• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh dear, oh dear.

Over on .org, SA is trying to carry on the pretence of delivering "words of wisdom", "this is what we professional defence lawyers think" and other advice to mere mortals, all wrapped up in a stunning post-facto rationalisation of what happened in Hellmann's court yesterday. He doesn't even have the guts or decency to say the truth: he called it totally wrong, and either didn't understand the case properly or chose not to understand the case properly. What a sad little state of affairs is going on over there. Not one of the pro-guilt commentators has put his or her hands up and said anything like: "OK, I got it wrong. But there you go. You live and learn." And that, to me, speaks absolute volumes about the types of people they really are.

While I am absolutely against the nasty attempts to "out" people involved in commentating on this case, part of me wishes that some people could be identified, so that others could be warned about taking their advice in real life. Most of the pro-guilt commentators have got this case so horribly wrong that their judgement and temperament must automatically be questionable. And when someone claims to be a "criminal defence solicitor" (for example), I can't help thinking that such dreadful judgement and temperament could have serious repercussions for real people in other areas.

Oh, and "The Bard" has..... wait for it....... resorted to searching out anti-Knox tweets from uninformed lunatics as some sort of comforter and reassurance. Yeah, go for it "Bard" - whatever makes you feel better about yourself: don't worry that such an exercise has the validity and intellectual rigour equivalent to asking your rabbit what it thinks....
 
Micromegas said:
First you say they were convinced of her guilt, then you say she told them what they wanted to hear, namely that Patrick Lumumba was the killer.

Hey, it's a done deal now. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't the cartwheels and vibrator that made me suspect Knox wasn't on the up and up. I admit I was a little put off by Knox playing blame-the-black-guy when the cops turned up the heat.

-Mike
Click to expand...


Not this "blame the black guy" crap again. So sick of hearing it from guilters. She never blamed a "black guy", she gave them an "internalized false confession" that implicated a man named Patrick Lumbumba, who just happened to be black. Merely coincidence. This is not comparable to the infamous Susan Smith. Susan actually stated a *black* guy did it and gave no further details beyond that. She made her phantom assailant's race an issue.

Think about this, if you accept the prosecution theory of the crime which has Amanda and Sollecito engaging in a clean-up to frame Rudy Guede (the actual black guy) as the sole murderer of Meredith, why break down and falsely implicate the wrong black guy when they had knowledge of a real one who actually left behind tangible evidence of his involvement? The very black guy they went through all the trouble of trying to frame?
 
Nogbad said:
I think I will bow out of this. Whether the evidence stacks one way or another, there is uneasy leaning towards vilification of the Kerchers that I find troublesome. One might think that it is possible to support justice seen to be done without the necessity for snideness towards the victim's family who are wholly blameless in the matter. Apparently not though. I still think the post I quoted originally reprehensible.
Click to expand...

It's not that simple, unfortunately. The Kerchers not only filed the 'civil part' meaning they had a lawyer in court denigrating Amanda and Raffaele every chance he got. He also associated the Kerchers with three addition trumped-up charges on behalf of the police and prosecution in an attempt to jail or fine both the Sollecito family and Amanda's family. So, mostly due to the unintended consequences of the Italian system of allowing the victims family a place in court they are not exactly entirely blameless, in fact their lawyer is working towards taking the lives of both Raffaele and Amanda but ruining and potentially imprisoning a total of seven members of the Sollecito and Knox families and two journalists from Telenorbo who exposed the police error regarding Rudy's shoeprints which was the only 'evidence' they had of Raffaele at the time, in fact that telecast would serve to propel the police out to the crime scene for their notorious second trip six weeks later that resulted in the 'collecting' of the bra clasp.

So if someone were to wish they'd stop listening to Maresca and learn something about the case it would actually be for their own good, as Maresca has led them to a very dark place....
 
there was no mixed blood

misteratunta said:
She definitely softened for a few weeks, but I guess she realised there would be no more money in it for her unless she readopted her original stance
Click to expand...
Ms. Nadeau deserves the pants-on-fire award for that comment about mixed DNA, as I discussed upthread. I would also challenge Ms. Nadeau to have her bathrooms swabbed for DNA. If mixed DNA showed up with tall peaks, she goes to jail. If not, I will continue to subscribe to Newsweek.
 
Onofarar said:
Good point about mens rea bri1 - however, is mens rea just a common law concept or is it a pillar of the justice sytem in a civil law country such as Italy as well.

BTW - Love your posts.
Click to expand...

Mens rea is a concept that is at the very heart of all justice systems, common or civil law, where a person is accused of any wrongdoing. Without either a) the intent to commit a crime, or b) the knowledge that one is committing a crime, or c) a reckless disregard for actions that resulted in a crime, or d) negligence (i.e. where a reasonable person should have known that they were committing a crime), then no crime can have been committed.

And the lack of mens rea will, I believe, be the main grounds of appeal for Knox on the Lumumba slander conviction. As Bri1 pointed out, the court cannot prove mens rea, since there now appears to be no motivation for Knox to have accused Lumumba of her own free will. This is a clearly appealable point of law, and I would imagine that Knox stands a pretty good chance of success. But it's worth pointing out that even if an appeal to the Supreme Court is successful, this would then result in a retrial on this single issue (the Lumumba slander) at appeal court level. And for that, Knox would have to return to Perugia and spend weeks (and possibly months) there while the trial took place. What price success for Knox on this particular charge?
 
Kaosium said:
It's not that simple, unfortunately. The Kerchers not only filed the 'civil part' meaning they had a lawyer in court denigrating Amanda and Raffaele every chance he got. He also associated the Kerchers with three addition trumped-up charges on behalf of the police and prosecution in an attempt to jail or fine both the Sollecito family and Amanda's family. So, mostly due to the unintended consequences of the Italian system of allowing the victims family a place in court they are not exactly entirely blameless, in fact their lawyer is working towards taking the lives of both Raffaele and Amanda but ruining and potentially imprisoning a total of seven members of the Sollecito and Knox families and two journalists from Telenorbo who exposed the police error regarding Rudy's shoeprints which was the only 'evidence' they had of Raffaele at the time, in fact that telecast would serve to propel the police out to the crime scene for their notorious second trip six weeks later that resulted in the 'collecting' of the bra clasp.

So if someone were to wish they'd stop listening to Maresca and learn something about the case it would actually be for their own good, as Maresca has led them to a very dark place....
Click to expand...

Journalists keep asking them if it's time to forgive, which irritates the hell out of me. Knox and Sollecito have done nothing that requires forgiveness.

Yes, they have suffered a great loss, but that is no excuse. If anything it would appear it is perhaps they who should ask for forgiveness now. I sincerely hope after the motivation is released they may understand.
 
Ammonitida said:
Not this "blame the black guy" crap again. So sick of hearing it from guilters. She never blamed a "black guy", she gave them an "internalized false confession" that implicated a man named Patrick Lumbumba, who just happened to be black. Merely coincidence. This is not comparable to the infamous Susan Smith. Susan actually stated a *black* guy did it and gave no further details beyond that. She made her phantom assailant's race an issue.

Think about this, if you accept the prosecution theory of the crime which has Amanda and Sollecito engaging in a clean-up to frame Rudy Guede (the actual black guy) as the sole murderer of Meredith, why break down and falsely implicate the wrong black guy when they had knowledge of a real one who actually left behind tangible evidence of his involvement? The very black guy they went through all the trouble of trying to frame?
Click to expand...

I never said I bought the prosecution's failed theory, and I've repeatedly stated that I don't think accusing Lumumba means she was guilty. All I said is that it's not at all surprising that people didn't buy that Knox was as helpless and innocent as her supporters claim. And it's not because of the damn cartwheels. Not because of her sex life. Because she signed a statement incriminating an innocent man.

I get it, she wasn't guilty. Hooray, justice is served. But the notion that it was insane to be skeptical of her innocence is a bit much.

-Mike
 
Even better: SA is now offering lectures on "how to talk to juries". Unfortunately, even if he is what he says he is - a criminal defence solicitor - he will never have addressed a jury in his entire life. Nor will he have addressed a judge, or examined / cross-examined a single expert witness, or delivered any argument of any kind. He will, at best, have sat at the defence bench in a courtroom, watching while a Barrister or Solicitor Advocate does actual presentation of the case - they are the only types of lawyer who are permitted to act in crown courts in England and Wales. And they tend not to take advice from solicitors on how to handle courtroom proceedings or address juries.
 
Some Alibi also said:
I saw the TV with Della Vedova after the verdict on the BBC and he struck me as just right in terms of balance and intellectual presence. I'd employ him.
Click to expand...

Carlo Della Vedova should really feel offended. SA saying he would employ him? Haha. CDV, if confronted with what SA has been saying about this case, would just laugh at the guy and feel sorry for him. He would be absolutely thrilled though, if he could just read this quote from SA. Truly outstanding.
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
No, there was not. However, not every case that (sometimes inexplicably) goes high-profile involves photogenic principals. Rolfe had a good example some time ago, and perhaps LashL did also.
Click to expand...

There have been several high profile cases of wrongful convictions that have been corrected in Canada. A few examples are:

David Milgaard
David Marshall Jr.
Guy Paul Morin
Thomas Sophonow
Romeo Phillion

None of these folks are/were particularly photogenic, but their cases garnered massive amounts of publicity once the people fighting to correct the injustices got the media's attention.

Some of them even led to official government inquiries and the implementation of directions, policies and procedures within police departments and prosecutorial offices to safeguard against other wrongful convictions in future.

For cases elsewhere as further examples, the Birmingham Six weren't photogenic; nor were the Guildford Four.
 
LondonJohn said:
Mens rea is a concept that is at the very heart of all justice systems, common or civil law, where a person is accused of any wrongdoing. Without either a) the intent to commit a crime, or b) the knowledge that one is committing a crime, or c) a reckless disregard for actions that resulted in a crime, or d) negligence (i.e. where a reasonable person should have known that they were committing a crime), then no crime can have been committed.

And the lack of mens rea will, I believe, be the main grounds of appeal for Knox on the Lumumba slander conviction. As Bri1 pointed out, the court cannot prove mens rea, since there now appears to be no motivation for Knox to have accused Lumumba of her own free will. This is a clearly appealable point of law, and I would imagine that Knox stands a pretty good chance of success. But it's worth pointing out that even if an appeal to the Supreme Court is successful, this would then result in a retrial on this single issue (the Lumumba slander) at appeal court level. And for that, Knox would have to return to Perugia and spend weeks (and possibly months) there while the trial took place. What price success for Knox on this particular charge?
Click to expand...

I think that if she didn't know whether Lumumba did it, and voluntarily accused him anyway, that would be sufficient mens rea. I think the issue is going to boil down to who has the burden of proving whether her accusations were coerced/voluntary. I think that having made 2-3 statements over several hours worked against her. That said, there is some absurdity, given her violated right to counsel, in using these statements to give rise to a crime.
 
snook1 said:
Some Alibi also said:


Carlo Della Vedova should really feel offended. SA saying he woukd employ him? Haha. CDV, if confronted with what SA has been saying about this case, would just laugh at the guy and feel sorry for him. He would be absolutely thrilled though, if he could just read this quote from SA. Truly outstanding.
Click to expand...


The irony is that in England and Wales, a client first hires a solicitor, and if the case goes to a crown court, the solicitor does indeed hire a barrister* (who is the one who actually handles the case in court). So a criminal defence solicitor actually is in the business of hiring barristers (most of whom work totally freelance). But from the moment that a barrister is hired, pretty much all trial planning and strategy is also handled by the barrister (and, as I've mentioned before, it's mandatory that all court activities themselves - including witness examination, arguments, addressing the judge etc - are also exclusively done by the barrister). As soon as the decision is made to hire a barrister, the role of the solicitor diminishes with exponential speed as the trial approaches and takes place.

* Or solicitor advocate (a solicitor who has attained extra qualifications which allow him/her to work in a crown court trial)
 
Thank you, JREF. And especially to the moderators here.

Not having realized the full range of topics a JREF forum might touch upon, I was pleasantly surprised when I heard this forum existed, and that it was discussing the Amanda Knox case.

My expectation (based on my prior understanding of JREF's guiding principles) that the quality of the discussion here would be higher than I was seeing elsewhere at the time certainly, from my point of view, was borne out.

So thank you, JREF, for doing what you do. And, more specifically, sincere appreciation- for all of your efforts and all of your patience- to those of you actually moderating these Knox case threads. Your guidance has been invaluable in maintaining here a readable and worthwhile discussion.
 
smkovalinksy said:
I think come what may, "cat has mewed and dog has had his day"---it is over. Finished. Done.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, Costagliola would be the one to make an appeal, not Mignini, thus I suspect it may never happen, so the murder charge is indeed history. However there's the calunnia against Patrick, the one brought by the police as well as the two cases against both Amanda and Raffaele's family.

Yummi at PMF might be right, this could easily take years more. The joys of Italian jurisprudence.
 
smkovalinksy said:
http://news.yahoo.com/disappointed-kerchers-look-answers-knox-freed-090936961.html



Unfortunately, in the end, I think Guede is the sole culprit, and he has already been convicted and imprisoned.
Click to expand...

Which is something that none of the Kerchers would want to face, as their own lawyer demurred on doing his job and seeing to it that Rudy received the maximum possible sentence to instead go after Raffaele and Amanda. Maresca has been a total disaster for the Kerchers.
 
BA0049 is scheduled to arrive at: 17:12 Local time Tuesday 04 Oct 2011. It is a few minutes late.

Guede wants a new trial. That's a riot.

The Kerchers are not happy that only one person killed their daughter. Why? Is it too ordinary to be the first victim of a serial killer type? Or are they disappointed that the killer is black.

The Supreme Court said that multiple killers were involved, therefore everything about the conviction is incorrect? Seems to me the SC put their collective feet in their mouth.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom