Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Didaktylos]

What I'd like to know is WTF wasn't Mignini sent on "gardening leave" as soon as he was formally under investigation far less convicted at first instance? OK, fair enough, he shouldn't formally be dismissed until his trial process has run its full course but it seems very dubious that he was allowed to continue to have input into cases.

 

[raz0rama]

I have really enjoyed following this thread, but I am a little concerned at the self-righteous tone presented to some of those who disagree with the general point of view of innocence and reasonable doubt posters. Not to nitpick, but saying "You were wrong" to someone who does not believe they were wrong is no different than saying "I believe they're guilty" to someone who believes they are innocent. Logic should win the day. Once arguments based on logic have been presented, they stand and fall on their own, and the person who maintains belief in the face of logically constructed arguments that either provide doubt or tend to prove the belief is false, will never be convinced. There is no need at that point to even point out the difference of opinion as all that does is inflame the debate.

I don't think there's any need to exhort people to read a post that points out that they are in a minority view before they post. That seems to be the type of behavior more associated with certain pro-guilt monopolized sites than the kind of behavior that should run a thread dedicated to logical argumentation. I value the fact that people are free to stir the pot and remain dedicated to questionable premises in the face of evidence to the contrary here, it makes the arguments themselves stronger when there is not a herd mentality or groupthink. The goal should be to continue to present reasoned discourse that refrains from gloating, hating, smugness, self-righteousness, condescension or other negatively colored forms of speech.

Since many of the pro-guilt posters resort to such techniques in their posts, does it not behoove those of us who wish to further the argument of innocence through logical discourse to avoid going down that path?

Just my .02. I guess that given my newness to the debate I don't have as many years of frustration simmering under the surface, nor the same level of exuberant vindication resulting from the acquittal as some, and feel that it is important to maintain a dispassionate and reasoned foundation to the conversation.

That said, I do however feel immense satisfaction and relief that reason appears to have triumphed over mob justice for now in these legal proceedings.

 

[smkovalinksy]

What I'd like to know is WTF wasn't Mignini sent on "gardening leave" as soon as he was formally under investigation far less convicted at first instance? OK, fair enough, he shouldn't formally be dismissed until his trial process has run its full course but it seems very dubious that he was allowed to continue to have input into cases.

Yes, one would think that he would have been relieved of his official duties until the case was resolved, wouldn't one?

 

[smkovalinksy]

I have really enjoyed following this thread, but I am a little concerned at the self-righteous tone presented to some of those who disagree with the general point of view of innocence and reasonable doubt posters. Not to nitpick, but saying "You were wrong" to someone who does not believe they were wrong is no different than saying "I believe they're guilty" to someone who believes they are innocent. Logic should win the day. Once arguments based on logic have been presented, they stand and fall on their own, and the person who maintains belief in the face of logically constructed arguments that either provide doubt or tend to prove the belief is false, will never be convinced. There is no need at that point to even point out the difference of opinion as all that does is inflame the debate.

I don't think there's any need to exhort people to read a post that points out that they are in a minority view before they post. That seems to be the type of behavior more associated with certain pro-guilt monopolized sites than the kind of behavior that should run a thread dedicated to logical argumentation. I value the fact that people are free to stir the pot and remain dedicated to questionable premises in the face of evidence to the contrary here, it makes the arguments themselves stronger when there is not a herd mentality or groupthink. The goal should be to continue to present reasoned discourse that refrains from gloating, hating, smugness, self-righteousness, condescension or other negatively colored forms of speech.

Since many of the pro-guilt posters resort to such techniques in their posts, does it not behoove those of us who wish to further the argument of innocence through logical discourse to avoid going down that path?

Just my .02. I guess that given my newness to the debate I don't have as many years of frustration simmering under the surface, nor the same level of exuberant vindication resulting from the acquittal as some, and feel that it is important to maintain a dispassionate and reasoned foundation to the conversation.

That said, I do however feel immense satisfaction and relief that reason appears to have triumphed over mob justice for now in these legal proceedings.

Your point is extremely well-taken. I cannot speak for others, but for my own part, this is the kind of thing which makes my blood boil: Those of us who believed Knox and Sollecito had been wrongly convicted by Mignini, Massei, et al, were berated and taken to task by these "pro-guilt" posters and sites, as though we were ninconpoops who could not respect the court. With condescending tones, these guilters crowed, "WE wil be able to accept it, and respect the appellate court and Italian judicial system and judges if they acquit. We will not be ruffled, and with solemn dignity and bowed heads, will move on. " All the while, they never thought it would happen. Now, look: what disrespect for Hellman, the Italian appellate courts, the lay judges, all : ETA: I guess I have just become very irritable, and disappointed in people?

I am interested in the discussion between Popper and others about possible influence on the Hellman court from political or media arenas. I have wondered about this, but I do not imagine it done or happening in a very organised, easy-to-prove way, rather I imagine it happening in a very subtle way, perhaps coming from several corners in a way that is naturally difficult to put the finger on or prove.

I give you a completely hypothetical situation just to illustrate: let us say that the constant FOA campaign registers, and some powerful politician / business person does not wish the US to be unhappy at Italy for whatever reason and therefore would like the whole Amanda Knox thing to go away and the conviction to be overturned. A chain of past favours to be repaid or future favours hinted at could come into play between certain characters. Some words are said between the relevant people, and while no instructions are given, actions are then influenced because of the way power is wielded. Now there is of course no proof for any of this, all just completely made up. But there are 2 things that make me wonder if these type of influences happened and these are:
1) that Hellman's conclusions seem so baffling and seem on the face of it unlikely to have been a simple 'mistake'
2) that the historic 'second state' and corruption of power in Italy has been likened to an octopus weaving tentacles into and around everything it is so all-pervasive and insiduous

 

[Osterwelle]

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Article 36: ...

Ugh, the first sentence is horrible officialese. The German version of that article is a bit better to understand and it says the authorities only have to inform the consular post if the "person concerned" requests it.

From the "Amanda Knox cable" we know that she was officially detained on Nov. 5th for interrogation but the embassy in Rome was only informed on the next day.
Do we know she was informed about her right to contact the consular post? Did she request it and was it denied? Or did she "just" ask for a lawyer which was denied according to her testimony?

-
Osterwelle

 

[smkovalinksy]

LONDON -- The family of Meredith Kercher, who was stabbed to death in Perugia, Italy, is setting up a trust fund to help pay for the appeal against the decision to clear American student Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito of murder.
In an open letter, published in The (London) Times and the Daily Mirror to mark the fourth anniversary of the British student's death, Stephanie Kercher said the fund would help with legal expenses in the future and also eventually support others who find themselves in a similar position.

She wrote, "We will not recoup the legal costs, but we hope that a fund may help with legal expenses in the future, as the appeal proceeds. Most importantly, we hope that Meredith's fight may continue and that she can help others."
Stephanie Kercher also paid tribute to her "effortlessly beautiful," "selfless" and loyal sister and recalled the night she found out a 22-year-old English girl had been found dead in an Italian apartment.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/1...fund-for-italian-murder-appeal/#ixzz1ca3HvfGS

So first Stephanie and Arline had said, after the acquittals, that they were back to square one, wanted to know who the others were , whom Guede had acted in consort with. Now, want to get Knox and Sollecito again. What has changed??

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I have really enjoyed following this thread, but I am a little concerned at the self-righteous tone presented to some of those who disagree with the general point of view of innocence and reasonable doubt posters. Not to nitpick, but saying "You were wrong" to someone who does not believe they were wrong is no different than saying "I believe they're guilty" to someone who believes they are innocent. Logic should win the day. Once arguments based on logic have been presented, they stand and fall on their own, and the person who maintains belief in the face of logically constructed arguments that either provide doubt or tend to prove the belief is false, will never be convinced. There is no need at that point to even point out the difference of opinion as all that does is inflame the debate.

I don't think there's any need to exhort people to read a post that points out that they are in a minority view before they post. That seems to be the type of behavior more associated with certain pro-guilt monopolized sites than the kind of behavior that should run a thread dedicated to logical argumentation. I value the fact that people are free to stir the pot and remain dedicated to questionable premises in the face of evidence to the contrary here, it makes the arguments themselves stronger when there is not a herd mentality or groupthink. The goal should be to continue to present reasoned discourse that refrains from gloating, hating, smugness, self-righteousness, condescension or other negatively colored forms of speech.

Since many of the pro-guilt posters resort to such techniques in their posts, does it not behoove those of us who wish to further the argument of innocence through logical discourse to avoid going down that path?

Just my .02. I guess that given my newness to the debate I don't have as many years of frustration simmering under the surface, nor the same level of exuberant vindication resulting from the acquittal as some, and feel that it is important to maintain a dispassionate and reasoned foundation to the conversation.

That said, I do however feel immense satisfaction and relief that reason appears to have triumphed over mob justice for now in these legal proceedings.

I agree that the tone is not polite to tell someone "You were wrong" but those comments have been directed at a person that only understands one language. I am also responding to a group that has repeatedly called me a liar and a criminal.

Pilot posts on JREF as Pilot, then runs over to PMF to rant about what he has read here, often twisting the meaning of the posts, all while pretending to be someone else. He has several online personalities, all designed to attack Amanda Knox. His group has attacked innocent people long enough. Its over.

I am not capable of giving Pilot or his friends any respect. Its time for him to stop spewing hatred and "retire" just as one of his other screen names suggests.

I know I have only participated on JREF minimally since Amanda and Raffaele were declared innocent, and my posts have generally been of a much less serious nature. The truth is that I have no interest in continuing to debate the facts of the case because our goals have already been met. I have taken a few shots at those who attacked our group for the past two years. Is that immature? Maybe, but I am only human.

I will be leaving Injusticeinperugia.org online indefinitely so that others that would like to learn about the case can continue to do so, but for me, the debate is over.

 

[Rolfe]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/1...fund-for-italian-murder-appeal/#ixzz1ca3HvfGS

So first Stephanie and Arline had said, after the acquittals, that they were back to square one, wanted to know who the others were , whom Guede had acted in consort with. Now, want to get Knox and Sollecito again. What has changed??

This is bonkers. When I saw something about a trust fund, I thought it was more about the educational fund they've been talking about establishing in Meredith's memory. They want people to give them money so they can go on trying to ruin Knox and Sollecito's lives? WTF?

For a start, in what bizarroland universe is it up to the family of the victim to pay for the prosecution? Oh wait, not even in Italy. So what do they want the money for? That would be to pay Maresca, right? They're appealling for money to pay Maresca to put the case for guilt to the Supreme Court - that is the court that's only supposed to be ruling on procedural propriety, right?

I'm actually not at all clear that there is a role for Maresca or a family representative at the SC appeal, though maybe someone could clarify that. Is it possible this is some desperate attempt to acquire funds to pay what they already owe him?

This is really getting quite ugly, and I wonder what they thought of the comments section of the recent Daily Fail article. The sooner the motivations report comes out the better.

Rolfe.

 

[Didaktylos]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/1...fund-for-italian-murder-appeal/#ixzz1ca3HvfGS

So first Stephanie and Arline had said, after the acquittals, that they were back to square one, wanted to know who the others were , whom Guede had acted in consort with. Now, want to get Knox and Sollecito again. What has changed??

Someone needs to remind the Kercher family how people who demand a pound of flesh end up. And that the deguello frees both sides of the obligation to take prisoners.

 

[raz0rama]

Your point is extremely well-taken. I cannot speak for others, but for my own part, this is the kind of thing which makes my blood boil: Those of us who believed Knox and Sollecito had been wrongly convicted by Mignini, Massei, et al, were berated and taken to task by these "pro-guilt" posters and sites, as though we were ninconpoops who could not respect the court. With condescending tones, these guilters crowed, "WE wil be able to accept it, and respect the appellate court and Italian judicial system and judges if they acquit. We will not be ruffled, and with solemn dignity and bowed heads, will move on. " All the while, they never thought it would happen. Now, look: what disrespect for Hellman, the Italian appellate courts, the lay judges, all : ETA: I guess I have just become very irritable, and disappointed in people?

Your point is valid. However, just looking at that post you quoted- the conspiracy theory nature of it is extremely telling. While the difference from the professed "we will accept the verdict and move on" to "It can't be just a mistake, it must be the unseen hand of an impossible to prove conspiracy that made him do it!" could easily generate steam between the ears of someone who's had to listen to self-righteous rhetoric from the pro-guilt posters for several years, and is only now seeing the tables turned, taking a step back reveals the desperation behind that shifting stance.

Holding up the "Hellman must be caving in to a conspiracy" view to the light of reason reveals just how far from reason it is. And simply pointing out that irony, or making a comparative post showing the stance prior to acquittal and after acquittal speaks volumes more to an uninitiated viewer or a reasoned skeptic than reveling in the "You were wrong - Accept it" posts.

If Hellman can be influenced, then why not Massei? Which is more likely: a judge deciding to back up a member of their own country's legal system, or caving to a subtle worldwide conspiracy to free a single exchange student? We're not Israel: we don't trade 1000+ terrorists for a prisoner of war hostage, so why would we as a nation pull such strings to free a single exchange student? What does the US have to gain by this? Looking at the statistics, there are many Americans jailed abroad, and in general, our country is more than happy to let the legal systems work through in those countries rather than pull strings to get them out. It is only in cases of ambiguity and doubt that strings are pulled, such as the hikers in Iran.

Logic reveals the absurd, and one can sit back and enjoy the attempts by the pro-guilt posters to justify their stance in light of the acquittal without resorting to any form of condescension or smugness.

 

[HumanityBlues]

I have really enjoyed following this thread, but I am a little concerned at the self-righteous tone presented to some of those who disagree with the general point of view of innocence and reasonable doubt posters. Not to nitpick, but saying "You were wrong" to someone who does not believe they were wrong is no different than saying "I believe they're guilty" to someone who believes they are innocent. Logic should win the day. Once arguments based on logic have been presented, they stand and fall on their own, and the person who maintains belief in the face of logically constructed arguments that either provide doubt or tend to prove the belief is false, will never be convinced. There is no need at that point to even point out the difference of opinion as all that does is inflame the debate.

I don't think there's any need to exhort people to read a post that points out that they are in a minority view before they post. That seems to be the type of behavior more associated with certain pro-guilt monopolized sites than the kind of behavior that should run a thread dedicated to logical argumentation. I value the fact that people are free to stir the pot and remain dedicated to questionable premises in the face of evidence to the contrary here, it makes the arguments themselves stronger when there is not a herd mentality or groupthink. The goal should be to continue to present reasoned discourse that refrains from gloating, hating, smugness, self-righteousness, condescension or other negatively colored forms of speech.

Since many of the pro-guilt posters resort to such techniques in their posts, does it not behoove those of us who wish to further the argument of innocence through logical discourse to avoid going down that path?

Just my .02. I guess that given my newness to the debate I don't have as many years of frustration simmering under the surface, nor the same level of exuberant vindication resulting from the acquittal as some, and feel that it is important to maintain a dispassionate and reasoned foundation to the conversation.

That said, I do however feel immense satisfaction and relief that reason appears to have triumphed over mob justice for now in these legal proceedings.

You're reading things completely out of context. The "you were wrong" has to do with their assessment of the case and where it was going, and the deductions they were making on significant events in the trial. They WERE wrong, objectively. All the time.

Several us have said from the beginning we don't need a court to validate our opinions. They were the ones rubbing that in our faces, not the other way around. I don't remember any pro innocent poster here making clearly idiotic predictions like "the appointment of independent experts is actually a bad thing for Amanda and Raffaele" or that there was no chance they'd be acquitted. That was them. They were wrong.

Funny enough I posted a long post of all sorts of quotes of Pilot and his friends making different predictions through out the appeal, which of course hit all too close to home and so a little bird went into hot flashes and clicked violation.

So with all due respect, your analysis there is based on a totally false assumption.

And stuff like "I don't think there's any need to exhort people to read a post that points out that they are in a minority view before they post." Never cared about it when we were in the minority, don't care about it now. Majority opinions on objective facts are petty much meaningless.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Well, it's the style he has chosen that's the problem, not was he's saying. Giving it in the form of a made up monologue by Meredith Kercher was not a very good idea. The family members of the victim sadly still seem convinced that Knox and Sollecito were guilty. The loss is theirs and her memory first and foremost belongs to them. Given that I understand how this can be seen as a provocation. I actually agree with the pro guilt people on this one, although there's no need to make too much of it. A mistake by Sfarzo, IMHO.

A belated thank you for all information on the case btw. The murder case is indeed over, but I however think justice still hasn't been done, since the calunnia conviction was upheld. It makes no sense whatsoever that an innocent person should get three years of prison for an alleged crime that would not have happened if the police had conducted the investigation of the crime in a proper fashion.

Frank's writing style is unique. I understand your concerns and can see how some will view his post as insensitive, but given how the family has reacted to the appeal, I think Frank's message is loud and clear.

I agree with you that the slander charge makes no sense now that Amanda has been declared innocent. There will be no long term problems for Amanda due to the slander charge. The court saved face with the decision and I think it will eventually be overturned.

There is absolutely no way that Amanda will be extradited back to Italy for anything. To do so would be against US law. The current agreement between the US and Italy states that the reason for extradition must be respected by both judicial systems. Amanda was declared innocent by the appeals court in Italy. The US would view any further attempts to convict as double jeopardy. The US does not recognize the calunnia charge so even if it was not already satisfied with time served, it is a non factor.

 

[Keeper]

This is bonkers. When I saw something about a trust fund, I thought it was more about the educational fund they've been talking about establishing in Meredith's memory. They want people to give them money so they can go on trying to ruin Knox and Sollecito's lives? WTF?

For a start, in what bizarroland universe is it up to the family of the victim to pay for the prosecution? Oh wait, not even in Italy. So what do they want the money for? That would be to pay Maresca, right? They're appealling for money to pay Maresca to put the case for guilt to the Supreme Court - that is the court that's only supposed to be ruling on procedural propriety, right?

I'm actually not at all clear that there is a role for Maresca or a family representative at the SC appeal, though maybe someone could clarify that. Is it possible this is some desperate attempt to acquire funds to pay what they already owe him?

This is really getting quite ugly, and I wonder what they thought of the comments section of the recent Daily Fail article. The sooner the motivations report comes out the better.

Rolfe.

Just wondering Rolfe - there is a difference between the actual open letter and the report of it from Fox. The former refers to the Trust helping the case but makes no mention of the appeal against the K&S acquittal. It could mean a covering of their costs to date or an attempt to uncover the truth of what happened. I hope so anyway, the Kercher family need to come to terms with what has happened.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...fourth-anniversary-of-murder-115875-23531055/

Meanwhile The Mirror is becoming the new Mail...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...-of-meredith-kercher-s-death-115875-23528935/

 

[Diocletus]

Ugh, the first sentence is horrible officialese. The German version of that article is a bit better to understand and it says the authorities only have to inform the consular post if the "person concerned" requests it.

From the "Amanda Knox cable" we know that she was officially detained on Nov. 5th for interrogation but the embassy in Rome was only informed on the next day.
Do we know she was informed about her right to contact the consular post? Did she request it and was it denied? Or did she "just" ask for a lawyer which was denied according to her testimony?

-
Osterwelle

What we do know is that they DID contact the embassy, so it was either requested or deemed requested. Critically, they did not contact the embassy until after they had conducted a second lawyerless session following the suspect declaration at 1:45. In addition, it is apparent that they did not advise the embassy of the charge (in the handwritten note of Nov. 6) that the police had struck her.

 

[smkovalinksy]

This is bonkers. When I saw something about a trust fund, I thought it was more about the educational fund they've been talking about establishing in Meredith's memory. They want people to give them money so they can go on trying to ruin Knox and Sollecito's lives? WTF?

For a start, in what bizarroland universe is it up to the family of the victim to pay for the prosecution? Oh wait, not even in Italy. So what do they want the money for? That would be to pay Maresca, right? They're appealling for money to pay Maresca to put the case for guilt to the Supreme Court - that is the court that's only supposed to be ruling on procedural propriety, right?

I'm actually not at all clear that there is a role for Maresca or a family representative at the SC appeal, though maybe someone could clarify that. Is it possible this is some desperate attempt to acquire funds to pay what they already owe him?

This is really getting quite ugly, and I wonder what they thought of the comments section of the recent Daily Fail article. The sooner the motivations report comes out the better.

Rolfe.

Yes. It is getting ugly.

 

[katy_did]

There is absolutely no way that Amanda will be extradited back to Italy for anything. To do so would be against US law. The current agreement between the US and Italy states that the reason for extradition must be respected by both judicial systems. Amanda was declared innocent by the appeals court in Italy. The US would view any further attempts to convict as double jeopardy. The US does not recognize the calunnia charge so even if it was not already satisfied with time served, it is a non factor.

I can't believe the first part of your post is true, Bruce (that the U.S. wouldn't extradite due to 'double jeopardy') because it would mean the U.S. doesn't recognize Italy's legal system. In Italy, of course, people are presumed to be innocent until the final verdict, meaning that this verdict is equivalent to the first verdict in a U.S. case. To me it seems very unlikely the U.S. doesn't formally recognize this.

 

[Rolfe]

Just wondering Rolfe - there is a difference between the actual open letter and the report of it from Fox. The former refers to the Trust helping the case but makes no mention of the appeal against the K&S acquittal. It could mean a covering of their costs to date or an attempt to uncover the truth of what happened. I hope so anyway, the Kercher family need to come to terms with what has happened.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...fourth-anniversary-of-murder-115875-23531055/

You're right, Stephanie is very vague indeed about what they want the money for. I would have thought that they would have to spell it out if they actually launched some sort of public appeal.

Rolfe.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Your point is valid. However, just looking at that post you quoted- the conspiracy theory nature of it is extremely telling. While the difference from the professed "we will accept the verdict and move on" to "It can't be just a mistake, it must be the unseen hand of an impossible to prove conspiracy that made him do it!" could easily generate steam between the ears of someone who's had to listen to self-righteous rhetoric from the pro-guilt posters for several years, and is only now seeing the tables turned, taking a step back reveals the desperation behind that shifting stance.

Holding up the "Hellman must be caving in to a conspiracy" view to the light of reason reveals just how far from reason it is. And simply pointing out that irony, or making a comparative post showing the stance prior to acquittal and after acquittal speaks volumes more to an uninitiated viewer or a reasoned skeptic than reveling in the "You were wrong - Accept it" posts.

If Hellman can be influenced, then why not Massei? Which is more likely: a judge deciding to back up a member of their own country's legal system, or caving to a subtle worldwide conspiracy to free a single exchange student? We're not Israel: we don't trade 1000+ terrorists for a prisoner of war hostage, so why would we as a nation pull such strings to free a single exchange student? What does the US have to gain by this? Looking at the statistics, there are many Americans jailed abroad, and in general, our country is more than happy to let the legal systems work through in those countries rather than pull strings to get them out. It is only in cases of ambiguity and doubt that strings are pulled, such as the hikers in Iran.

Logic reveals the absurd, and one can sit back and enjoy the attempts by the pro-guilt posters to justify their stance in light of the acquittal without resorting to any form of condescension or smugness.

Well stated, well taken.

 

[charlatan]

There is absolutely no way that Amanda will be extradited back to Italy for anything. To do so would be against US law. The current agreement between the US and Italy states that the reason for extradition must be respected by both judicial systems. Amanda was declared innocent by the appeals court in Italy. The US would view any further attempts to convict as double jeopardy. The US does not recognize the calunnia charge so even if it was not already satisfied with time served, it is a non factor.

To take it a step further, the extradition talk is a pro-guilt red herring, a way to paint Amanda as an Italian fugitive-to-be. I am 98.43 percent certain that both Amanda and Raffaele will be fully exonerated within the framework of Italian law and the case against them will enter the history books as a miscarriage of justice.

 

[Rolfe]

When would extradition kick in anyway?

If the Supreme Court doesn't uphold Hellmann, then they'll send it back to the second level for a retrial, right? Knox would then be subject to extradition at that point, in order to stand trial. That's the usual procedure as I understand it. It's not a case of her being found guilty in absentia and then extradited.

So wouldn't the strength of the case be examined by the US authorities at that stage? The USA seems to have this right in these treaties, although it has managed to negotiate asymmetric treaties where it only has to demand someone and the other country has to comply. So, is it likely the US would grant an extradition request based on evidence that had been shredded in the Hellmann court?

Rolfe.