Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Paninaro]

By the way, for what it's worth (which is to say quite a lot), Luca Maori - Sollecito's #2 lawyer - stated on the Porta a Porta show last night that he was totally certain that the acquittals were of the 530.1 variety. And, as I've pointed out already, I consider that it was unlikely that any of the prosecution lawyers would want to attach themselves to a position on this issue - even if they were certain - owing to a respect for judicial propriety (i.e. waiting for the written confirmation before second-guessing the court). So Maori's certainty has, in my opinion, got added impact.

But maybe Machiavelli/Yummi would like to contact Maori directly, and tell him that he knows nothing about Italian law, that he has a "plain wrong argument", that he has "an argument which (he) believed to be rational, and was instead a piece of false information". Machiavelli/Yummi can add that Maori is "lecturing (me and/or others) teaching false things on a topic (he) did not know about... and that point, was a point where (he was) proven to be not factual and not rational."

I look forward to that exchange of views

Actually, this division between "proven innocent" and "innocent" should be abolished from any law, since it violates the former suspect's right to be viewed as innocent in case he or her is found not guilty. It also a violation to human rights in article 6 of the European Convention. Italian law should also get rid of this bizarre calunnia business, since it seems to be used unfairly, suppress a free debate and free speech.

Italian justice is certainly in need of reform, not to say there are no problems elsewhere in the world, of course.

Would you agree?

 

[Malfie Henpox]

If someone wrote that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and repeated it in the face of repeated reasoned explanations that they were wrong, do you think it would be fair to call that person irrational?

Closer to home, if someone repeatedly claimed that homeopathy had proven beneficial physiological effects on the human body (and claimed that rigorous scientific studies supported these claims), and kept doing so in the face of clear explanations as to the fundamental flaws in the relevant studies (and the massive amount of properly-run studies which prove beyond doubt that homeopathy has no physiological effect whatsoever), do you think it would be fair to call that person irrational?

And more to the point, have you visited the 9/11 threads, the evolution threads, the homeopathy threads, the faked-Moon-landing threads, the spoon-bending threads on JREF, in order to chide the logical realists on those threads for accusing the assorted conspiracy theorists, intelligent-design believers, phoney-medicine believers and mind-power believers of irrationality? I thought not.

I think your position is intellectually bankrupt. The truth is that the reasonable view on this case has, for well over a year now, been that at the very least Knox and Sollecito cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty of the murder. Anyone who had taken a close enough look at this case (which, incidentally, excludes a huge majority of the media - most of whom did the equivalent of "skim-reading" the case before reporting on it), with a dispassionate and objective eye, should have been able to see this very clearly. The argument for acquittal was overwhelmingly robust and clear. The critical point in relation to this main issue (guilt or acquittal) was - and still is - this: in order to argue rationally for guilt, it was necessary to argue that there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Knox/Sollecito were killers. In order to argue rationally for acquittal, it was only necessary to demonstrate that there existed even a modicum of doubt. The only rational position to argue, based on all the available evidence, when given the binary choice of conviction vs acquittal, had to be acquittal.

And all the sub-issues underpinning this overarching issue had a similar dynamic. Take, for example, the time of death argument. I don't know if you followed that particular debate here (and elsewhere). Basically, the autopsy discovery of Meredith's entire final meal still wholly within her stomach, when considered alongside her fairly-accurately-known start time of the meal, and the known physiology of human digestive transit, showed two important things: 1) Meredith could not possibly have died at 11.30-11.45pm, as per the first court's ruling, and 2) Meredith in fact must have died at some point between 7.30pm and 9.30pm (with 10pm as a very improbable outlier). And given that it could be proven that Meredith was alive at just before 9pm, this meant that her death must have occurred between 9.00-9.30pm (with a tiny possibility that it occurred between 9.30pm and 10.00pm, but a virtual certainty that it occurred no later than 10pm).

Now, the above argument is absolutely robust, it is entirely supported by accepted medical science, and it is endorsed by everyone in the medical community who has ever been consulted properly on it. A very prominent veterinary pathologist (who is also qualified to talk on human physiology through her training and general medical knowledge) is an active proponent of the argument here on this thread, and a number of pathologists and gastroenterology specialists have endorsed the position.

Yet far from wanting to engage in any kind of debate on this topic, most pro-guilt commentators (both here and elsewhere) preferred to stick to a handwaving dismissal of the entire argument, coupled with disparaging mockery aimed at discrediting those making the argument (the main thrust of this "strategy" being to claim that those making the argument had no idea what we were talking about, had no authority to even make any arguments in this area, and were nothing more than ignoramuses with access to Google and library cards, who didn't know how to use them). Perhaps you might be able to enlighten us all on a) how one debates in good faith against people such as these, and b) why it is wrong to call their position irrational.

Note that the example I chose is merely one of very many. But the story was much the same across the board. I don't think you have any real understanding of the crucial context within which the JREF discussion took place. That most of us here appear to have been entirely vindicated by the verdicts of Hellmann's court is not an occasion for jubilation, mockery or gloating. The Hellmann verdict simple gives most of us a quiet satisfaction, and some proof that our arguments were rational, appropriate and right. But most of us knew that already anyhow....

Well, that's missed the point completely. I know she should have been acquitted. I said this. Did you actually read what I said? No, thought not. And yes, of course I've read the other forums. Despite being such a intellectually bankrupt head.

Again, this is what I'm talking about folks. Completely unnecessary. And a complete disregard to things I actually said.

 

[RoseMontague]

Well, that's missed the point completely. I know she should have been acquitted. I said this. Did you actually read what I said? No, though not. And yes, of course I've read the other forums. Despite being such a mentally redundant head.

Again, this is what I'm talking about folks. Completely unnecessary. And a complete disregard to things I actually said.

Who called you a mentally redundant head?

 

[Mary_H]

Well said.

I think the perception here of the Knoxites as a bunch of crazy CT'ers has changed to a perception of obsessive, single issue posters only in it because Raffaele is cute. The current mocking is more along these lines now.

Sigh

Raffaele is way too young. I like Maresca's hair, but Dalla Vedova is the one I really have my eye on.

 

[Malfie Henpox]

Who called you a mentally redundant head?

He said 'Intellectually bankrupt'. My bad, I edited my reply to show this.

 

[RoseMontague]

He said 'Intellectually bankrupt'. My bad, I edited my reply to show this.

I believe he said your position was intellectually bankrupt. I think you are making the debate too personal.

 

[Malfie Henpox]

You all have to admit, it is quite funny that I'm being hounded for coming here to point out the hounding. Calling me irrational was priceless!

 

[LondonJohn]

Amanda Knox judge says she may have 'been responsible' after all

Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann tells newspaper the acquittal was based on 'truth created in the proceedings'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/06/amanda-knox-judge-responsible

Ahhh yes: one can always count on the media (particularly the press) to pick up a quote, pull it out of context, magnify it, and place it into a different context, in order to create a provocative and sensationalist story.

What happened here was that Hellmann was essentially asked if his court had now got to the bottom of exactly what factually happened on the night of the murder. Hellmann answered - correctly - that his court could never get to the absolute truth: it could only make judgements based on the evidence before it. He said - also correctly - that Guede most definitely knows the truth, since evidence proves that he was absolutely certainly there that night, and the totality of the evidence shows that he was almost certainly (in fact) directly involved in Meredith's murder.

But it's here that Hellmann's words start to become ripe for misinterpretation. He was essentially trying to convey the fact that his court could never say that Knox and Sollecito were absolutely certainly innocent. In the absence of a cast-iron and unimpeachable alibi, no court in the world could proclaim their innocence. But Hellmann's court could - and did - rule that there was no evidence indicating that Knox or Sollecito were involved in the murder. With all that in mind, Hellmann said - correctly - that there still existed a factual possibility that Knox and Sollecito participated in the murder (as a direct corollary to the fact that Knox and Sollecito cannot be proven to be innocent). And in the same vein, he also stated that Knox and Sollecito might know what happened that night - he couldn't unequivocally rule that out.

So what Hellmann said was entirely logical, and it was entirely consistent with his court's findings that Knox and Sollecito had to be acquitted because there was no evidence that they committed the murder. However, he obviously didn't realise that his words were ripe for misinterpretation and re-contextualisation. I find it hard to understand why he has been interacting with the media at all, and I absolutely do not agree that he should be doing so. I hope that he will now realise that he's been a fool for not maintaining an appropriate silence. I therefore hope that he will make no further statements to the media, and will let the motivations report do all the talking when it's released in a few months' time.

 

[Malfie Henpox]

I believe he said your position was intellectually bankrupt. I think you are making the debate too personal.

And I believe that I, at no point, accused him of calling me anything... Also, that isn't my position. As much as you're trying to make it be.

 

[christianahannah]

Well, that's missed the point completely. I know she should have been acquitted. I said this. Did you actually read what I said? No, thought not. And yes, of course I've read the other forums. Despite being such a intellectually bankrupt head.

Again, this is what I'm talking about folks. Completely unnecessary. And a complete disregard to things I actually said.

For what it is worth I agree with the many points you have made (especially with regards to the answer to the last comment of yours - I'm not sure why you didn't receive an abbreviated and on-subject response to your comment).

 

[LondonJohn]

Nor is the false imprisonment bit. She was convicted of a crime and she served the sentence.

So you're not actually very well-informed on the case at all. Knox has not been convicted of that charge yet. It is subject to an appeal to the Supreme Court. It will only become a conviction if the Supreme Court rejects the appeal and confirms the verdict. However, I happen to believe that this appeal has a strong chance of success, and that any subsequent retrial on this charge (which is what would happen in the event of a successful Supreme Court appeal) will result in acquittal.

And FYI, Knox has not served a sentence for this crime. The sentence is only imposed if the Supreme Court affirms the verdict. If the Supreme Court were to do so, it would also rule at the same time that since Knox had already spent almost four years on remand, this is more than offsetting against the sentence related to the conviction. As of now, neither Knox nor Sollecito has spent a single day in prison serving a sentence for a crime: their prison time is wholly categorised as remand time.

 

[LondonJohn]

Lots of excellent points, Rose. The Kerchers will need some gentle education from someone on their side who recognizes this was never a case of "Meredith versus Amanda."

Which is one of many good reasons why they need to sever ties with Maresca and find a good, neutral, compassionate and dispassionate lawyer (probably here in the UK).

 

[truethat]

Amanda did behave ethically. The police convinced her that the ethical choice would be to accuse Patrick. She did it out of a sense of respect for and cooperation with the police. It is unrealistic and ignorant of human nature to claim that one young individual has the "moral responsibility" to cling to a belief in the face of many authority figures who are denying it and trying to persuade her otherwise. To have done so would have gone against most of the ethical and social principles Amanda had learned throughout her life.

You are doing what you accused LondonJohn of doing, that is, you are stating "rules and principles that don't exist; then you build an argument on them. Based on the principles that you create, your argument stand as rational. But your axiomes are false."

How in the world is falsely accusing a man of murder "behaving ethically." I saw a video by Ann Coulter online (who I absolutely loathe and never watch but she did make a good point) She said that even if Amanda buckled to the stress of the situation and the interrogation, Patrick sat in jail while he was being investigated for 14 days. Even if Amanda was so stressed from the interrogation, she had two weeks to calm down and come to her senses and realize the truth of what she was saying didn't add up and she should have come forward.

 

[Malfie Henpox]

So you're not actually very well-informed on the case at all. Knox has not been convicted of that charge yet. It is subject to an appeal to the Supreme Court. It will only become a conviction if the Supreme Court rejects the appeal and confirms the verdict. However, I happen to believe that this appeal has a strong chance of success, and that any subsequent retrial on this charge (which is what would happen in the event of a successful Supreme Court appeal) will result in acquittal.

And FYI, Knox has not served a sentence for this crime. The sentence is only imposed if the Supreme Court affirms the verdict. If the Supreme Court were to do so, it would also rule at the same time that since Knox had already spent almost four years on remand, this is more than offsetting against the sentence related to the conviction. As of now, neither Knox nor Sollecito has spent a single day in prison serving a sentence for a crime: their prison time is wholly categorised as remand time.

Again, thanks for telling me what my opinions are so that you may argue correctly with them. I haven't said I was an expert on the case. I only said I don't like the way you argue for it. It was my understanding she had been charged and sentenced to time served. If this is incorrect, thank you for pointing it out. And so politely too.

No need for name calling is there? And in response to you earlier comment, I'm not sure why you feeling vindicated has any bearing on anything whatsoever. I'm not even arguing with the things you're saying!

 

[RoseMontague]

For what it is worth I agree with the many points you have made (especially with regards to the answer to the last comment of yours - I'm not sure why you didn't receive an abbreviated and on-subject response to your comment).

For what it is worth? Your opinion is worth a lot to me. Normally when you correct me, you are well, correct.

Malfie, also for what it is worth, I apologize for giving you a difficult time. Must have woke up on the wrong side of the park bench, again.

 

[Malfie Henpox]

For what it is worth? Your opinion is worth a lot to me. Normally when you correct me, you are well, correct.

Malfie, also for what it is worth, I apologize for giving you a difficult time. Must have woke up on the wrong side of the park bench, again.

Apology accepted.

 

[Caper]

My opinion wasn't challenged. I agree (for the most part) with you. But I don't call anyone who doesn't irrational. And I certainly wouldn't call the Kerchers anything. One person went so far as to say they looked unhappy at the verdict due to lost compensation. In fact a few have alluded to this. Disgusting, and complete conjecture. The very thing this argument proposes to be against. It was the tone of the argument that uneases me, not the content.

If not uninformed then yes irrational. If someone can actually believe that two people with ZERO criminal background, ZERO motive and ZERO history of a past behavior that could predict something like this and just think they met up with an African drifter and decided to rape and kill an innocent woman.... then yes they are irrational....and that's probably the best way to put it. I do give a bit of slack because people don't know much about false confessions and just how easy it is for investigators to obtain them... so I do allow of that... but if someone has followed this case closely and concluded that 2 people met up with an African drifter and decided to attempt to have an orgy.... then yes they are irrational.


As for the Kercher's. They are victims. But at what point does being a victim give you the right to be stupid? Think of the parents of the rape/murder victim in the Norfolk 4 case.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-confessions/
The parents still operate a website claiming the men are guilty. One of the most obvious cases of injustice I have ever seen and the parents still instice on destroying their lives. I'm sorry but being a victim doesn't give you a right to destroy the lives of others..... I can't say the Kercher's have been that bad. But they seem to want to cling to the stupidest theory I have ever heard. And after a while as a person who deplores injustice, you call them out. Especially since they could have realized alot sooner just how stupid the guilt case was and lobbied to have it overturned.

The Kercher mother said at a press conference she was not ready to forgive yet....... I almost pulled my hair out......

 

[Grinder]

Hello folks,

I don't post very often but I read voraciously. Mostly I hang out at one of the other boards posting under assumed names. But I think I've worn that paradigm out now.

Anyway, what do you think of this Sun reference to Kokomani? Is this new information or is this a story that has floated before? - OBT

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...ut-the-fight-goes-on-for-Meredith-family.html




"Riddle of evidence from the Albanian

EXCLUSIVE from BOB GRAHAM in Perugia

THE spotlight is now set to turn on one of the most controversial witnesses in the trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

Albanian Hekuran Kokomani, 37, claimed in court he had driven past the home where Brit Meredith Kercher was killed and saw Knox and Sollecito outside.

He claimed Knox started screaming and pulled out a large knife from a bag. He also alleged that Sollecito tried to punch him.

Kokomani's story was ridiculed by the defence teams but prosecutor Giuliano Mignini maintained it was "credible and reliable evidence" that placed Knox and Sollecito at the scene of the crime.

But now we can reveal that the day before Meredith's body was found convicted small-time drug dealer Kokomani PARKED his car in the driveway of the two-storey home she shared in Perugia, Italy.

Several sources in the town claim to have information that suggests he met Rudy Guede, the man still in jail for the murder.

Giuseppe Castellini, editor of the local Giornale dell Umbria paper, told The Sun that Kokomani was at the scene to do a drug deal with Guede. Ivory Coast immigrant Guede, 26, was convicted in a separate fast-track trial and jailed for 30 years — cut to 16 years on appeal.

He then claimed Knox and Sollecito had been in the house and had directed the savage killing.

Guede previously claimed the pair were NOT in the building.

In the weeks that followed the murder, Kokomani fled to Albania claiming that while he was in Italy his life was in danger.

Last week he confirmed in a phone interview he had parked his black Golf in front of the house Meredith and Amanda shared — which had been empty.

The change in his story undermines the prosecution's belief that Knox and Sollecito were at the house at a time when they said they were at Sollecito's flat.

Raffaele's dad Dr Francesco Sollecito told The Sun: "We must find out the truth of Kokomani because the stories we heard in the court were lies."

FBI veteran Steve Moore said of Kokomani: "Investigators need to get to the truth of what he was doing there that evening and what was happening with the meeting with Guede."

Exactly what I've thought all along. He knew his phones could be traced to that location. He left for Albania shortly after the murder. he went to an attorney before giving his testimony.

His connections could be scary people with people inside prisons. This would explain why Rudy has acted as he has.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

one of the best post-acquittal op-ed pieces

Thank you Deborah Orr. "Weirdly, I have never come across anyone suggesting that Guede is a bit of a reprobate even for fleeing the scene of a murder he didn't commit, as he claims, let alone pointing the finger at two innocent people who served eight years in prison between them, partly on the strength of his evidence."

"The people most appallingly served by this long and terrible farrago – and it is by no means over yet – have been the grieving Kercher family."

While I might disagree slightly on how important anything Guede said was to the false conviction, overall the writer said some things that needed to be said.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

grilled Swiss

How in the world is falsely accusing a man of murder "behaving ethically." I saw a video by Ann Coulter online (who I absolutely loathe and never watch but she did make a good point) She said that even if Amanda buckled to the stress of the situation and the interrogation, Patrick sat in jail while he was being investigated for 14 days. Even if Amanda was so stressed from the interrogation, she had two weeks to calm down and come to her senses and realize the truth of what she was saying didn't add up and she should have come forward.

truethat,

And the police would then have released Lumumba on her word? They did not release him on the word of the Swiss professor whom they grilled for a number of hours. Ann Coulter has been a fount of misinformation on this case for two years.