Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Antony]

As this was being cited on PMF this morning, I decided to have a look.

Simply horrid. Murphy, while admitting not being an expert on Italian justice, gives the host and audience to understand that if we would only stop listening to the PR machine, and "read the file", we would KNOW Knox is guilty, and that the Italian Supreme Court will overturn the appellate verdict.

Ugh. I wonder what her motive is? I guess to stand out and be different, and to be counted among the "outraged":

http://www.necn.com/searchNECN/search/v/46713768/boston-attorney-on-amanda-knox-conrad-murray.htm

Quite appalling. Do defamation laws not exist in the US?

 

[smkovalinksy]

Quite appalling. Do defamation laws not exist in the US?

It is very unclear, as Americans are extremely gung-ho on the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Below explains further:

Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries, due to the enforcement of the First Amendment.

In the United States, a comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander is difficult, because the definition differs between different states, and under federal law. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws.

Criminal libel is rarely prosecuted but exists on the books in many states, and is constitutionally permitted in circumstances essentially identical to those where civil libels liability is constitutional. Defenses to libel that can result in dismissal before trial include the statement being one of opinion rather than fact or being "fair comment and criticism," though neither of these are imperatives on the US constitution. Truth is always an absolute defense against a defamation suit in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law

 

[Chris_Halkides]

what was not said was almost as bad as what was

What a stupid, irresponsible and destructive person, this Murphy. Pretty much everything she said was factually wrong.

Katody Matrass,

The interview went by more quickly than I could write. She said or implied:
No one would care about the case if Amanda were a 40 year old man.
The PR campaign bamboozled everyone but Ms. Murphy (and Nancy Grace).
There was (might have been) political pressure.
The authorities proved Knox’s staying at Sollecito’s flat was a iie.
Knox knew things only a murderer would know.
The knife was scrubbed clean with bleach and brillo.
There were 5 spots of blood/DNA.
Amanda and Meredith lived in the same household for only two weeks.
Amanda spent the evening with Rudi.
No one remembers Rudi Guede, who is black.

She did not say:
The Conti/Vecchiotti report demolished the two main pillars of DNA evidence.
The stomach/duodenum contents rule out Amanda’s or Raffaele’s involvement.
Raffaele’s screensaver files back up their alibi, according to the defense.
The mixed DNA results may be the result of either simple cohabitation or be an artifact of collection.

 

[Bill Williams]

As this was being cited on PMF this morning, I decided to have a look.

Simply horrid. Murphy, while admitting not being an expert on Italian justice, gives the host and audience to understand that if we would only stop listening to the PR machine, and "read the file", we would KNOW Knox is guilty, and that the Italian Supreme Court will overturn the appellate verdict.

Ugh. I wonder what her motive is? I guess to stand out and be different, and to be counted among the "outraged":

http://www.necn.com/searchNECN/search/v/46713768/boston-attorney-on-amanda-knox-conrad-murray.htm

Rhetorically, the phrase "stop listening to the PR machine" means, don't listen to anything that exonerates Knox and Sollecito. It is shorthand for anything that acquits them must be information from Marriott in Seattle, because, afterall, we know her and him to be guilty.

Once again, they need a short course in circular reasoning as well as a refresher in "begging the question."

PGP used to make more sophisticated mistakes of argumentation. That it has come to this says all that needs saying.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Yes, I agree that Murphy and her arguments are false to the point of being pathetic.

And yes, destructive, too.

I think the SC will uphold Hellmann and put an end to all of this.

So long as they hold out for the overturning of the acquittals, the PGs do not have to believe that time has moved forward, leaving these old arguments in the dust.

"Murphy's law" reeks of the Nancy Grace mentality, and can be laid out like the axioms of logic:

• All the accused are guilty as hell
• only bleeding-heart idiots, cretins, and the stupid and evil believe in false accusations and convictions
• young girls accused of crimes are even more vile than the prosecution asserts
• the lynch-mob mentality is the ideal we should return to
• identifying with the victim and the prosecution gives you power and glory
• the dichotomies of antiquity and of the medieval period: Good vs evil, witch vs saint, depravity vs holiness, must be reactivated to save the culture
• anyone who believes otherwise is decadent, corrupt, with the Mafia or conspiring with a vast PR campaign
• and on, and on, and on ad nauseum.

Lemme outta here......

 

[Grinder]

No matter how one feels about this case Wendy should be distained. Check out her support for Nyfong

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vNggdW3lZ8

Wendy Murphy supporting DA Nifong

She is really a piece of work

 

[Bill Williams]

Knox knew things only a murderer would know.

This is the only point that remotely interests me. For instance, "The authorities proved Knox’s staying at Sollecito’s flat was a iie," is a complete non-sequitor, because the authorities had to prove that they were also at the cottage to make presence or absence at Raffaele's even remotely interesting, and there is no evidence at all that they were ever at the cottage on Nov 1.

But this business of Knox displaying knowledge of specifics of the murder? Was this point EVER raised by the prosecution at trial? If not, why not?

I asked this some weeks ago because it's what Nancy Grace and Ann Coulter said was making them lean in the PGP direction, and both Grace and Coulter are beacons of fairness.

The only thing I have EVER heard about this, is Knox repeating what the postal police had said, or what someone else mistakenly heard them say (in Italian) that Knox presumably repeated in English - "That there was a foot sticking out of the closet."

Or is this simply another factoid that PGP pull out of their argumentation toolkit, forgetting that it either was a factoid, or disproven, but somehow the mere repetition of it makes it sure seem true?

Can anyone enlighten? What piece of knowledge was Knox supposed to have had? If it's the foot sticking out of the closet thing, then that just proves Knox knew nothing of the crime scene - which I guess proves that she was actually misdirecting the police!

 

[nabee]

This is the only point that remotely interests me. For instance, "The authorities proved Knox’s staying at Sollecito’s flat was a iie," is a complete non-sequitor, because the authorities had to prove that they were also at the cottage to make presence or absence at Raffaele's even remotely interesting, and there is no evidence at all that they were ever at the cottage on Nov 1.

But this business of Knox displaying knowledge of specifics of the murder? Was this point EVER raised by the prosecution at trial? If not, why not?

I asked this some weeks ago because it's what Nancy Grace and Ann Coulter said was making them lean in the PGP direction, and both Grace and Coulter are beacons of fairness.

The only thing I have EVER heard about this, is Knox repeating what the postal police had said, or what someone else mistakenly heard them say (in Italian) that Knox presumably repeated in English - "That there was a foot sticking out of the closet."

Or is this simply another factoid that PGP pull out of their argumentation toolkit, forgetting that it either was a factoid, or disproven, but somehow the mere repetition of it makes it sure seem true?

Can anyone enlighten? What piece of knowledge was Knox supposed to have had? If it's the foot sticking out of the closet thing, then that just proves Knox knew nothing of the crime scene - which I guess proves that she was actually misdirecting the police!

The PM contended that AK knew things she shouldn't have known if she had not been present at the time of the murder: (excerpts from trial transcripts as posted ON PMF)

On the location of the body, Meredith's wounds and 'the foot'.

LG: Listen, I'm interested by the following precise detail: when the
door was broken down, exactly where were you?

AK: I was near the entrance.

LG: Did you see into the room, or you didn't?

AK: No, I didn't see.

LG: You say you didn't see, because you were standing a little bit away.

AK: Yes, right.

LG: And then you were all sent out.

AK: Yes, and everyone was talking...

LG: I'm asking you this because in your first interrogation, in the Questura,
on the afternoon of Nov 2, you talked about a corpse in the closet.

AK: Yes, in fact.

LG: Can you explain to the court why you said this?

AK: Well, outside of the house, everyone was talking and crying, people saying
different things, asking and calling different things, and they were mostly
talking about what they had seen inside the room. I was thinking, a foot?
What could a foot be doing in Meredith's room? So Raffaele asked certain
people, for me, to explain what they had seen, and we heard that there was
a corpse in the closet, covered with a cover, with one foot out, and
that's the image I understood, that there was a corpse in the closet, shut
inside the closet, but there was a foot sticking out. That's what I
understood, but then it was all confusion...

LG: Sorry, were you finished?

AK: Yes.

LG: When you got to that kind of little place outside of the house, when everyone
was outside, did someone arrive then, the Red Cross or a 118, someone?

AK: Other officers arrived, I didn't understand who they were.

LG: And you got into the car of Filomena's two friends, Paola and...?

AK: Yes, it was really really cold. First, Raffaele gave me his jacket, but then
the others saw that I was cold, really in shock, so they said come, come,
let's get in the car and get warm. And inside that car, we talked more about...
we kept on saying "But what did you see? Who was there?" So in the car, heh,
still using Raffaele a bit like an interpreter, they explained to me that they
heard from someone, from someone else, from one of the officers who were talking,
that she...

LG: Meredith

AK: ...that Meredith had had her throat slit, and at that point I became a bit...uh
[sigh]...I closed myself off a bit inside...I cried a bit because I kept thinking
but...how is it possible? No...[slightly desperate laugh], it was too
much, so [sigh, voice trembling], and then, we went to the Questura.

On hearing Meredith scream;

CP: Signorina Amanda, listen. On the evening of November 1, 2007, did you
hear Meredith, poor Meredith, scream?

AK: No.

CP: In the interrogation of November 6, 2007, at 5:45, you declared that before
she died, you heard Meredith scream. How could you know that Meredith
screamed before she was killed? Who told you?

AK: So when I was with the police, they asked if I heard Meredith's scream.
I said no. They said "But if you were there, how could you not hear her
scream? If you were there?" I said "Look, I don't know, maybe I had my ears
covered." So they said "Fine, we'll write that down. Fine."

CP: [louder] But I can tell you that on November 6, the police did not know
that Meredith screamed before she died, so why would they suggest it to you?

AK: I imagine that maybe they were imagining how it might have been.

GCM: Fine, we can ask questions, but excuse me, avvocato, always with a tone
that is reasonably --

CP: [even louder, cutting in] So the police suggested it to you?

GCM: Avvocato, avvocato, but please keep your tone reasonable calm.

[Voices]

 

[nabee]

This is the only point that remotely interests me. For instance, "The authorities proved Knox’s staying at Sollecito’s flat was a iie," is a complete non-sequitor, because the authorities had to prove that they were also at the cottage to make presence or absence at Raffaele's even remotely interesting, and there is no evidence at all that they were ever at the cottage on Nov 1.

But this business of Knox displaying knowledge of specifics of the murder? Was this point EVER raised by the prosecution at trial? If not, why not?

I asked this some weeks ago because it's what Nancy Grace and Ann Coulter said was making them lean in the PGP direction, and both Grace and Coulter are beacons of fairness.

The only thing I have EVER heard about this, is Knox repeating what the postal police had said, or what someone else mistakenly heard them say (in Italian) that Knox presumably repeated in English - "That there was a foot sticking out of the closet."

Or is this simply another factoid that PGP pull out of their argumentation toolkit, forgetting that it either was a factoid, or disproven, but somehow the mere repetition of it makes it sure seem true?

Can anyone enlighten? What piece of knowledge was Knox supposed to have had? If it's the foot sticking out of the closet thing, then that just proves Knox knew nothing of the crime scene - which I guess proves that she was actually misdirecting the police!

Also, on sexual activity/rape;


CP: All right, I'll reformulate the question. Meredith, before she was
killed, did she have sex?

AK: I don't know.

CP: Then why, in the interrogation of Nov 6 at 1:45, did you say that
Meredith had sex before she died?

AK: Under pressure, I imagined lots of different things, also because during
the days that I was being questioned by the police, they suggested to me
that she had been raped.

CP: And the police suggested to you to say this?

AK: Yes.

CP: And to make you say this, did they hit you?

AK: Yes.

 

[Antony]

Katody Matrass,

The interview went by more quickly than I could write. She said or implied:
No one would care about the case if Amanda were a 40 year old man.
The PR campaign bamboozled everyone but Ms. Murphy (and Nancy Grace).
There was (might have been) political pressure.
The authorities proved Knox’s staying at Sollecito’s flat was a iie.
Knox knew things only a murderer would know.
The knife was scrubbed clean with bleach and brillo.
There were 5 spots of blood/DNA.
Amanda and Meredith lived in the same household for only two weeks.
Amanda spent the evening with Rudi.
No one remembers Rudi Guede, who is black.

She did not say:
The Conti/Vecchiotti report demolished the two main pillars of DNA evidence.
The stomach/duodenum contents rule out Amanda’s or Raffaele’s involvement.
Raffaele’s screensaver files back up their alibi, according to the defense.
The mixed DNA results may be the result of either simple cohabitation or be an artifact of collection.

She also said "99% of people charged are guilty", which made me mentally retch.

 

[Antony]

It is very unclear, as Americans are extremely gung-ho on the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Below explains further:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law

It's not clear to me that that would protect Wendy Murphy (or the broadcasting network) from a defamation suit from the Knox legal team.

 

[Kaosium]

This is the only point that remotely interests me. For instance, "The authorities proved Knox’s staying at Sollecito’s flat was a iie," is a complete non-sequitor, because the authorities had to prove that they were also at the cottage to make presence or absence at Raffaele's even remotely interesting, and there is no evidence at all that they were ever at the cottage on Nov 1.

But this business of Knox displaying knowledge of specifics of the murder? Was this point EVER raised by the prosecution at trial? If not, why not?

I asked this some weeks ago because it's what Nancy Grace and Ann Coulter said was making them lean in the PGP direction, and both Grace and Coulter are beacons of fairness.

The only thing I have EVER heard about this, is Knox repeating what the postal police had said, or what someone else mistakenly heard them say (in Italian) that Knox presumably repeated in English - "That there was a foot sticking out of the closet."

Or is this simply another factoid that PGP pull out of their argumentation toolkit, forgetting that it either was a factoid, or disproven, but somehow the mere repetition of it makes it sure seem true?

Can anyone enlighten? What piece of knowledge was Knox supposed to have had? If it's the foot sticking out of the closet thing, then that just proves Knox knew nothing of the crime scene - which I guess proves that she was actually misdirecting the police!

Yes, that bit about the foot and that she knew her throat had been cut. However being as she was there at the scene she had to pick some things up about it from the people talking and gesturing. Some correct, some not, because she didn't look for herself.

 

[LondonJohn]

Quite appalling. Do defamation laws not exist in the US?

Not particularly stringent ones, and ones where the person being defamed has a certain obligation to prove the falsehood and maliciousness of the allegation.

However, here in the UK we have far more plaintiff-friendly defamation laws. Here, Knox would not have to say a single thing towards "proving" the falsehood of the accusations, and would only need to demonstrate malicious intent if she wanted to claim punitive damages (as opposed to compensatory damages and a correction/strikeout). Instead, the entire burden of proof would fall upon the defendant to prove that the accusations were either true (justification) or that they were fair comment or opinion. In my view, in this case the defendant would not be able to provide an adequate defence on any one of these possibilities.

And fortunately, this video is manifestly available for viewing in the UK. Even more fortunately, precedent has established that this is sufficient condition for even a non-UK resident to bring an action against another non-UK resident. So I'd suggest that there is potential remedy for Knox in the UK courts, if she or her family care about pursuing such a matter.

 

[LondonJohn]

May I just take a moment to point out that there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Hellmann's court was improperly influenced by any outside factors, and nor is there any evidence to suggest that anyone within Hellmann's court was improperly communicating the court's thinking to outsiders prior to deliberations and the verdict. Some groups seem to be attempting to revive these myths, and of course are choosing to interpret the flimsiest of factors as "evidence" of wrongdoing or corruption.

I'd imagine, for example, that the reason that someone close to the Knox camp might have said something like "it's over" as long ago as July was that even an objective view of the situation at that point would have led to the same conclusion. The Conti-Vecchiotti report had confirmed what many objective commentators had been saying for a very long time about the total farce surrounding the police antics with the knife and bra clasp, and about the wider farce concerning the entire crime scene analysis. Objective commentators also knew that Hellmann's court had already confirmed another thing they long knew to be true: "superwitness" Curatolo was a shambling heroin-abusing wreck who could barely distinguish himself from the Messiah, and whose "evidence" against Knox and Sollecito was not only provably wrong (viz disco buses and students in masks), but was inherently unreliable in almost every way imaginable.

So when anyone declared in July (or so) that the case was "over", there didn't need to be any inside knowledge to be able to confidently make that assertion. Closer to the verdict, it's true to say, I was confident enough to state repeatedly here that I was 100% certain that Knox and Sollecito would be acquitted of murder in Hellmann's court. I was certain in my beliefs because I knew what the court knew, and I therefore knew that - barring malpractice or incompetence of a very serious standard - the court was absolutely bound to acquit. I most certainly didn't have any inside knowledge of the upcoming verdict, and I most certainly hadn't received a shady "tip-off" that "Hellmann has been taken care of - he's ours now"....

 

[LondonJohn]

Browsing back through some of Clouseau's Nadeau's witterings in the Daily Beast, I came across this typical example of her ignorance of the Italian appeal trial process (one that didn't stop her feeling qualified to call herself a reporting journalist in relation to this case) (my bolding):

Even if the DNA ruling proves favorable to Knox and Sollecito, there are still a number of troubling pieces of evidence used to convict them that are not, so far, being reexamined by this appellate court. A staged break-in, mixed DNA and blood evidence, and signs of a clean-up are not on the appellate agenda, and neither is Knox’s questionable alibi and her changing stories in the early days of the investigation—all elements that weighed as much as the knife and bra clasp in the convicting judge’s reasoning. How this court squares those elements will be known only in their final ruling, which could come before the summer break in July, or more likely in September when Italian courts are back in session.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...al-homeless-mans-contradictory-testimony.html


I wonder what Barbie's up to these days? Waiting for the nomination letter from the Pulitzer committee, no doubt......

 

[LondonJohn]

Another piece of utterly inaccurate reportage from the stable of Nadeau, which has direct relevance to the ongoing Supreme Court process for Knox and Sollecito:

...Knox has reason to hope—and reason to worry. Her Moldavian jailmate, known as the “black widow,” had her own murder conviction overturned on the second level, only to find herself reconvicted of the crime by the high court. At this stage, literally anything could happen.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...x-trail-awaits-verdict-on-october-3-2011.html

In fact, Biriukova was acquitted in the first trial, then convicted in the second trial (i.e. the appeal trial). This provision conviction on appeal was then confirmed by the Supreme Court in the third stage of the process. Clouseau's incorrect version of events wrongly suggests a correlation to the cases of Knox and Sollecito, in that it suggests that even if they were to be acquitted in the appeal trial (the article was written before the verdict), the precedent of Biriukova indicated that the Supreme Court might overturn the acquittals and impose convictions. Not only is this an incorrect analysis of what really happened in Biriukova's case, it's also not possible in any case: the most that the Supreme Court could do in the case of an Appeal Court acquittal would be to send the case back to Appeal Court level for a retrial. The Supreme Court could not, and would not, simply overturn any Appeal Court acquittal and impose a conviction.

Oh, and one more minor goof in this quoted passage: Biriukova is a Moldovan national, not "Moldavian". Moldova is a nation state, created after the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Moldavia, on the other hand, is a rough geographic region, part of which lies within the modern country of Moldova, part within Ukraine, and part within Romania.

 

[nabee]

Re the highlighted part: I think it's unlikely that even the Keystone Cops in this case literally poured Luminol solution onto the floor. But I do, however, think it's highly possible that they sprayed so much Luminol onto certain areas that they effectively ended up creating pools of the solution. Of course, the proper procedure is to apply a light mist of Luminol to the area being tested, in order to preserve the shape and integrity of any evidence to be exposed.

And regarding the strange sensitivity of the Luminol photos produced in this case, I strongly suspect that the exposures on these photos was pushed - either deliberately or through incompetence - and had the effect of maximising artifacts and the tiniest of reactions. We already know that the "official" exposure settings for many of the photos was 2-3 times higher than the recommended exposures, and there also may have been digital balance/contrast alteration applied (just like, for example, it's possible to do with photos of the walls of the cottage at nighttime )

In the book Darkness Descending, chapter 37, Garafono's explanation of the luminol testing/footprint evidence addresses this issue. He describes the work done with luminol as 'sloppy' or 'imprecise'.

"....The other problem I have is the way Luminol was applied.The size of the blobs shows that it was not carefully vaporized, but squirted. This creates two problems. It dilutes the sample and it dilates the print..." [p. 366]


"The Colonel turned his computer: 'This is what can be achieved if the Luminol is vaporized rather than squirted.' The picture he pointed to was a clear footprint, wih the crease lines and scars." [p.366]

 

[smkovalinksy]

She also said "99% of people charged are guilty", which made me mentally retch.

Yes. I have often pondered the Nancy Grace/Wendy Murphy mentality which has been rampant since the mid-'80s, and have concluded that in former times, people could vent their spleen and venom on the black, the homosexual, the Jew. In our culture of diversity, the criminal class is the new target, and the only ones left who can safely and openly be hated and denigrated.

Insofar as the defamation issue goes, I would say that is Knox's legal team's responsibility. Maybe they are awaiting the judgment of the Court of Cassation , and then it will be safe to air these grievances?

 

[anglolawyer]

This is the only point that remotely interests me. For instance, "The authorities proved Knox’s staying at Sollecito’s flat was a iie," is a complete non-sequitor, because the authorities had to prove that they were also at the cottage to make presence or absence at Raffaele's even remotely interesting, and there is no evidence at all that they were ever at the cottage on Nov 1.

But this business of Knox displaying knowledge of specifics of the murder? Was this point EVER raised by the prosecution at trial? If not, why not?

I asked this some weeks ago because it's what Nancy Grace and Ann Coulter said was making them lean in the PGP direction, and both Grace and Coulter are beacons of fairness.

The only thing I have EVER heard about this, is Knox repeating what the postal police had said, or what someone else mistakenly heard them say (in Italian) that Knox presumably repeated in English - "That there was a foot sticking out of the closet."

Or is this simply another factoid that PGP pull out of their argumentation toolkit, forgetting that it either was a factoid, or disproven, but somehow the mere repetition of it makes it sure seem true?

Can anyone enlighten? What piece of knowledge was Knox supposed to have had? If it's the foot sticking out of the closet thing, then that just proves Knox knew nothing of the crime scene - which I guess proves that she was actually misdirecting the police!

There was a suggestion she knew Meredith's throat was cut despite not seeing the body, but there is an explanation for that (I think the guy who broke the door down saw the postal policeman lift the quilt to look as the victim - an act he denied in court - and got it from him).

 

[anglolawyer]

Not particularly stringent ones, and ones where the person being defamed has a certain obligation to prove the falsehood and maliciousness of the allegation.

However, here in the UK we have far more plaintiff-friendly defamation laws. Here, Knox would not have to say a single thing towards "proving" the falsehood of the accusations, and would only need to demonstrate malicious intent if she wanted to claim punitive damages (as opposed to compensatory damages and a correction/strikeout). Instead, the entire burden of proof would fall upon the defendant to prove that the accusations were either true (justification) or that they were fair comment or opinion. In my view, in this case the defendant would not be able to provide an adequate defence on any one of these possibilities.

And fortunately, this video is manifestly available for viewing in the UK. Even more fortunately, precedent has established that this is sufficient condition for even a non-UK resident to bring an action against another non-UK resident. So I'd suggest that there is potential remedy for Knox in the UK courts, if she or her family care about pursuing such a matter.

I second all of that.