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

[angrysoba]

I'm new to this.

What does everyone think about this case?

 

[anglolawyer]

I'm new to this.

What does everyone think about this case?

so glad you asked. How long have you got?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

An African-American man I know made the following observation:

The Amanda Knox case marks the only time in history white police officers caught a drug-dealing, working-class, low-life black man with a criminal record and charged him with committing rape, robbery and murder...before deciding "Nah. He did it?! Come on now. Not buying it. Let's railroad two middle-class, educated and attractive young white people for what he did and let him off easy!"

No. Not "before deciding." After deciding. That's the key.

You might take a look at what happened to David Camm. He was a white guy - an ex-cop no less. The authorities persecuted him instead of the black guy who really did it. They did so because they accused Camm before they knew who did it. When they found out, they collaborated with the real killer to concoct a story that minimized his guilt, so they could protect their phony case against Camm.

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/walking-free/

In the Meredith Kercher case, the cops didn't know about Guede when they held their press conference to announce the "sex game" fable. That's why all of this has happened. They refuse to admit they made a mistake, because it makes a lot of people look bad.

 

[TofuFighter]

I think a storm of enormous proportions will begin as a result of this insane verdict. Italy may have won the battle, but just ask Japan who won the war. Buckle your seatbelts Italy, you may have awakened the sleeping giant.

Wow. This is possibly the most disgusting comment i've read in 100 pages of this thread.

congratulations USA.

 

[Planigale]

I dont see a connection with nationality, anyway there isn't any "second male" profile on the bra clasp.
There are extra alleles. An allele is a short haminoacid chain, a fragment of polimeric protein, not a person. You can't match it to an individual. It can be transferred from broken DNA left in the environment or derive from degradation or alteration of breaking of a molecule.

This is so disappointing. After a case that has gone on for more than six years where much of the discussion is on the DNA, Machiavelli still does not know what alleles or DNA are. This is an extreme example of the 'two cultures'. That Machiavelli is well educated and intelligent one cannot doubt. I do not know where he received his education, but I would hope that modern secondary education would result in some knowledge of what genes are and how inheritance works. Poor Crick must be rolling in his grave.

An allele is one of the variations of a gene. Normal human beings have a copy of each gene inherited from each parent. (If we exclude mitochondrial DNA) each version is an allele. Essentially a gene is an inherited characteristic. This is a length of DNA. DNA does not consist of amino-acids and is not a protein. It consists of four simple ring shaped chemicals linked in chains by sugars. This is the DNA. What is being looked for is the order of the four basic chemicals along the chain. Some but not all DNA is the 'blueprint' which is transcribed into proteins (which are amino acid polymers). In fact if an allele was rare one could identify with high certainty who it came from. But this would require sequencing which is not routinely done. Because of mutations (changes) that happen at the time of conception your alleles may not be identical to those of your parents. Trying to describe how and why forensic DNA analysis works to obtain a match would take too long, there is lots out there on the internet.

Unfortunately this reinforces my conclusion that Machiavelli's opinion on any technical issue cannot be relied on. It also tells us that having sat through the court cases the technical aspects of the forensics were so badly explained that Machiavelli does not even understand the simplest aspects. Perhaps we can assume that the 'jury' were equally confused.

 

[davefoc]

I don't know what to say, but I'd like to say something. I was deeply saddened by the verdict. Of course, that isn't a completely rational response. There are tens of thousands of people just today who will suffer some horrible tragedy not of their own making, so RS and AK are just two more people in that boat. But I know of these two people and to see the forces of lying, irrational biases and corruption win the day to screw over two innocent people that I've heard of was sad for me.

I happened to hear Dershowitz interviewed on the case after I heard about the verdict. What an unprincipled piece of crap that man is. The best hope may be that the Italians in the long run are not going to be willing to watch Sollecito rot in jail for a crime he didn't commit because of a corrupted and irrational judicial system.

One obvious problem for such a request is that the Court of Cassation used Guede's legal process (where both prosecution and defense had a reason to argue for multiple attackers) as a reason to throw out Hellmann's verdict. What opportunity to defend themselves did Amanda or Raffaele have to defend themselves in Guede's legal proceedings? I would say essentially none. Italy would have to answer for this nonsense and much more if it wants Amanda to be extradited. I am more worried about Raffaele at this point.

I wonder if this really does all hinge on the Guede conviction, and the ruling by that court that others were involved as well as Guede? That subsequent courts were bound by that ruling and therefore had to convict, and Hellmann erred in law on some sort of strict liability basis?

Rolfe.

This was a strange aspect of this case that suggests that early on there was skillful maneuvering underway to railroad AK/RS. It seems to have worked in that it was used by Maresca today to claim that a court had already determined that there were multiple attackers involved. The multiple attacker nonsense is one of the nuttier claims made in this case. Getting it in the record based on a case where the defense had no interest in adjudicating the issue was one damned sneaky but sadly effective thing to do.

Previously I stated that I would like one of the promoters of this multiple attacker nonsense to try their hand at fending off the attack from a man that had the size and strength advantage over them that Guede had over Kercher. The kind of thinking that has been infused in to the people that believe the multiple attacker theory seems to have been derived from cartoons and fantasy movies. In real life people that are much stronger and bigger than you are can kick your butt and that's without a knife.

I think you [the central scrutinizer] are just trolling. Nobody could be that thick.

It seems plausible that this is what he is doing. I don't know how to tell when TSC is being serious If he is ever serious, this may not be one of those times.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I'm new to this.

What does everyone think about this case?

Rudy Guede killed Meredith Kercher when she walked in on a burglary in progress.

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had nothing to do with it. But they discovered the crime scene, so they became suspects.

The cops terrorized Amanda into making a false statement before they understood what had happened, and before they knew about Guede's involvement. This led to a public accusation, with a wild fable about a "sex game" that turned deadly. The story exploded in the media and got a lot of official support, such that the truth makes the Italian justice system look bad.

Hence today's decision. And hence the controversy. Too many people understand what really happened, including most of the people who participate in this thread.

 

[lionking]

I happened to hear Dershowitz interviewed on the case after I heard about the verdict. What an unprincipled piece of crap that man is.

I understand you not liking what he said, but what's wrong with this opinion?

Legal experts say it's unlikely that Italy would seek to extradite Knox before its supreme court rules on any appeals. Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said that if the conviction is upheld, the U.S. would have little choice but to send Knox to Italy to serve her sentence.
"The United States seeks extradition of more people than any country in the world. We’re trying to get [NSA leaker Edward] Snowden back and we’re not going to extradite someone convicted of murder?" he told NBC News.
Some observers have questioned whether the American protection against double jeopardy — being retried and convicted of a crime after being acquitted — would give the U.S. an excuse to balk at extradition.
But Dershowitz doubts that would apply in the Knox case because she was intially found guilty and her acquittal took place at an intermediate appeals level.

Shooting the messenger?

 

[GWCarver]

Wow. This is possibly the most disgusting comment i've read in 100 pages of this thread.

congratulations USA.

Perhaps you aren't familiar with Yamamoto's famous quote regarding "waking the sleeping giant" with his attack on Pearl Harbor?

Regardless, Japan was a horrible monster of a nation that invaded China in the '30s with an army of tens of thousands of murderous butchering rapists. Google the "Rape of Nanking" to find out why mere pejoratives are inadequate in describing their awful bloody rampage.

 

[Antony]

Wow, I wasn't expecting to see people swanning around triumphantly over this. Seriously? A heavily contested (and once overturned) conviction and the reaction is like a gang of middle school bullies.

Yes, and it's notable that few of those people (being generous to Machavelli and Briars) are prepared to discuss the facts of the case, and none are able to give a description of how the crime happened in a manner that involves Amanda and Raffaele.

Amazing. All I can say is that it's pretty obvious the Amanda and Raffaele whom you're celebrating being branded as murderers today are creatures of your own imagination.

The sad fact is that there are a pair of young people with those names who do exist, and who have done nothing whatsoever to deserve any of this. Not suspicion, not interrogation, not arrest, not indictment, not trial, not imprisonment, not conviction. The triumphalism is about something, but not about them.

This triumphalism is an aspect of the cult of guilt that has surrounded the case. It is a truly mystifying phenomenon.

 

[lionking]

Perhaps you aren't familiar with Yamamoto's famous quote regarding "waking the sleeping giant" with his attack on Pearl Harbor?

Regardless, Japan was a horrible monster of a nation that invaded China in the '30s with an army of tens of thousands of murderous butchering rapists. Google the "Rape of Nanking" to find out why mere pejoratives are inadequate in describing their awful bloody rampage.

And what in the name of FSM has this to do with the case?

I think Tofufighter is spot on.

 

[anglolawyer]

Rudy Guede killed Meredith Kercher when she walked in on a burglary in progress.

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had nothing to do with it. But they discovered the crime scene, so they became suspects.

The cops terrorized Amanda into making a false statement before they understood what had happened, and before they knew about Guede's involvement. This led to a public accusation, with a wild fable about a "sex game" that turned deadly. The story exploded in the media and got a lot of official support, such that the truth makes the Italian justice system look bad.

Hence today's decision. And hence the controversy. Too many people understand what really happened, including most of the people who participate in this thread.

To which I would only add that, unluckily, the local police force turned out to be an amalgam of pride, thuggery and corruption for which bending laws and framing suspects was SOP.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I have not followed the case, but I wondered what the general sense is here: What's the ratio of regular participants in this thread when it comes to believing she's guilty/not guilty?

Pro-innocence posters now significantly outnumber pro-guilt posters, but the pro-guilt team mostly committed suicide by mod and/or retreated to their walled gardens some time ago.

Only one or two committed pro-guilt posters actually changed their minds and became pro-innocence.

 

[Dan O.]

However all that does make me wonder just why as they first got there they started measuring out where the bra was found, and not where the clasp was orignally photographed, as it had become detached.

The testimony from Raffaele's consultant who got to view the activities from the van outside was that they wanted a better photograph of shoe print 5A so they could make their case for the rings not matching. I guess they weren't aware of ILE policy to erase all evidence in their path before the defense can get it.

It has occurred to me that had I registered for free classes at the UW in Italian in fall of '10 when I first became interested in this case that I would be on my eighth semester of Italian now.

I guess that is better than the school of hard knox where they lock you in prison for 30 years to force you to learn their language.

 

[davefoc]

I understand you not liking what he said, but what's wrong with this opinion?

A fair question. Lawyers and paid advocates put forth the best possible case for their clients. They only tell one side of the story. This is a behavior which would be unethical if the paid relationship with the client was not identified or obvious.

But Dershowitz routinely spouts biased rhetoric even when there is no client other than his own ego. Today he was asked for his opinion on the Kercher murder case and he riddled his comments with lies and misrepresentations. His words had the patina of being said by an individual who had thought about the case and that was giving a balanced summary. But it wasn't remotely a balanced summary. It was pure misleading propaganda that for whatever reason Dershowitz felt like pushing today.

ETA

Shooting the messenger?

It is very unlikely that Knox would be extradited. The state department, according to a story over the last few days has already said they won't. I wasn't sure about the reliability of the story but as a practical matter there are a lot more issues than double jeopardy that would form a basis to deny the extradition*.. Dershowitz isn't the only person to suggest that the constitutional restrictions against double jeopardy might not be adequate to prevent extradition. There seems to be contradictory case law on that point and Dershowitz might be right on the issue of double jeopardy. That opinion has been expressed in this thread and I didn't think that the suggestion was evidence that the person making the suggestion was an unprincipled piece of crap. I base my view of Dershowitz on a much wider range of things than something like that.

*The fact that Knox is stone cold innocent might not be one of them, but as a practical matter that will work in her favor.

 

[lionking]

A fair question. Lawyers and paid advocates put forth the best possible case for their clients. They only tell one side of the story. This is a behavior which would be unethical if the paid relationship with the client was not identified or obvious.

But Dershowitz routinely spouts biased rhetoric even when there is no client other than his own ego. Today he was asked for his opinion on the Kercher murder case and he riddled his comments with lies and misrepresentations. His words had the patina of being said by an individual who had thought about the case and that was giving a balanced summary. But it wasn't remotely a balanced summary. It was pure misleading propaganda that for whatever reason Dershowitz felt like pushing today.

I

Perhaps, but his comment about extradition seem reasonable. Others have made similar comments, and he seems well qualified.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

A fair question. Lawyers and paid advocates put forth the best possible case for their clients. They only tell one side of the story. This is a behavior which would be unethical if the paid relationship with the client was not identified or obvious.

But Dershowitz routinely spouts biased rhetoric even when there is no client other than his own ego. Today he was asked for his opinion on the Kercher murder case and he riddled his comments with lies and misrepresentations. His words had the patina of being said by an individual who had thought about the case and that was giving a balanced summary. But it wasn't remotely a balanced summary. It was pure misleading propaganda that for whatever reason Dershowitz felt like pushing today.

ETA
It is very unlikely that Knox would be extradited. The state department, according to a story over the last few days has already said they won't. I wasn't sure about the reliability of the story but as a practical matter there are a lot more issues than double jeopardy that would form a basis to deny the extradition*.. Dershowitz isn't the only person to suggest that the constitutional restrictions against double jeopardy might not be adequate to prevent extradition. There seems to be contradictory case law on that point and Dershowitz might be right on the issue of double jeopardy. That opinion has been expressed in this thread and I didn't think that the suggestion was evidence that the person making the suggestion was an unprincipled piece of crap. I base my view of Dershowitz on a much wider range of things than something like that.

*The fact that Knox is stone cold innocent might not be one of them, but as a practical matter that will work in her favor.

I agree. Dershowitz is the pits. I remember when he said something along the lines of how innocent people may falsely confess, but they don't falsely accuse someone else who is innocent.

Anyone with even a passing knowledge of this subject knows that is a ridiculous statement. I could cite any number of cases... Chris Ochoa, the Norfolk Four, the Central Park Five, Tommy Ward, who couldn't even keep the other suspect's name straight... ("yeah, me and Titsdale did it alright. I held her down and then Titsworth got out his knife..." Meanwhile Titsworth is at home with his arm in a cast from a compound fracture...)

But most people don't have any knowledge of this subject. They would assume there is something to it, because it is coming from an "expert."

I think what is going on here is that these people really think they see something dark and criminal in Amanda, but they realize the facts don't bear out their intuition, so they make up phony facts to convince other people.

 

[anglolawyer]

Stefano Maffei just showed up on the BBC's radio 4 news programme. He was running a Central Scrutiniser-type line saying the verdict was correct and making the point that 27 judges had now upheld it. He also thought there was no prospect of a successful extradition.

I reviewed a civil case here recently in which the overall judicial score, after a first instance decision and three appeals, was 10-3. Unfortunately for the losers, the 3 formed the majority of a 5-judge Supreme Court so tough. I happen to think the court reached the wrong decision and the majority got it right. I don't know whether a majority of other lawyers think the same nor what difference it would make if they did.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Stefano Maffei just showed up on the BBC's radio 4 news programme. He was running a Central Scrutiniser-type line saying the verdict was correct and making the point that 27 judges had now upheld it. He also thought there was no prospect of a successful extradition.

I reviewed a civil case here recently in which the overall judicial score, after a first instance decision and three appeals, was 10-3. Unfortunately for the losers, the 3 formed the majority of a 5-judge Supreme Court so tough. I happen to think the court reached the wrong decision and the majority got it right. I don't know whether a majority of other lawyers think the same nor what difference it would make if they did.

I cannot believe they really want her back. The closer they get to actually putting her in jeopardy, the more the media and the public will start to look at the facts of the case instead of the wild claims being spouted in court.

They will get a dose of that scrutiny if they even try to extradite her. Nencini ignored C&V's report and the problems with the DNA evidence during his proceeding, but it won't be ignored if and when she has to fight an extradition request. Nor will the craziness of the witness testimony be ignored. If a US district judge decides to review the quality of the police investigation, and whether the Italian courts weighed the evidence rationally, no amount of blather and intimidation will keep it from happening. Do they want that?

 

[Soapy Sam]

I have not followed the case in detail and have no opinion worth anything on (any of ) the verdicts, beyond noting that many people here consider the latest version less "unsafe" than "insane" and that at least some of those are people I consider level headed and usually worth listening to on such matters.

A brief comment though on the multi-cultural setting of the trial, rather than the trial itself.

It is evident from the many photos that Ms.Knox is a very attractive young woman. I can't help wondering, had she been less so, how many people would ever have heard of her?
To what extent did her adoption by the US domestic press as a poster girl or innocent abroad actually engender a backlash against her in Italy?

There also exists a perception , true or false, outside the USA, that when American citizens are involved in crimes abroad, they often get a free pass because the local authority does not wish to upset the US press, public or government. Right or wrong, this perception leads to resentment.

I can't help wondering how influenced by these sort of feelings the Italian legal system has been, rather than being led solely by the evidence. This makes me wonder how dangerous too much publicity can be for an accused person?

It seems pretty certain there will be further appeals.

Not for the first time when looking at legal proceedings, I am aware that the more lawyers dick around, the longer they get paid. This is not a uniquely Italian aspect. I wonder, if other professions were able to drag their jobs on indefinitely, whether they too would be such a mess as most legal systems seem to be.