2000 respondents.
http://www.ilsecoloxix.it/p/2011/09/24/AOXybJ7-innocenti_sollecito_colpevoli.shtml

 

[Grinder]

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.

Absolutely true. The first trial was a perfect example of rhetoric and emotion ruling logic. Most of us, based on our experience of legal proceedings in our own countries, were confident the defendants would be acquitted. As it turned out, the evidence and the law were practically irrelevant in that trial. As the lawyers in the last few days have demonstrated, in a Perugian courtroom, emotion is the thing.

Viva Michelle Moore!

My point that DarkStar responded to was in relationship to the attorneys in court.

I respectfully disagree with many of the out of court actions and see very little benefit to Amanda from MM actions.

 

[Diocletus]

*Guilt outnumbered innocence by over two to one in nearly 2000 respondents.
http://www.ilsecoloxix.it/p/2011/09/24/AOXybJ7-innocenti_sollecito_colpevoli.shtml

Were all 2000 on the jury???

 

[Grinder]

Judging from results of latest informal poll I saw today,*there are indeed a lot of:
1) ignorant

2) unable to understand

3) deep denial

individuals
out there who do not share your endlessly expressed opinion that they are not guilty and acquittal is inevitable.
This irregardless of how authoritatively you issue it and how many times you redundantly repeat it.

*Guilt outnumbered innocence by over two to one in nearly 2000 respondents.
http://www.ilsecoloxix.it/p/2011/09/24/AOXybJ7-innocenti_sollecito_colpevoli.shtml

Is the use of irregardless some sort of inside joke?

Acquittal is clearly not inevitable but today moved the dial in that direction.

ToD and the prejudging by ILE brought out today was excellent. The not matching bloody outline of the knife and the randomness of its selection were great points.

I imagine Amanda's team will reinforce the prejudging by the police and the obvious leading her into giving the "truth we knew" statement. She may mention it again when she speaks, telling the court that even though she knows that Mignini will probably sue her again. She may say that they planted the Patrick account and the interpreter told her that she too had forgotten important details under stress and Amanda just needed to try harder to remember what the police "knew to be the truth".

 

[RandyN]

If Amanda's statements/confession/accusation of Nov 5-6 2007 had been admitted into her trial, then the individuals who "questioned" her " - the cops (particularly the ones who later signed up for the "calunnia" prosecution), Mignini himself and possibly even Giobbi - could, should, have been called as witnesses and compelled to provide a detailed account of the night.

(how many people signed the "statement"? 30, I seem to recall - everyone at the station that night?)

Had this been the case, a skillful 'crossing' of a succession of these people would have made it very difficult for them to keep to a convincing narrative, no matter how well they had it rehearsed.

Instead, it was admitted simultaneaously in another court and parsed in detail, with the usual disregard (or incomprehension) of the principle of sub judice we've had to get used to.

It was a blunder by the defence to get it excluded in the first place, a knee-jerk lawyer's reaction they didn't give any real thought to.

It surprises me that this has occurred to so few people.

I agree. The defense did a lousy job for most of this case. It never should have gone beyond the prelim...but by then the media had tossed gasoline on the fire and the cops went on full attack...all led by puppet master Mignini.

I am disappointed that the defense didn’t make a huge issue of the fact that no recording was made of these interrogations. They should have asked for the tapes of RS, AK and Patrick Lumumba...then the police would have to lie and say they failed to record all three....not likely.

No I think these two will be lucky to escape and it will be more about Hellamnn and Zanetti than anything the defense does or has done at this point.

 

[misteratunta]

Pilot, that same poll done 4 years ago would have probably shown 5% in support max, and the defence aren't even finished yet. (Oh and it's up to 31% since you posted)

You also have to take into account the number of PMF mongs who, now they are aware of the poll, will no doubt be all over it like a rash. Thankfully they don't get a vote on the jury.

Does anyone know the details of the murder case Hellmann supposedly overturned? In particular, on what basis it was overturned?

 

[RandyN]

The prosecutors did a great job of summing up the truth in this case: http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/26/world/europe/italy-knox-appeal

Hopefully the court will continue to evaluate the evidence fairly (as they have done all along) and not only keep convicted murderer Amanda Knox in prison, but also lengthen her sentence, as has been suggested. All we ask for is justice for Meredith!

Haha ...almost as funny as one of the real stooges