Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Mary_H]

Also an invitation to incompetence. Does the prosecutor get to appeal a first instance acquittal or is it game, set and match at that point?

No, they all get to appeal 'til the cows come home.

It is definitely an invitation to incompetence, and it ends up costing everybody 2-3 times as much as one trial would.

 

[anglolawyer]

No, they all get to appeal 'til the cows come home.

It is definitely an invitation to incompetence, and it ends up costing everybody 2-3 times as much as one trial would.

I find the rule where they first get tried by semi-literate folk and then by educated ones kinda funny. Like first the peasantry has a go then the gentry. Maybe they should have a pre-first instance trial with mobs with pitchforks chasing the accused into a windmill and setting fire to it. Like what happened to Frankenstein's monster. And then right at the end there could be a further appeal in front of a panel of Nobel prize-winners.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Cuomo's interview

I am tired of interviewers like Couric and Cuomo. They think that they are asking tough questions, but in fact they are nothing more than PM Mignini's useful idiots.

 

[JREF2010]

Here is Candace's report on Kokomani. Either he is nuts, or he is crazy like a fox. Note the photo credits at the end.

When I clicked on Franks Perugia Shock link it went to a "Blog has been Removed".

A reminder to what great lengths Migninni will go to to suffocate anyone who isn't supporting him. Abuse of Power?

 

[JREF2010]

I am tired of interviewers like Couric and Cuomo. They think that they are asking tough questions, but in fact they are nothing more than PM Mignini's useful idiots.

The perspective of those who want to see things as guilty, or suspicious is magnified in Cuomo's questioning. Was it intentional or not? I suspect due to the SC decision many will jump on the fence again to prevent being "wrong".
At work we call them "weather vane people", they dont really have a stance they just turn to which ever belief is strongest at that specific time, which ever way the wind blows.

Cuomo definitely attempted at Guilter type questions, but it was so lame because he made comments on his reading of facial expressions and all that non sense of soap opera detective work. He almost made me wonder how many Edgardo Giobiis are out there? Do they really believe their "gut instinct technology" is better than science and real evidence?

Soap opera detectives and gut-instinct technology....ignorance is a scary thing.

and as usual Rudy Guede gets mentioned about 2 micro seconds. This seems to be a huge communication missing link for people who dont know the case. Most low level interest parties think Patrick was Rudy or vice versa, or they dont even know the whole story of Rudy Guede and the evidence found against him.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

when to cry or not to cry

Soap opera detectives and gut-instinct technology....ignorance is a scary thing.

and as usual Rudy Guede gets mentioned about 2 micro seconds. This seems to be a huge communication missing link for people who dont know the case. Most low level interest parties think Patrick was Rudy or vice versa, or they dont even know the whole story of Rudy Guede and the evidence found against him.

You are spot on with respect to the average person confusing Rudy and Patrick. It is a horse race whether Rudy is the forgotten man here, or Raffaele. Sometimes I wish Amanda would answer, "You know [name of interviewer here]*, I am not the only person whose liberty may be in jeopardy from all of this cartwheel-nonsense. Raffaele could be convicted again, and no one even accused him of crying or not crying at an inappropriate time."
*or she could just say "you stupid twit." I favor the latter.

 

[Bill Williams]

You are spot on with respect to the average person confusing Rudy and Patrick. It is a horse race whether Rudy is the forgotten man here, or Raffaele. Sometimes I wish Amanda would answer, "You know [name of interviewer here]*, I am not the only person whose liberty may be in jeopardy from all of this cartwheel-nonsense. Raffaele could be convicted again, and no one even accused him of crying or not crying at an inappropriate time."
*or she could just say "you stupid twit." I favor the latter.

Katie Couric's interview of Raffaele was significant in that all she wanted to know about was Amanda - and why all the weird behaviour from Amanda? It was almost as if Raffaele had to keep saying, "I'm sitting right here, you know. How on earth could I know about these questions about Amanda, I only knew the woman for 9 days! Ask me a question about me and I'll give you an answer."

Cuomo asked the questions about all the "weird behaviour" as a way of addressing what remains of a guilter argument - "After all lady, you brought all this on yourself." That's a double-bind statement; the guilters use it as a catchall to cover off both possibilities. The one possibility is that they have hated and vilified an innocent person, but she brought in on herself with weird behaviour....

.... wait a minute. Isn't that the prosecution's fall back position? "We may of gone off the rails before Rudy was on the scene, but after all it was Knox's fault with all the Broadway theatrics and kissing." Does this not beg a huge question about what criminal investigators do for a living? Aren't they trained to sift through the noise of a crime scene and zero in on a perp? Can a 20-year old foreign speaker REALLY be blamed for pulling them off the rails, without at least someone in the legal hierarchy saying to Giobbi, Napoleoni and Mignini, "What the hell are we paying you for?"

I know in our household the younger ones were actually converted to Knox's story because of Cuomo's style. "You mean that's what she's had to endure these past five years?"

Focussing on Knox's behaviour like Cuomo did does more than forget the victim, Meredith Kercher, it actually forgets the police and prosecution and the fact that it was they who allowed it to pull them off of solving this crime.

 

[Mary_H]

I find the rule where they first get tried by semi-literate folk and then by educated ones kinda funny. Like first the peasantry has a go then the gentry. Maybe they should have a pre-first instance trial with mobs with pitchforks chasing the accused into a windmill and setting fire to it. Like what happened to Frankenstein's monster. And then right at the end there could be a further appeal in front of a panel of Nobel prize-winners.

 

[tsig]

When I clicked on Franks Perugia Shock link it went to a "Blog has been Removed".

A reminder to what great lengths Migninni will go to to suffocate anyone who isn't supporting him. Abuse of Power?

Any evidence that Migninni had anything to do with shutting down Franks' blog?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Sfarzo and Google blogger

Any evidence that Migninni had anything to do with shutting down Franks' blog?

Link here. This was one time when Google was not our friend.

 

[Bill Williams]

Any evidence that Migninni had anything to do with shutting down Franks' blog?

Link here. This was one time when Google was not our friend.

I believe "tsig" may be referring to Frank pulling his blog this time, not way-back-when Mignini was trying to shut down anyone who disagreed with him. (Oh wait, he's still doing that.)

It is unknown why Frank's blog is down this time. If I understand correctly.

 

[Bill Williams]

CNN's Chris Cuomo addresses the avalanche of feedback he's received about his interview with Amanda Knox.

Thanks for all the interest in the Amanda Knox intv. You are all free to judge her and me but allow a little context. The allegations about her sexuality have not been proven in court. In fact, there was almost no proof offered to support prosecutors' theories abt "deviance gone terribly wrong". Also, how someone reacts after a crime or with police is not a great basis for judging criminality.

Most of you know me and my work and to some i seemed unusually aggressive. But to be clear, Knox came to me because after the first wave of media she felt there was still a need to face the tough questions and points that fuel doubt abt her. That was the intv I promised her. It would have been easier for me to mix soft balls and hard balls but i wanted to give her the chance to respond to the worst of what is out there. If people, after hearing the tough questions and the accusations that are certainly out there about her ( nothing I asked was created by me as an idea/ all were criticisms or conjecture from media or prosecutors ), if people feel her answers were better than the questions , then i did my job. I am satisfied with criticism of style if it evoked a fair appraisal of Knox.

Again, you all are free and encouraged to judge the answers and the questions as u see fit, but just know there was a promise of format and intent, and the promise was kept. One of the first people to contact me after the interview was Amanda Knox and she said thank you for the opportunity to take on the tough stuff.

For my money at the end of the day he agrees that Knox is innocent. He said that weird behaviour is no way to solve a crime, and that all the sexualized stuff about Knox brought by the prosecution actually had no evidence to support it - it was just that, asserted. (Heck, even Judge Massei, the convicting judge, rejected all the prosecution's theories of motive, etc.)

 

[yimyammer]

The wiki is a private source repository for case related materials. For technical reasons I cannot open this to the public but have sent private invitations to individuals who have shown an ability to collect and present factual data on the case.

Bummer, sounds interesting.

Thanks for the heads up

 

[yimyammer]

I am tired of interviewers like Couric and Cuomo. They think that they are asking tough questions, but in fact they are nothing more than PM Mignini's useful idiots.

Interesting, What questions or tact would you have preferred them to take?

I'm on the innocence side of the debate but wanted her grilled with every conceivable "difficult" question because I feel like if she is on the side of the truth, she has nothing to fear

Perhaps I'm naive but I always wondered why an innocent person would be afraid to testify on their own behalf thinking I cant be tripped up if I didn't do anything.

Then again, there was that "confession" (quotes deliberately) they got from her in the interrogations so in retrospect that was the time to keep mum

PS...I thought she did well in the interview and came across as a person trapped by her knowledge of the intense analysis of every word or action she says or displays while trying to come across as honest, genuine, sincere and compassionate for the parties harmed in this case. Like Bill says, that could just be my confirmation bias as I am sure those that think she is guilt feel the opposite

 

[anglolawyer]

The deleted text

I just want to record for future reference (i.e. no need to reply) that I am reliably informed Amanda said in her New Zealand radio interview she was shown Patrick's text during her interrogation. It seems the interviewer, due, I have no doubt, to sheer negligence, has not been reading here and hadn't read my ground-breaking article so the point was unfortunately not pursued.

 

[yimyammer]

The perspective of those who want to see things as guilty, or suspicious is magnified in Cuomo's questioning. Was it intentional or not? I suspect due to the SC decision many will jump on the fence again to prevent being "wrong".
At work we call them "weather vane people", they dont really have a stance they just turn to which ever belief is strongest at that specific time, which ever way the wind blows.

Cuomo definitely attempted at Guilter type questions, but it was so lame because he made comments on his reading of facial expressions and all that non sense of soap opera detective work. He almost made me wonder how many Edgardo Giobiis are out there? Do they really believe their "gut instinct technology" is better than science and real evidence?

Soap opera detectives and gut-instinct technology....ignorance is a scary thing.

and as usual Rudy Guede gets mentioned about 2 micro seconds. This seems to be a huge communication missing link for people who dont know the case. Most low level interest parties think Patrick was Rudy or vice versa, or they dont even know the whole story of Rudy Guede and the evidence found against him.

On that note, in the interviews I've seen, its one thing I feel like she should be screaming at the top of her lungs----> that she didn't even know Rudy (beyond quick introductions and being in the same room at a couple of occasions) and neither did Raf, so the idea that the three of them spontaneously got together in the short amount of time they had between discovering they were free for the evening and the time of the murder and committed this crime is ludicrous.

I wish she had asked her interviewers why they don't attack Rudy with the same level of scrutiny and question him exhaustively as to how this crime took place and what his versions of events were.

I have a hard time believing that a tough interviewer or attorney wouldn't have him tripping over his own words in no time at all or the outside chance that he miraculously gives the world a true account of how these three found themselves in a murder spree on that night that finally explains what happened in a way that makes sense and corresponds with the evidence at the scene.

 

[dudalb]

I am not sure that Knox is quite as pure and chaste a person as she is portraying herself to be, but IMHO the evidence against her is not very strong, and that the Italian Justice System is still pursuing her just proves how corrupt and messed up the Italian Justice System is. Anybody who has studies the Italian Justice system remarkable lenenicy with organized crime figures will see that.
What Knox is trying to do is build up public support in the US to make her extradition a political hot potato. The US prohibition on Double Jeopardy will give the Justice Department a nice shield for refusing extradition.

 

[Bill Williams]

I am not sure that Knox is quite as pure and chaste a person as she is portraying herself to be, but IMHO the evidence against her is not very strong, and that the Italian Justice System is still pursuing her just proves how corrupt and messed up the Italian Justice System is. Anybody who has studies the Italian Justice system remarkable lenenicy with organized crime figures will see that.
What Knox is trying to do is build up public support in the US to make her extradition a political hot potato. The US prohibition on Double Jeopardy will give the Justice Department a nice shield for refusing extradition.

What version of Amanda's own portray of herself are YOU reading? When has she EVER portrayed herself as "pure and chaste"? Sheesh.

And I am all for Ms. Knox defending herself. I never quite fathomed the argument that Knox had no right to defend herself and that ANYTHING said in her defence is merely a PR campaign.

Like many have said, the next time the Heart & Stroke foundation have an ad on TV, merely to coerce you to donate to their cause, I'm going to decline on the grounds, "It's just a PR campaign."

 

[Mary_H]

Interesting, What questions or tact would you have preferred them to take?

I'm on the innocence side of the debate but wanted her grilled with every conceivable "difficult" question because I feel like if she is on the side of the truth, she has nothing to fear

Perhaps I'm naive but I always wondered why an innocent person would be afraid to testify on their own behalf thinking I cant be tripped up if I didn't do anything.

Then again, there was that "confession" (quotes deliberately) they got from her in the interrogations so in retrospect that was the time to keep mum

PS...I thought she did well in the interview and came across as a person trapped by her knowledge of the intense analysis of every word or action she says or displays while trying to come across as honest, genuine, sincere and compassionate for the parties harmed in this case. Like Bill says, that could just be my confirmation bias as I am sure those that think she is guilt feel the opposite

A lot of people take it for granted that Amanda should be asked questions about why she was suspected, arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned.

Why should she? She has nothing to answer for. She had nothing to do with it. Everything that happened to her was initiated by the police and the prosecutors. They are the ones who should be asked why Amanda was suspected, arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned. Then, when their answers don't make any sense, they should be seriously taken to task.

Every time someone asks Amanda about her behavior and her sexuality, they are lending credence to the malicious case against her. Most of our society now refrains from asking rape victims why they were raped, because they know the victim has no responsibility to explain. That should be the thinking in Amanda's case.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

where there is (marijuana) smoke

Interesting, What questions or tact would you have preferred them to take?

I'm on the innocence side of the debate but wanted her grilled with every conceivable "difficult" question because I feel like if she is on the side of the truth, she has nothing to fear

Perhaps I'm naive but I always wondered why an innocent person would be afraid to testify on their own behalf thinking I cant be tripped up if I didn't do anything.

Then again, there was that "confession" (quotes deliberately) they got from her in the interrogations so in retrospect that was the time to keep mum

PS...I thought she did well in the interview and came across as a person trapped by her knowledge of the intense analysis of every word or action she says or displays while trying to come across as honest, genuine, sincere and compassionate for the parties harmed in this case. Like Bill says, that could just be my confirmation bias as I am sure those that think she is guilt feel the opposite

One, Amanda testified, although Raffaele only made spontaneous statements. I think people should only testify when they alone can provide certain information; good prosecutors can get innocent people to say things that sound incriminating, as has been discussed here before, most persuasively by Kestrel IMO. There is a long but useful segment on how innocent people can do themselves harm when talking to the police available at YouTube. Anglolawyer sees it differently; this is an honest and respectful disagreement.

Two, I am OK with some tough questions, but it was the prosecutors and their helpers (Maresca and Pacelli) in this case that portrayed Amanda as some sort of man-eating demon, a portrayal that was unencumbered by facts. If that picture is all the public hears, they might conclude that where there is smoke, there is fire. In this case it was just a big smoke-making machine.

Three, they could have leavened their tough questions with a discussion of the almost-two month period in which Amanda believed herself to be HIV-positive, for example. The delay alone was unconscionable.

Four, why not talk about Rudy Guede? Very casual observers of the case have been know to confuse him with Mr. Lumumba. Some commenters (see the Daily Mail) still seem to think that this is an unsolved case. In this case, the only unsolvable mystery is why the authorities would apparently be so lenient with Rudy, just to get something on Amanda or Raffaele. Not only are they continuing to persecute the innocent, but they are letting a murderer/rapist off with no more than sixteen years (maybe less). That's no way to honor Meredith's memory.

Five (with respect to Raffaele), I wish that the next time he is asked about cartwheels, he would say, "I never saw cartwheels, but I did hear her scream, and after the interrogation, she was weeping and hysterical."