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

[Dan O.]

Could the photographer/s have been any of the defense consultants? There should be a list (transcripts maybe?) of who attended the Dec. 18 collection/search from inside the cottage to inside the van.

I was under the impression that the defense stayed in the van and watched, presumably by closed-circuit television, although a list of people who were there would certainly be helpful. It is not clear to me why the defense would have released that particular photo, given its documented ability to suggest to people that Amanda was a liar.

The two camera boys act like crime tourists for most of their visit. They interact more with each other than the rest of the team. They even have different face masks. At 22:30 in part 2 it looks like they are being scolded and pushed out of Kerchers room. Bad boys not watching where they step.

 

[anglolawyer]

What about putting up Amanda's photo in the serious crimes unit no later than early 2008? This was before Micheli had ordered the trial IIUC.

Quite. But as we know, none of this could possibly have had any affect on the minds of the less well educated popular judges of the Massei court. So it's all OK.

 

[lane99]

Profiling has been oversold, without a doubt...

And by no one more so than John Douglas.

...He is a man who is willing to learn, and who will admit when he is wrong...

Douglas refused to cooperate with the inquiry into one of the most egregious wrongful convictions in the history of Canada. Even though there are serious questions about the integrity of the profile that he provided in that case. That's how much he's "willing to learn" and "admit when he is wrong".

Quite apart from that, is the lack of any rigorous basis for even making a determination if profilers ever are "right" or "wrong". Their stock in trade is vagueness.
.
.

 

[HumanityBlues]

I guess the elephant in the room today is: what do you all think will happen tomorrow? I am not optimistic of there being an acquittal. I would say realistically the odds are pretty low. In the first trial, it was obvious there would be a conviction. In the appeal, I also think it was obvious they would be acquitted. This time around, I also think it is obvious they will be convicted. These "trials" all seem pretty transparent. Just my two cents....

 

[anglolawyer]

I guess the elephant in the room today is: what do you all think will happen tomorrow? I am not optimistic of there being an acquittal. I would say realistically the odds are pretty low. In the first trial, it was obvious there would be a conviction. In the appeal, I also think it was obvious they would be acquitted. This time around, I also think it is obvious they will be convicted. These "trials" all seem pretty transparent. Just my two cents....

I am not optimistic. A feeling rather than a prediction. But I am not optimistic about most things so ...

 

[Bill Williams]

Andrea Vogt is tying her journalistic camel to an anonymous Wiki, compiled by an unknown entity called Edward McCall.

She also claims that the Seattle based PR Supertanker is shutting out "the real story" from Americans.

Meanwhile, FoxNews prints fairly decent stories like the following....

So... who are you going to believe; Andrea or your lying eyes?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/01/29/amanda-knox-trial-nears-third-verdict/

 

[Bill Williams]

And by no one more so than John Douglas.




Douglas refused to cooperate with the inquiry into one of the most egregious wrongful convictions in the history of Canada. Even though there are serious questions about the integrity of the profile that he provided in that case. That's how much he's "willing to learn" and "admit when he is wrong".

Quite apart from that, is the lack of any rigorous basis for even making a determination if profilers ever are "right" or "wrong". Their stock in trade is vagueness.
.
.

It says everything that you would blame Douglas for the Morin debacle in Canada. My view now is that you have some agenda against Douglas, rather than a need to pursue justice for Morin.

You can have your opinions also about the usefulness of profiling. Good for you.

 

[acbytesla]

I guess the elephant in the room today is: what do you all think will happen tomorrow? I am not optimistic of there being an acquittal. I would say realistically the odds are pretty low. In the first trial, it was obvious there would be a conviction. In the appeal, I also think it was obvious they would be acquitted. This time around, I also think it is obvious they will be convicted. These "trials" all seem pretty transparent. Just my two cents....

I am optimistic. I can't believe every one in Italy are idiots.

 

[Bill Williams]

I guess the elephant in the room today is: what do you all think will happen tomorrow? I am not optimistic of there being an acquittal. I would say realistically the odds are pretty low. In the first trial, it was obvious there would be a conviction. In the appeal, I also think it was obvious they would be acquitted. This time around, I also think it is obvious they will be convicted. These "trials" all seem pretty transparent. Just my two cents....

I think there will be convictions (remember there are multiple charges). The best case scenario is probably that Nencini will "convict them enough", perhaps even leaving the sentence as "time served", so that the ISC can sign off on it, and everyone in Italy hopes it goes away.

They may convict on the transport of the knife and the staging, while "reasonable doubt" causes them to acquit on the murder itself.

That may not make sense, but this IS Italy.

Yet the real concern is for Raffaele's liberty.

 

[JREF2010]

I think there will be convictions (remember there are multiple charges). The best case scenario is probably that Nencini will "convict them enough", perhaps even leaving the sentence as "time served", so that the ISC can sign off on it, and everyone in Italy hopes it goes away.

They may convict on the transport of the knife and the staging, while "reasonable doubt" causes them to acquit on the murder itself.

That may not make sense, but this IS Italy.

Yet the real concern is for Raffaele's liberty.

I could see that as a foggy ending, it saves face for the system, the bad press disappears, the innocents left alone and Migninni and the pack can go frame other people...and Rudy can go back to burglarizing and raping.

 

[Strawberry]

I guess the elephant in the room today is: what do you all think will happen tomorrow? I am not optimistic of there being an acquittal. I would say realistically the odds are pretty low. In the first trial, it was obvious there would be a conviction. In the appeal, I also think it was obvious they would be acquitted. This time around, I also think it is obvious they will be convicted. These "trials" all seem pretty transparent. Just my two cents....

I agree, they'll be convicted sadly. If I was Italian I'd be embarrassed.

 

[Diocletus]

I go back to the supreme court decision, and I just feel that it puts such restrictions and requirements on the interpretation of the evidence that Nencini is really going to have to convict. The motivations documents is going to be one screwed up mess, though.

If I'm Nencini, I'm doing a lot of this: "Well, we have x and y. The supreme courts says it is z. So, z it is."

 

[anglolawyer]

I go back to the supreme court decision, and I just feel that it puts such restrictions and requirements on the interpretation of the evidence that Nencini is really going to have to convict. The motivations documents is going to be one screwed up mess, though.

If I'm Nencini, I'm doing a lot of this: "Well, we have x and y. The supreme courts says it is z. So, z it is."

There are ungovernable judges. Certainly in my jurisdiction and I bet in yours. Nencini has yet to positively exclude himself from this group, so the cause is not hopeless.

 

[Mary_H]

Andrea Vogt is tying her journalistic camel to an anonymous Wiki, compiled by an unknown entity called Edward McCall.

She also claims that the Seattle based PR Supertanker is shutting out "the real story" from Americans.

Meanwhile, FoxNews prints fairly decent stories like the following....

So... who are you going to believe; Andrea or your lying eyes?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/01/29/amanda-knox-trial-nears-third-verdict/

I am tending toward an acquittal (that will make the fourth time I have tended toward an acquittal). But what Alan Dershowitz says in the article above makes sense:

"The easiest thing for the court to do is acquit. It probably ends it there. If it is a conviction, it is just the beginning of what would be a very lengthy and difficult process," Dershowitz said.

I doubt the entire process would end with an acquittal tomorrow, although anything is possible (as they have shown us time and again). All in all, though, it just boils down to how tired of it everyone in Italy is getting.

 

[davefoc]

I see people are putting in their predictions. I truly don't know. During my second round of interest in the case, things have come to seem bizarre. There is just nothing that rises remotely to the level of even plausible evidence of the possibility of guilt. Obviously confirmation bias and group bias are huge drivers for human belief formation and sustenance, but this case pushes the envelope on what I understood the effect that those drivers could have on human thought.

But the fact is there are people that continue to advocate for guilt regardless of the evidence and how can we know that some of those people aren't the judges of this case? There are self interests involved here as well and they cut both ways. Do the adults in the Italian justice system really want this thing to go on? Knox might not be extraditable but I can't imagine there is a mechanism in Italian law that would prevent them from applying for extradition and that would lead to the wider exposure of a lot of the more unseemly aspects of the Italian justice system with regards to this case. Putting Solecito in jail for a crime he obviously didn't commit is something that would continue to fester. On the other hand the judges may look at the political situation within their own peer group and decide that going against one of their own is just not worth the risk.

In the end though, regardless of the biases and self interests that are driving this circus I think the obvious total innocence of Sollecito and Knox with regard to this will be the winning argument and they will be found not guilty.

 

[Strawberry]

There are ungovernable judges. Certainly in my jurisdiction and I bet in yours. Nencini has yet to positively exclude himself from this group, so the cause is not hopeless.

Nencini is fairly young, he still has a lengthy career to pursue. I fully expect him to do as he's told and convict.

 

[Diocletus]

The two camera boys act like crime tourists for most of their visit. They interact more with each other than the rest of the team. They even have different face masks. At 22:30 in part 2 it looks like they are being scolded and pushed out of Kerchers room. Bad boys not watching where they step.

This is very odd. These guys do seem like tagalongs.

 

[acbytesla]

I could see that as a foggy ending, it saves face for the system, the bad press disappears, the innocents left alone and Migninni and the pack can go frame other people...and Rudy can go back to burglarizing and raping.

While that may be better for Amanda and Raffaele, that would be the worst thing for Italy. A political and judicial system needs to be self correcting. It takes judges with courage to say to people like Stefanoni and Mignini "enough" and "time to get our house in order". A foggy ending allows the status quo to continue on its horrible way.

 

[Mary_H]

I could see that as a foggy ending, it saves face for the system, the bad press disappears, the innocents left alone and Migninni and the pack can go frame other people...and Rudy can go back to burglarizing and raping.

I would not be surprised should a fatal accident befall Rudy once he gets out.

 

[platonov]

Wow. A response to a post some 4,000 posts further on in the thread might qualify as some sort of record!

But since you clarified the obtuse reference that I had sought clarification of in my post (and yes, Google "works", but Google isn't yet capable of analysing context and/or idiomatic usage - be sure to let me know when it does though!), perhaps you could also address that more substantive question that I asked in that same post:

What might you have as any kind of evidence that, as you wrote, "the victim’s family ask via their lawyer that Knox remove the link to the MK donation fund from her website"? I don't see the Kerchers' instruction mentioned anywhere in Maresca's outburst. Perhaps you have evidence to the contrary?

Many thanks in advance! (And here's hoping I don't have to wait another 4,000-odd posts for a reply )

Lets review.

So Knox refuses initally to heed the Kercher laywer's demand/request that she remove the donation link from her site unless she is asked directly by the family and then later relents.
[She must have thought he was acting on their behalf - silly girl ]

Now you want me to prove to you that he was acting on the Kerchers behalf.
I'm afraid I cant help you any further with this so your plea will have to stand unanswered.


Could your emotional attachment to Amanda's plight be adversely impacting the quality of your [usually infallible] arguments !


ps re 4000 posts - basic forum tools old chap.

.