Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Since this is a jury composed of college educated women who are likely to have been exposed to feminist theory, I think a backfire is possible but then again, no objections came from the judges during that misogynistic spectacle. Makes you wonder.

Fortunately though, this is not a United States type of jury which are usually made up of ordinary citizens. If that had been the case, there'd be no hope at all.

I suspect that it is essentially unheard of (and probably improper) for any of the lay judges to object during closing arguments. The presiding judge (here, Hellmann) will interrupt arguments if there is a point of law, but it's not the role of the judge or anyone on the judicial panel to object or interrupt based on dislike of the content. We've already seen just now hugely wide is the latitude allowed in arguments in Italian criminal courts vis-a-vis their Anglo-Saxon equivalents. One only need glance at Mignini's closing argument in the Massei trial or Pacelli's rant in this appeal trial to see that.

And I'd also reiterate that regardless of whether any of the lay judges are positively or negatively influenced by any issues related to Knox's gender, the deliberations and verdict will almost certainly be dictated by the two professional judges. And in any case, as you intone, it's probably more likely that educated female lay judges are more likely to be repelled by the misogynistic leanings of prosecutors and lawyers for the civil parties.

 

[LondonJohn]

andreavogt Andrea Vogt
Culinary sources in Perugia say a catering service is organizing lunch & dinner Monday for #amandaknox jury. Long deliberations?
2 hours ago

I'm just wondering how the heck anyone has "culinary sources".......

 

[davefoc]

...
Therefore, I think we should heavily discount any thoughts of Hellmann's court being unduly influenced by the prospect of disagreeing with Massei's court.

It seems like pissing off Massei is only a minor factor with regards to the political issues involved with this case and we just aren't sure about what the normal way of dealing with those in Italy is.

A whole lot of people think that Knox is guilty and that the prosecution is not horribly flawed. Flying in the face of that kind of thing is difficult. Although courts certainly do stand up to prosecutors occasionally, they pick their spots and confronting prosecutors that still remain popular is difficult. In the end everything is political and spending one's political capital is done carefully by every political/legal leader. Whether Hellman chooses to spend some political capital here or not is still an open question.

Even without that, the fact is that a lot of people think RS/AK are guilty. Some of those people could be on this jury. I just read the responses to a link somebody posted above about Lumumba. A lot of those people were hanging their hat on the "confession" and some of them understood that it wasn't a confession exactly but still thought the fact that Knox said she was in the apartment at the time of the murder was very strong evidence against Knox.

As one who thought there was a 99% chance that OJ Simpson would be found guilty in his first trial based on the simplistic notion that overwhelming proof of guilt would get him convicted I am very wary of what can happen here. My mother in law still thinks Simpson was innocent. You only need a few people that think like my mother in law on the jury and AK/RS might be found guilty. Their view of the world is ruled by their gut feel and if Knox's behavior's or situation pisses them off in some way Knox will be found guilty. Facts, no matter how damning of the prosecution's case will be ignored or selectively not understood.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Unfortunately, this sounds like laying the ground for a post verdict rationalization that they were found not guilty because of the media.

Yes. And I am sure PMF and TJMK will, if acquittal occurs, attribute it not to Hellman's wisdom and temperance, but to the "million dollar PR campaign"...

 

[smkovalinksy]

It seems like pissing off Massei is only a minor factor with regards to the political issues involved with this case and we just aren't sure about what the normal way of dealing with those in Italy is.

A whole lot of people think that Knox is guilty and that the prosecution is not horribly flawed. Flying in the face of that kind of thing is difficult. Although courts certainly do stand up to prosecutors occasionally, they pick their spots and confronting prosecutors that still remain popular is difficult. In the end everything is political and spending one's political capital is done carefully by every political/legal leader. Whether Hellman chooses to spend some political capital here or not is still an open question.

Even without that, the fact is that a lot of people think RS/AK are guilty. Some of those people could be on this jury. I just read the responses to a link somebody posted above about Lumumba. A lot of those people were hanging their hat on the "confession" and some of them understood that it wasn't a confession exactly but still thought the fact that Knox said she was in the apartment at the time of the murder was very strong evidence against Knox.

As one who thought there was a 99% chance that OJ Simpson would be found guilty in his first trial based on the simplistic notion that overwhelming proof of guilt would get him convicted I am very wary of what can happen here. My mother in law still thinks Simpson was innocent. You only need a few people that think like my mother in law on the jury and AK/RS might be found guilty. Their view of the world is ruled by their gut feel and if Knox's behavior's or situation pisses them off in some way Knox will be found guilty. Facts, no matter how damning of the prosecution's case will be ignored or selectively not understood.

You're right.

 

[Kaosium]

Unfortunately, this sounds like laying the ground for a post verdict rationalization that they were found not guilty because of the media.

That's good to hear though, because the full quote, cunningly rendered through Google Translate, suggests they're getting this from mouth of the Jackal himself:

"We are appalled by the continuation of this movement, the media today, yesterday and the day before yesterday on the news, although in a few hours, the Court of Assizes of the second degree will retire in private." It would take - they know the two women their lawyer Francesco Maresca's mouth - the total news blackout to allow judges to issue the decision freely. "

It sounds like the little scavenger is advising them, which accounts for them not being willing to attend the spontaneous declarations, and their presumptively blaming the media for the decision.

That's a good sign for acquittal, Doug.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I'm just wondering how the heck anyone has "culinary sources".......

Ms. Vogt likely heard a restaurant owner saying, "We are catering lunch and dinner for the jury Monday."

 

[LondonJohn]

just because there's not enough evidence to convince a jury doesn't mean they weren't involved in the murder.

You're absolutely correct. But it's impossible to decouple an inability to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt from a presumption of innocence. That's why it's a cornerstone of modern jurisprudence that one remains considered innocent unless and until one is proven guilty beyond all doubt based in human reason.

What this means in practice is that if the state is unable to prove its case against Knox and Sollecito, they must be considered innocent of the charges. It's not up to them to prove their innocence. But you're correct to point out that acquittal doesn't necessarily mean that factually the acquitted person didn't commit the crime with which you are charged. However, that's not what's at issue here, and that's precisely why the inquisitorial-style "search for the truth" is a fatally flawed concept.

Moreover, in this particular instance, it's actually possible to argue that not only should Knox and Sollecito be acquitted (which I see as an absolute given), the totality of the evidence actually tends to suggest that they had nothing to do with the murder. Now whether that's true or not, only Knox, Sollecito and Guede know for certain. But it's very important to point out that this is an unnecessary condition to be met for acquittal. When Knox and Sollecito are acquitted tomorrow, they will be viewed as innocent of the crime - both legally and morally.

BTW: Does the tone of your post suggest that you feel Knox/Sollecito will be acquitted tomorrow?

 

[komponisto]

Kercher's mother says "it would take a total news blackout for the judges to render their decision freely"

http://www.lanazione.it/umbria/cron...mamma_sorella_allibiti_sull_assoluzione.shtml

Actually that was Maresca (surprise surprise).

 

[Grinder]

Yes. And I am sure PMF and TJMK will, if acquittal occurs, attribute it not to Hellman's wisdom and temperance, but to the "million dollar PR campaign"...

Please it's at least a 100 million dollar campaign. There are at least 1000 media outlets (each TV affiliate need be counted separately), at $100,000 to buy their coverage for four years on average (only $25,000 per year) that's $100,000,000 and that doesn't count jets and steaks.

 

[charlatan]

just because there's not enough evidence to convince a jury doesn't mean they weren't involved in the murder.

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

"There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist."

 

[Dougm]

That's good to hear though, because the full quote, cunningly rendered through Google Translate, suggests they're getting this from mouth of the Jackal himself:

"We are appalled by the continuation of this movement, the media today, yesterday and the day before yesterday on the news, although in a few hours, the Court of Assizes of the second degree will retire in private." It would take - they know the two women their lawyer Francesco Maresca's mouth - the total news blackout to allow judges to issue the decision freely. "

It sounds like the little scavenger is advising them, which accounts for them not being willing to attend the spontaneous declarations, and their presumptively blaming the media for the decision.

That's a good sign for acquittal, Doug.

I think so too. So Maresca is telling them that there are a bunch of media reports in Italy saying they might be acquitted, and drawing the conclusion that the Supertanker has finally dropped anchor in Italy. All I can say is, it's about damn time!

 

[LondonJohn]

It seems like pissing off Massei is only a minor factor with regards to the political issues involved with this case and we just aren't sure about what the normal way of dealing with those in Italy is.

A whole lot of people think that Knox is guilty and that the prosecution is not horribly flawed. Flying in the face of that kind of thing is difficult. Although courts certainly do stand up to prosecutors occasionally, they pick their spots and confronting prosecutors that still remain popular is difficult. In the end everything is political and spending one's political capital is done carefully by every political/legal leader. Whether Hellman chooses to spend some political capital here or not is still an open question.

Even without that, the fact is that a lot of people think RS/AK are guilty. Some of those people could be on this jury. I just read the responses to a link somebody posted above about Lumumba. A lot of those people were hanging their hat on the "confession" and some of them understood that it wasn't a confession exactly but still thought the fact that Knox said she was in the apartment at the time of the murder was very strong evidence against Knox.

As one who thought there was a 99% chance that OJ Simpson would be found guilty in his first trial based on the simplistic notion that overwhelming proof of guilt would get him convicted I am very wary of what can happen here. My mother in law still thinks Simpson was innocent. You only need a few people that think like my mother in law on the jury and AK/RS might be found guilty. Their view of the world is ruled by their gut feel and if Knox's behavior's or situation pisses them off in some way Knox will be found guilty. Facts, no matter how damning of the prosecution's case will be ignored or selectively not understood.

In the Simpson case (which in any case is a huge and unique anomaly), the jury were irrational and unreasonable, and the judge had no way in law of forcing them to reach a proper verdict (well, I think it's possible that Ito could have overruled the jury or declared a mistrial, but that would have been a hugely controversial step, which would have had massive ramifications). The situation is very different in the Knox/Sollecito trial. And while it's entirely possible that some of the lay judges came to the case with preconceptions of guilt (especially as there is no voir dire or jury selection of any kind in Italy), the verdict in this trial will be led by - and in my opinion dictated by - the two professional judges. And to my mind, Hellmann and Zanetti have shown themselves to be sufficiently professional and rational to ensure that the case is judged purely on facts and evidence before the court.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

total news blackout

Actually that was Maresca (surprise surprise).

Where was Maresca in 2009 to implicitly suggest a total blackout?

 

[Dougm]

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

"There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist."

Quite correct, Mr. Rumsfeld!

However, in this case, I think the surprising lack of evidence makes a fairly compelling case that they were not involved in the murder. If I were in a mock trial type setting, I would much rather be given the position in this case that the evidence proves they could not have been involved than I would to be given the side to prove they did it. However, you are right, lack of evidence does not prove anything. Just that we are unable to prove anything.

 

[Ammonitida]

I think about that too, or the report, what would it say if written on a guilty verdict?

If the courts in Perugia, Italy can convict with a prosecutor's case, that has No Motive, a Heroin Bum witness, DNA of starch.... then its as big a waste of time as reading PMF.

I can't imagine another report giving credence to the prosecution's "solid circumstantial evidence".

They have;

1. A vague semi-accusation against PL that sounds far more like a coerced "confession" than a malicious one. And why go all the way to frame Rudy only to end up accusing a guy you know to be inoccent?
2. Eyewitnesses that are about as credible as Clinton when he says, "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms Lewinsky"
3. Minor inconsistencies between their statements, some of which have hardly any relevance (like the silly debate here about the toilet feces)
3. Allegations of "false alibis" (resulting from faulty memories IMO, not lies). Nevermind that we now have a TOD from the actual killer at 9:30 which is in conflict with Raff's computer use. Thus, there was no need to "lie" about browsing the internet at 12:00 since Meredith was long dead by then as confirmed by Rudy himself.
4. Partial footprints that were found with a presumptive test for blood (luminol which reacts strongly to all kinds of elements, especially bleach and iron) but tested negative with another presumptive test for blood. Not a speck of DNA from Meredith was found in any of them. However, Amanda's DNA was found in some of the prints -- undermining the prosecution's contention that Meredith's DNA was destroyed by the luminol. And no confirmatory tests were done to prove beyond doubt the existence of blood in those prints. So what you have here is no tangible evidence of blood. Just smoke and mirrors.
5. A luminol blob in Filomena's room that had DNA from Amanda, Meredith and several others
6. Mixed DNA that only proves that two people used the same bathroom. That the DNA was mixed does not prove that it was deposited simultaneously as Massie erroneously believed. Scientific studies refute this. Plus, the mixture could have been the result of the poor swabbing that was done on the sink.
7. An bathmat print on a fluffy surface that in terms of morphology is more consistent with Rudy's foot. At best, it's inconclusive and can not exclude Rudy as the maker contrary to Rinaldi's hack analysis..
8. A DNA soup consisting of at least 8 genetic profiles on a bra clasp, one of which could match Raff's profile. Obviously contaminated unless Meredith got around a lot and allowed men to touch the metal part of the clasp
9. A shoe print on a pillow case with identical treading to Rudy's Nike shoes being attributed to Amanda because it was "smaller" even though there is zero evidence that she ever owned a pair of shoes like that. Just imagine a scenario where Amanda and Rudy, while wearing the same Nike shoes, are busy tap dancing on a pillowcase in Meredith's blood. The prosecution still regards this as "solid circumstantial evidence". Even Massie rejected this in his motivational report.
10. Alleged DNA from Meredith being found on a knife blade that doesn't match the majority of the wounds on the victim nor the bloody imprint of the knife. DNA that even the court's independent experts found unreliable.
11. An assertion of a "simulated break-in" without an iota of convincing evidence to support it. "Glass on top of clothes", "shutter was not closed all the way", "he couldn't climb it" compared to the glass splatter pattern on the floor, the fresh damage to the inner shutter, the criminal history of Rudy Guede who was found in possession of a stolen laptop linked to a robbery that had very similar characteristics to this "staged" break in.


All smoke and mirrors. None of it tangible. Contrast that to the mountain of tangible evidence against Rudy.

You can't argue that his bloody fingerprint, palm print, and shoe prints were "contaminated", especially now that he admits to getting her blood on his hands. His cat burglar history that includes at least one instance of throwing a rock through a window located high off the ground and scaling the wall to enter it. His clearly guilty behavior after the murder, which included dancing to establish an alibi and fleeing the country. Raff and Amanda, on the other hand, allowed themselves to be interrogated without a lawyer. Yeah, very guilty behavior.

 

[komponisto]

Yes. And I am sure PMF and TJMK will, if acquittal occurs, attribute it not to Hellman's wisdom and temperance, but to the "million dollar PR campaign"...

But the Massei verdict? That had nothing to do with the media, or anything other than that panel's "vast knowledge of jurisprudence"....

in the eyes of the law yes. But reality has been different from court decisions many times.

Except decisions of Massei's court. Those are necessarily and inextricably tied to reality by the laws of nature.

 

[Dougm]

In the Simpson case (which in any case is a huge and unique anomaly), the jury were irrational and unreasonable, and the judge had no way in law of forcing them to reach a proper verdict (well, I think it's possible that Ito could have overruled the jury or declared a mistrial, but that would have been a hugely controversial step, which would have had massive ramifications). The situation is very different in the Knox/Sollecito trial. And while it's entirely possible that some of the lay judges came to the case with preconceptions of guilt (especially as there is no voir dire or jury selection of any kind in Italy), the verdict in this trial will be led by - and in my opinion dictated by - the two professional judges. And to my mind, Hellmann and Zanetti have shown themselves to be sufficiently professional and rational to ensure that the case is judged purely on facts and evidence before the court.

There is also the phenomena that takes place in both Italy and the US, where the lay judges/jurors have a much more thorough view of the facts of the case vs. their friends at home or the public at large. I am sure that the Casey Anthony jurors had some questions to answer, and they would just say that they know more than their friends and neighbors know, and you cannot judge unless you are actually in court with them.

 

[Malkmus]

Interesting Tweets:

john_hooper John Hooper
Balance at a (mixed Italian & Brit) dinner of l/term #amandaknox jlists ws 6 'innocentisti', 1 (suspected) 'colpevolista' & 2 uncertain.
10 minutes ago

john_hooper John Hooper
#amandaknox Most journalists who've covered this case l/term think the evidence didn't justify conviction (tho quite a few think qs remain)

 

[LondonJohn]

Please it's at least a 100 million dollar campaign. There are at least 1000 media outlets (each TV affiliate need be counted separately), at $100,000 to buy their coverage for four years on average (only $25,000 per year) that's $100,000,000 and that doesn't count jets and steaks.

I am looking forward to Mignini being challenged on his claim of the "million-dollar" PR campaign being waged on Knox's behalf. I wonder what proof Mignini has of this inflammatory and derogatory claim, with which he also clearly intended to subtly imply that Knox's family have been trying to pervert the course of justice?

I am hoping that Ghirga will address this issue - albeit briefly - in his rebuttal tomorrow. If it's a false claim (as I strongly believe it is), then Mignini fully deserves to be held to account for using it as an underhand weapon.