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

[codyjuneau]

In a way that can be understood, but it misses the point, I think. We don't need "lie detectors" to expose the lies directed against Amanda and Raff; what we need is a fair level scrutiny of those accusing them, compared with the ridiculous innuendo placed against all the irrelevant details of their statements and actions, both before and since the murder.

.
I think the point, would be to bring the police lies into the spotlight in order to force the Italian justice system to deal with them. A good publicity stunt, designed to get some action, but not a bluff.

 

[Mary_H]

I have given up trying to follow this thread closely. I have no doubt that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent and were framed by a lunatic prosecutor, and that Rudy killed Meredith. I confess to some confusion about how Rudy entered the apartment or whether at some point he might have had some kind of help from person(s) unknown. But I am curious: What are the core arguments that the "guilters" cling to? I was astonished to learn that Alan Dershowitz, judging from his remarks on CNN, seems to be one of them.

Quote:
But Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said that Italian prosecutors might very well extradite Knox. And, if retried, she "likely will be found guilty -- because the evidence supporting a conviction is pretty strong." Knox, now 25, has established a fan base in the United States "because she has a beautiful face and an angelic appearance," Dershowitz said. "But remember, she originally admitted she was at the scene of the crime and she tried to blame an innocent man -- for which she was also convicted."
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/26/justice/knox-extradition

Yes, Alan Dershowitz has shown himself to be a guilter.

I get a kick out of people who think they are insightfully analyzing the social phenomena of bias and discrimination when they talk about the natural tendency toward favoring beautiful people, or the cultural tendency to discriminate against other races. Yes, it does happen that beautiful guilty people are not prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law because of their beauty. And yes, it certainly happens that innocent black people are prosecuted because of their race.

Every once in awhile, though, an accused beautiful person is innocent and an accused black person is guilty. You have to allow for the possibility!

 

[anglolawyer]

But I am curious: What are the core arguments that the "guilters" cling to?

Good question. It's pretty hard to pin them down. What tends to happen in any discussion with a PGP on topic X is that you will corner them into silence and then they bob up with topic Y. Then the same thing happens and it's on to Z and so on until, without noticing, eventually it's back on to X again as though the initial discussion of X never happened.

I am not always sure whether a PGP has it all properly worked out or whether s/he just thinks they must be guilty somehow and that plucking this or that factoid out of the mass of information will do for now. I think Briars at one point picked the staged burglary and the lies as the key things (if I misremember, hopefully she will correct me). Those two seem to be core PGP arguments. They also tend to believe Curatolo, reserving the right to amend his evidence as deemed fit.

Funnily enough, nobody seems all that keen on the knife. Not only is the DNA evidence holed below the waterline but it's pretty hard to make something up which gets it to and from the locus without making people laugh. The thing with the knife, though, is you can't just chuck it. Either it proves murder or it proves something very dark going on among the ILE, but that's another story.

 

[Kaosium]

Yes, Alan Dershowitz has shown himself to be a guilter.

I get a kick out of people who think they are insightfully analyzing the social phenomena of bias and discrimination when they talk about the natural tendency toward favoring beautiful people, or the cultural tendency to discriminate against other races. Yes, it does happen that beautiful guilty people are not prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law because of their beauty. And yes, it certainly happens that innocent black people are prosecuted because of their race.

Every once in awhile, though, an accused beautiful person is innocent and an accused black person is guilty. You have to allow for the possibility!

Yeah, it appeared his 'analysis' of the case was based on pretty superficial grounds like those, his remarks were cringeworthy, like he lifted them directly from the 'press packets' PMF and TJMK likes to send out.

I got to thinking about it and I don't think it occurred to him that what he said was basically the same as what he condemned Amanda for being an 'awful person' because of: Amanda's confused 'accusation' of Patrick. Dershowitz said the evidence was 'strong' and she'd likely be convicted again, which essentially amounts to saying she was a murderess. Unlike Amanda he didn't have a dozen cops around him him in the middle of the night after half a week with little sleep telling him untrue things and insisting they had hard evidence proving she had to be there with the person she exchanged texts with.

Plus there was no qualifier as strong as 'confused' in his statement, he even went on to claim he'd advise the Kerchers to sue against the book advance on preponderance of evidence grounds, apparently thinking it would be a slam dunk! I wonder how he'd like serving three years in prison for his accusation? After all he's supposedly a top defense attorney and thus should be able to determine she's innocent by even a cursory examination of the evidence, unless of course he's just a fraud or a media whore who'll say anything to get attention. However my guess is he's just clueless about the case and was easily duped by the bunnies.

 

[JREF2010]

.
I agree, lie detection is an inexact science, the results are not guaranteed accurate, and lie detectors should not be used by the legal system.

However, if someone says I am lying, and I know it is them lying, and they are attempting to use their lies to unjustly jail me for life, and their legal system turns a blind eye to their lying, I am left with little legal recourse. So perhaps extraordinary measures and risks are required in order to expose their lies. No bluffing though.
.

How does one find the truth?


or Amytal!

How about some Amytal is this better than the Edgardo Giobi- gut instinct method of finding guilt, or is Amytal better than the interrogations people go through without lawyers present?


A judge approved the use of narcoanalysis in the trial of the 2012 Aurora shooting to evaluate whether James Eagan Holmes's state of mind is valid for an insanity plea.[27] "Judge William Sylvester ruled that in the event of Holmes pleading insanity his prosecutors would be permitted to interrogate him while he is under the influence of a medical drug designed to loosen him up and get him to talk. The idea would be that such a "narcoanalytic interview" would be used to confirm whether or not he had been legally insane when he embarked on his shooting spree on 20 July last year."[28] The drug "would most likely be a short-acting barbiturate such as sodium amytal."

 

[JREF2010]

Good question. It's pretty hard to pin them down. What tends to happen in any discussion with a PGP on topic X is that you will corner them into silence and then they bob up with topic Y. Then the same thing happens and it's on to Z and so on until, without noticing, eventually it's back on to X again as though the initial discussion of X never happened.

I am not always sure whether a PGP has it all properly worked out or whether s/he just thinks they must be guilty somehow and that plucking this or that factoid out of the mass of information will do for now. I think Briars at one point picked the staged burglary and the lies as the key things (if I misremember, hopefully she will correct me). Those two seem to be core PGP arguments. They also tend to believe Curatolo, reserving the right to amend his evidence as deemed fit.

Funnily enough, nobody seems all that keen on the knife. Not only is the DNA evidence holed below the waterline but it's pretty hard to make something up which gets it to and from the locus without making people laugh. The thing with the knife, though, is you can't just chuck it. Either it proves murder or it proves something very dark going on among the ILE, but that's another story.

Yes, I noticed the silence too...

One thing Ive seen a trend on is the Pro-Guilt party become silent on many things they once held as great evidence.
ex. starting with the bloody tennis shoeprint, the knife from Raffaeles not fitting the bedsheet, the arrival of postals time/cctv time and others...etc

these issues disappear, and now they cling to the lamp, or the bathmat blob, or the interrogation signed documents, or Rudy's accusation that he saw the two there...

When the Defense went asking for retesting of the knife, and to remove the handle, it was a big point for me in believing in the innocence. If it was a murder weapon the defense lawyers would never have been pushing for the handle to be removed.

maybe the SC will ask for it to be removed...

 

[Grinder]

I'd say for many the key piece is the false accusation of a black man. They believe she picked Patrick because she knew the real killer or accomplice was a black man.

Then they believe she is guilty because of all the lies. They are still looking for lie in both of their books. Remember how excited Vogt and her PGP followers became over the purse being seen or not being seen through the keyhole? The reason they hold unto Curatolo is the lie that they were in Raf's flat, no matter that it makes a believable scenario impossible.

The next biggest thing is her unbelievable behavior in the morning. They still talk of the the bloody bathroom and even that she didn't actually shower.

In terms of "hard" circumstantial evidence I'd say the mixed DNA and blood spots are high on the list. The bath mat print remains and bare foot prints left in turnip juice.

But, the biggest factor remains their lying and serial killer personalities. Just this last week the bookkeeper speculated that Amanda had killed before and the SPD should look at any unsolved cases.

 

[yimyammer]

I have given up trying to follow this thread closely. I have no doubt that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent and were framed by a lunatic prosecutor, and that Rudy killed Meredith. I confess to some confusion about how Rudy entered the apartment or whether at some point he might have had some kind of help from person(s) unknown. But I am curious: What are the core arguments that the "guilters" cling to? I was astonished to learn that Alan Dershowitz, judging from his remarks on CNN, seems to be one of them.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/26/justice/knox-extradition

Blech!!...I have a visceral reaction to that guy, I've seen him take so many over the top positions on various issues in the past. I don't know what to make of this one. I wonder if he has even studied the evidence like John Douglas apparently was able to do.

 

[yimyammer]

Yeah, it appeared his 'analysis' of the case was based on pretty superficial grounds like those, his remarks were cringeworthy, like he lifted them directly from the 'press packets' PMF and TJMK likes to send out.

I got to thinking about it and I don't think it occurred to him that what he said was basically the same as what he condemned Amanda for being an 'awful person' because of: Amanda's confused 'accusation' of Patrick. Dershowitz said the evidence was 'strong' and she'd likely be convicted again, which essentially amounts to saying she was a murderess. Unlike Amanda he didn't have a dozen cops around him him in the middle of the night after half a week with little sleep telling him untrue things and insisting they had hard evidence proving she had to be there with the person she exchanged texts with.

Plus there was no qualifier as strong as 'confused' in his statement, he even went on to claim he'd advise the Kerchers to sue against the book advance on preponderance of evidence grounds, apparently thinking it would be a slam dunk! I wonder how he'd like serving three years in prison for his accusation? After all he's supposedly a top defense attorney and thus should be able to determine she's innocent by even a cursory examination of the evidence, unless of course he's just a fraud or a media whore who'll say anything to get attention. However my guess is he's just clueless about the case and was easily duped by the bunnies.

No doubt, that sonofa B would be filibustering his ass off if he had been tasked to represent the defendants in this case. The man can run his mouth like nobodies business, but he makes me cringe.

He's a little man who is empowered by his knowledge of the law. Throw him in a scenario where he can't hide behind the law (or his twisting of it) and you'd see a pathetic, frightened little child cowering because his words can no longer help him.

As you can tell, I can't stand that guy

 

[GreyFox]

I don't think Knox's looks are anything more than average.It only comes into play when guilters or International Jounalist want to spin the American she-devil story for $$.

I don't think She is comfortable with the camera or celebrity status either.Based on her interveiws I could see how they could get her flusterd and go along with a BS story down at the Italian Police station.
In fact I bet I could get her to confess that her mom and dad did the murder in probably 24hrs myself.I say this because at first I was upset that she didn't come out in her interveiws and really let Mignini have it. I realize know she just cant handle the pressure. Nor could she have been strongwilled enough to have commited a murder.It gives good insight to how she would be in an interrogation. What you see is what you get!

 

[bri1]

Be sure and let us know when your book comes out. Sounds like a terrific idea.

Thanks, Rose. We'll see if I can find a publisher!

 

[bri1]

That was both wise and kind to let Stephanie be. You were very kind and considerate.

Thanks Bill.

I can only imagine having to talk about something as painful and personal as this, at the whim of strangers, is very difficult. Although Stephanie has been involved in the press conferences, she isn't a public figure and it wouldn't have been fair.

Thinking of her pain and loss made me very sad.

 

[bri1]

Hi bri1

Can you explain what the motive fallacy is?

Like Bill, I think you did a good thing leaving Stephanie alone and I can also see how realising these are real peoples' lives we are discussing here might make an impact.

The motive fallacy, Anglo, is when people assume that just because someone has a motive (other than the validity / soundness of the argument) in using argument A, argument A is therefore false. You hear this all the time from PGP who say, 'well of course defense expert used argument A, he's being paid by the defense', well yes, but that doesn't mean that argument A isn't true!

 

[bri1]

No and no.

Thanks, Mary. Vogt's article in Seattle PI goes into what the Court said. I wanted to double-check what my source told me, that the court called Hellmann's verdict a 'monument to illogicalness'.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Anyway, I had been hoping that the decision to retry was due to some tiny legal procedure not followed, but this indicates that the Cassazione had major problems with the verdict.

 

[anglolawyer]

The motive fallacy, Anglo, is when people assume that just because someone has a motive (other than the validity / soundness of the argument) in using argument A, argument A is therefore false. You hear this all the time from PGP who say, 'well of course defense expert used argument A, he's being paid by the defense', well yes, but that doesn't mean that argument A isn't true!

Thanks for explaining. The PGPs arguments are both false and ill-motivated

 

[Grinder]

The motive fallacy, Anglo, is when people assume that just because someone has a motive (other than the validity / soundness of the argument) in using argument A, argument A is therefore false. You hear this all the time from PGP who say, 'well of course defense expert used argument A, he's being paid by the defense', well yes, but that doesn't mean that argument A isn't true!

This is the issue with experts giving testimony about issue that neither the judge or jury members can really comprehend. It certainly isn't unusual for the paid defense experts to disagree with the prosecution's experts. In fact, the defense experts almost always disagree with the prosecution's experts or they won't be working much in the business.

These experts are paid to find arguable points in the other side's case. While that fact doesn't mean that every defense expert is lying is a factor to consider and when that is added to the fact that the lay people involved don't understand the science it will impact opinion.

Trials have moved beyond the ability of lay decision makers.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>But, the biggest factor remains their lying and serial killer personalities. Just this last week the bookkeeper speculated that Amanda had killed before and the SPD should look at any unsolved cases.

LOL!

Which one is the bookkeeper?

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>I got to thinking about it and I don't think it occurred to him that what he said was basically the same as what he condemned Amanda for being an 'awful person' because of: Amanda's confused 'accusation' of Patrick.

This is an essential irony of the case. The most evil thing Amanda did was "accuse an innocent man." But it's okay when ILE does it.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>I don't think She is comfortable with the camera or celebrity status either.Based on her interveiws I could see how they could get her flusterd and go along with a BS story down at the Italian Police station.
In fact I bet I could get her to confess that her mom and dad did the murder in probably 24hrs myself.I say this because at first I was upset that she didn't come out in her interveiws and really let Mignini have it. I realize know she just cant handle the pressure. Nor could she have been strongwilled enough to have commited a murder.It gives good insight to how she would be in an interrogation. What you see is what you get!

Good points, GreyFox.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'd say for many the key piece is the false accusation of a black man. They believe she picked Patrick because she knew the real killer or accomplice was a black man.

Then they believe she is guilty because of all the lies. They are still looking for lie in both of their books. Remember how excited Vogt and her PGP followers became over the purse being seen or not being seen through the keyhole? The reason they hold unto Curatolo is the lie that they were in Raf's flat, no matter that it makes a believable scenario impossible.

The next biggest thing is her unbelievable behavior in the morning. They still talk of the the bloody bathroom and even that she didn't actually shower.

In terms of "hard" circumstantial evidence I'd say the mixed DNA and blood spots are high on the list. The bath mat print remains and bare foot prints left in turnip juice.

But, the biggest factor remains their lying and serial killer personalities. Just this last week the bookkeeper speculated that Amanda had killed before and the SPD should look at any unsolved cases.

This is an astonishingly accurate summary of what's left of "the guilter case".
The difficult part is to put this into a comprehensive narrative of the case which includes the two students.

Getting back to John Follain, and the "key piece" you note above.... it is telling that Follain deals with the interrogation in a few paragraphs, and there's nothing about Knox being called a liar. Anna Donnino is only mentioned as "the interpretor". He barely mentions Ficarra catching Knox in the lie about drug use - used for the rest of the night as the main lever in the continual calling Knox a liar, liar.

Acc. to Follain, the only one notable for noticing Knox's "emotional shock," of seemingly having Sollecito's alibi withdrawn was the interpreter, one of only two references in the text to an interpreter being there.

It's amazing the brevity with which Follain covers this critical period. Of course his narrative has chamomile tea and biscuits.... but consider this:

Given that Knox and Sollecito were jailed and denied lawyers under provisions reserved for Mafia... is it reasonable to assume that at one point they were treated with kid gloves, and THEN treated like Mafia?

This is where Follain could have departed from simply describing why the cops were right in suspecting them, and go into some analysis of his own.

Oh wait. He owes Mignini. Follain had escaped being charged with defamation along with Curt and Edda.... I keep forgetting. Follain owes Mignini one.