Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

Egan on questionable cases

Of course:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/an-innocent-abroad/

As opposed to:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1090608/Secret-diary-reveals-Foxy-Knoxy-thinking-sex.html

See the difference?

I realise these are but two examples. But would you say they captured the reflective opinion of the nations?

Malfie Henpox,

There may be something to the generalizations you have given, but one can find examples of strongly anti-Knox sentiment in Seattle, and pro-Sollecito sentiment at Leeds University.

The same author (Pulitzer prize winner Timothy Egan) whom you cited above also wrote, "But if all the attention to the Knox episode prompts people to take a second look at other questionable cases, then perhaps the tide from Perugia will lift other boats." My own experiences suggest that miscarriages of justice happen everywhere, and I am always hopeful that high-profile cases will prompt much needed reforms in the jurisdictions in which they happened.

I don't think that this case should be over until Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito have had a chance to rehabilitate their reputations.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

US: Innocent angel held captive by evil foreigners. But we'll get her back.

Got any particularly egregious examples of this straw man?

Of course:
opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com

I don't see anything in that editorial which could be characterized as your straw man. The writer discusses the details of the case, notes that Merideth had been murdered, justice had been served by the incarceration of Rudy Guede, and discusses some of Amandas background. That background - along with admissions that they'd engaged in drug use - is contrasted with the she devil characterization found in the British tabloid press. She's not characterized as an innocent angel, nor is there any "we're" going to get her back from the "evil foreigners" to be found in that op-ed.

As opposed to:

I'm sufficently familiar with the gross mischaracterization of her in the British tabloids. I'm guessing you're not entirely familiar with how the case was covered in the American mainstream press. That's what I'm focused on.

See the difference?

I realise these are but two examples. But would you say they captured the reflective opinion of the nations?

I'd say that Timothy Egan's op-ed does accurately capture the case and the mainstream reporting on it in the U.S. I'd also disagree that it in any way reflects your straw man above.

 

[Malfie Henpox]

I have a question, please.

Now that she's been acquitted, why do you care what people think?

Because I'm interested in the dynamics and reasoning behind the size of this thread and why people continue to post here.

Why do you keep asking me that same question? Others have been helpful and helped my understanding. You've just repeated what I said three times. I don't understand why you keep quoting me when you clearly have nothing to add.

 

[Malfie Henpox]

I don't see anything in that editorial which could be characterized as your straw man. The writer discusses the details of the case, notes that Merideth had been murdered, justice had been served by the incarceration of Rudy Guede, and discusses some of Amandas background. That background - along with admissions that they'd engaged in drug use - is contrasted with the she devil characterization found in the British tabloid press. She's not characterized as an innocent angel, nor is there any "we're" going to get her back from the "evil foreigners" to be found in that op-ed.



I'm sufficently familiar with the gross mischaracterization of her in the British tabloids. I'm guessing you're not entirely familiar with how the case was covered in the American mainstream press. That's what I'm focused on.



I'd say that Timothy Egan's op-ed does accurately capture the case and the mainstream reporting on it in the U.S. I'd also disagree that it in any way reflects your straw man above.

So we agree on the British papers view.

Interesting that you don't see the positive spin in the NYT editorial though. I certainly do. They called her an 'Innocent Angel for a start'. No different to 'Foxy Knoxy' in my eyes. Granted it is an editorial, but that is the general vibe I have interpreted in US publications. I'll have a google and see if I can find you more examples. Maybe you don't see it because that's the side you agree with? In which case, it would answer my initial question as 'Yes, there is a divide'.

I am also unfamiliar with the term 'Straw Man'?

 

[Machiavelli]

..Exactly my point. So why then did they persuade a suspect to sign their document without the presence of counsel? This was illegal.

But there is absolutely nothing illegal. When you say something is illegal you hae to cite a law, and also a judge's conclusion.
Here there is nothing illegal at all. Whether the suspect signs the statement, or does not, there are procedures for every case. If refuses to appoint a signature, a different kind of act is issued. And a refusal of putting a signature can be verbalized as well.
There is nothing like the requirement of a counsel before the signature of a police document. Of course any person may refuse to sign any document and require the assistence of a counsuel before deciding what to declare, but the police would declare him/her a formal suspect beause of this. And would also take him/her into custody on certain situations. And all this would not prevent the police from verbalizing anyway what the person had said and give it to the magistrate for investigation.

Yes. The police are supposed to record the interrogation, but must create a minute of a suspect interrogation if they fail to record it (which they claim they did).

Actually, they always have to record minutes of an interrogation. But they have no legal obligation to have autio od video recordings. Moreover, video and audio recordings are generally viewed as detrimental to the suspects.

There was nothing illegal in the interrogation. Whoever states such a thing should declare the legal source, the law violated, and the judge's assessment.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not insignificant

Because you're the only lawyer I recognize in the thread and I know through your Legaltainment stuff that you do follow American law, certainly enough to recognize that I'd sort of overstepped the premise a bit.

(Totally insignificant - sorry for the derail.)

Foolmewunz,

I share your befuddlement of the paradox of using Ms. Knox's words in the Lumumba case even when her statements were deemed to be improperly collected and could not be used in the murder case. I don't agree that the question is totally insignificant, however. Because the same panel (we usually call it a jury in this thread) heard both cases simultaneously, it may have had an impact on the guilty verdict in the trial of first instance.

A long time ago in these threads I provided a citation from the literature of false confessions. It indicated that when people hear a confession that they know was not obtained properly, they still subconsciously let it affect their decision. It is not a perfect analogy to the present case, but it does raise questions.

 

[komponisto]

Because I'm interested in the dynamics and reasoning behind the size of this thread and why people continue to post here.

Perhaps it's because they find this case substantially more interesting than questions such as those.

 

[Matthew Best]

Because I'm interested in the dynamics and reasoning behind the size of this thread and why people continue to post here.

I guess you just don't get the irony, then.

 

[Machiavelli]

I was asking about the reference made to Amanda being not clean and your claim along those lines.

As for the testimonies of four British girl friends (and the two Italian roommates), Meredith had complained that Amanda did not help the cleaning of the house as her cleaning shifts; that she did not clean the toilet after use; that she had left tampons stained with blood around in their toilet, and that Meredith asked her to be more careful in that occasion. Meredith also complained about Amanda's habit of leaving condoms and vibrator in sight in their common bathroom, and was annoyed about her inviting unknown male guests in the house.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

socioeconomic status

I have read them, and the PMF thread. And that is not the conclusion I came to with regards intellect, no.

And you said a 'minority' of them were the same group. As opposed to the 'by and large' of 'Team Innocent'.

An outrageous claim that needs verification, I would say.

Malfie Henpox,

I don't entirely agree with Mary_H in this instance. It is clear that there are individuals with Ph.D. degrees or professional degrees on both sides of the case, but I am reluctant to make any quantitative statements about how many there are. I know less about the socioeconomic status of either group. I think your original formulation was a trifle simplistic, also. Among the pro-innocence group, one will find a number of Italianophiles; their problem is with individual actions within the Italian justice system.

 

[Mary_H]

I have read them, and the PMF thread. And that is not the conclusion I came to with regards intellect, no.

And you said a 'minority' of them were the same group. As opposed to the 'by and large' of 'Team Innocent'.

An outrageous claim that needs verification, I would say.

Dude. I can't give you the name of every person who is interested in this case. My opinion, in response to your questions about the interest in the case, is that a complex case is likely to attract people who like to think about complexities. Surely you can go along with that.

The names of the most vocal pro-guilt debaters can be found on PMF and TJMK. As I said, many of them are educated, intellectual, or professionals, but their numbers are few (like about seventeen). The most public media representatives of their point of view are Anne Coulter and Nancy Grace. Because they believe in guilt in the face of evidence to the contrary, I would go so far as to say their approach to the case is based on emotion, in spite of their often ample brain power.

The pro-innocence debaters have been represented publicly in the media just in the last week by a number of lawyers and scientists. I can provide their names for you if you like, but I am going to hit the hay after this post, so will have to do it when I get up. In the meantime, you can go to Injustice in Perugia to see the names of some of the professionals who are on the pro-innocence side. And you can go to Facebook to see how many thousands of Facebook members support innocence as opposed to guilt.

Remind me what we're arguing about and I will get back to you later.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA in the bathroom

...that she did not clean the toilet after use; that she had left tampons stained with blood around in their toilet, and that Meredith asked her to be more careful in that occasion. Meredith also complained about Amanda's habit of leaving condoms and vibrator in sight in their common bathroom, and was annoyed about her inviting unknown male guests in the house.

Meredith did not complain; she showed them to Robyn (she also asked Amanda for condoms on one occasion). The vibrator was a joke gift, and there was not much storage space in the bathroom. As for the tampons, I did not recall that. However if that is true, then they are one more potential source of DNA in the shared bathroom.

 

[Malfie Henpox]

I guess you just don't get the irony, then.

Not sure what's ironic about it if I'm honest, so you've got me there.

What is your opinion on the newspaper reports from across the pond? Would you say they differed from the British portrayal? Do you agree with Mary H that by and large the innocent campaigners are of a higher intellect? And what's your reasoning for continued posting? Some have, rather nobly stated that they hope the exposure of this case can propel others into supporting similar injustices. Is this your aim too?

It does seem a great opportunity for maybe a regular group to form from this? One that will express their concerns and logic in other travesties around the world.

 

[Malfie Henpox]

Dude. I can't give you the name of every person who is interested in this case. My opinion, in response to your questions about the interest in the case, is that a complex case is likely to attract people who like to think about complexities. Surely you can go along with that.

The names of the most vocal pro-guilt debaters can be found on PMF and TJMK. As I said, many of them are educated, intellectual, or professionals, but their numbers are few (like about seventeen). The most public media representatives of their point of view are Anne Coulter and Nancy Grace. Because they believe in guilt in the face of evidence to the contrary, I would go so far as to say their approach to the case is based on emotion, in spite of their often ample brain power.

The pro-innocence debaters have been represented publicly in the media just in the last week by a number of lawyers and scientists. I can provide their names for you if you like, but I am going to hit the hay after this post, so will have to do it when I get up. In the meantime, you can go to Injustice in Perugia to see the names of some of the professionals who are on the pro-innocence side. And you can go to Facebook to see how many thousands of Facebook members support innocence as opposed to guilt.

Remind me what we're arguing about and I will get back to you later.

You said that by and large the supporters of innocence were well educated and even intellectual, and only a minority of those opposing it were.

I just wanted verification of this claim. No argument.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

angel faced killer with ice cold eyes

So we agree on the British papers view.

Interesting that you don't see the positive spin in the NYT editorial though. I certainly do. They called her an 'Innocent Angel for a start'. No different to 'Foxy Knoxy' in my eyes. Granted it is an editorial, but that is the general vibe I have interpreted in US publications. I'll have a google and see if I can find you more examples. Maybe you don't see it because that's the side you agree with? In which case, it would answer my initial question as 'Yes, there is a divide'.

I am also unfamiliar with the term 'Straw Man'?

MH,

A straw man is an argument that is deliberately crafted to be weak, that one knocks down. I don't see the term "innocent angel" in the Egan article. The title is "Innocent abroad." Angel face is a term used to describe Knox, but usually it is meant in an unflattering way (as in the title of Barbie Nadeau's book). Occasionally one hears variations such as calling her the ice eyed angel, or variations thereof, thanks to mainstream journalists, such as Richard Owen.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

not sure I am getting your point

Some have, rather nobly stated that they hope the exposure of this case can propel others into supporting similar injustices. Is this your aim too?

It does seem a great opportunity for maybe a regular group to form from this? One that will express their concerns and logic in other travesties around the world.

Malfie Henpox,

Do you mean the above seriously or sarcastically?

 

[Malfie Henpox]

MH,

A straw man is an argument that is deliberately crafted to be weak, that one knocks down. I don't see the term "innocent angel" in the Egan article. The title is "Innocent abroad." Angel face is a term used to describe Knox, but usually it is meant in an unflattering way (as in the title of Barbie Nadeau's book). Occasionally one hears variations such as calling her the ice eyed angel, or variations thereof, thanks to mainstream journalists, such as Richard Owen.

Sorry, you're right. Angel Face to me doesn't have a negative connotation though. Perhaps I'm reading American papers through too British an eye.

But we can agree that there is a disparity between the way the two nations reported the case though? I just wonder why that is.

I was just trying to capture a generalisation with the two initial statements. Yes, I deliberately waxed lyrical to highlight my argument.

Which was, in essence, is there an 'us against them' feeling in the US. And conversely, is there a 'them against us' feeling in Britain and Italy? Or is that just incidental to the issue at hand?

 

[Malfie Henpox]

Malfie Henpox,

Do you mean the above seriously or sarcastically?

Whilst clearly I may have been sarcastic in other comments, this, I assure you is totally serious.

You agree?

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Italian source for claim to have clear video of Amanda.

Google translation:

MORE lies from the Media at that time (the article is dated 12th November 2007) and leaked by the prosecution in my opinion. Most of us have since seen the video and the majority of people concur that it is not clear enough (as claimed) but is most likely MEREDITH on her way home.

Which is why the prosecution did not use it in court against Amanda.

I do take umbrage with Mignini when he now whinges about the media though - he had no qualms about using them to his advantage in the first trial!!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

my impressions of the press

Whilst clearly I may have been sarcastic in other comments, this, I assure you is totally serious.

You agree?

Malfie Henpox,

Fine by me. You can find among Ms. Knox's and Mr. Sollecito's supporters some people who have previous experience with wrongful accusations and wrongful convictions. I doubt that they will stop what they are doing any time soon.

With respect to the press, I would say that the British tabloid press has been very hard on Knox, printing many things that were completely untrue. Even the British mainstream press has made a number of erroneous statements about the case; especially notable are articles written by Richard Owen and John Follain. I am under the impression that Italian coverage changed over time, but I don't speak the language.

American press has been more favorable to Knox, but there were significant exceptions in all three nations. Nancy Grace and Ann Coulter were strongly anti-Knox. Barbie Nadeau, Andrea Vogt, and Candace Dempsey all have some ties to Italy, but the first two were strongly anti-Knox in their coverage, whereas Dempsey has been more pro-Knox.