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

[Planigale]

Good, I have only noticed Kevin Lowe and Lionking post on this from Aussie, no one but me from NZ.

Planigales are from Australia! We are top predators (very small top predators).

 

[acbytesla]

Does anyone know if Italy has the equivalent of The Innocence Project? Are there law professors, law students and lawyers working to exonerate the wrongfully convicted in their country?

 

[Planigale]

The strangest thing about this upcoming documentary is the channel for which it has been commissioned. BBC Three is, very specifically, the BBC channel that is dedicated to providing "alternative" programming aimed squarely at a younger (16-34) audience. Most of its output is light entertainment and comedy, and where news or current affairs are featured (rarely), they are packaged in a way that's specifically designed to be accessible to (and appeal to) younger demographics.

Therefore it's hard to see how a documentary about Amanda Knox fits into the BBC Three remit. If this were a big-ticket, serious documentary, it would without doubt be carried on BBC One (the flagship channel) or BBC Two (the BBC's second channel, focussing more on factual/arts programming than the all-genres One). Or if it were more of a minority audience programme, but still with a serious bent, it would be on BBC Four, which is the BBC's smaller documentaries-only channel aimed squarely at the intelligentsia. Where it emphatically wouldn't be is BBC Three.

So something's definitely strange about this documentary, in terms of its genesis and the manner in which it was commissioned. I wonder what might have happened............

Well the BBC is very keen on balance, I suggest UK readers contact the BBC and ask what senior BBC production / editorial staff are doing to ensure balance given this 'documentary' has been produced by a team with a clear prior opinion who are unlikely to produce an unbiased product.

 

[kcoh]

Does anyone know if Italy has the equivalent of The Innocence Project? Are there law professors, law students and lawyers working to exonerate the wrongfully convicted in their country?

I have no idea, but I do know that billionaire John Arnold and his wife, Laura, invest in the Innocence Project and even sit on the board.

I believe the Innocence Project is only starting to get involved now, after reviewing the case, and obviously it is because Knox is an American. I say this because I have never seen anyone from the organization speak on this until now.

 

[kcoh]

Does anyone know why Amanda's blog is not working? Whenever I click on it, it comes back with an error message.

 

[kcoh]

I ask because the DailyMail is reporting on something she wrote about Sollecito. I now realize that DailyMail commenters are profoundly stupid.

 

[acbytesla]

Does anyone know why Amanda's blog is not working? Whenever I click on it, it comes back with an error message.

Works fine that I can see.

http://www.amandaknox.com/blog/

Here is what she wrote about Raffaele

Raffaele is not a slave

It has been claimed that, in this most recent round of closing arguments and in interviews since the latest guilty verdict, Raffaele and his defense attorneys have finally betrayed their resentment and started to put distance between him and me legally and personally.

This is not the case. Actually, Attorney Bongiorno’s closing arguments and Raffaele’s latest statements pinpoint and attack a fundamental weakness in the prosecution’s case against both Raffaele and me that has been ignored for far too long: Raffaele is not a slave.

The prosecution’s case relies upon the idea that the brutal murder of Meredith Kercher hinges upon me: that only I could have facilitated access to her; that only I could have had motive to instigate the assault and plunge in the knife. As for Raffaele, because he had only just met Meredith and had never met Rudy Guede, the prosecution tried to depict him as both predisposed to violent sexual fetish and absolutely subservient to a dominant female companion. They cited his habit of carrying a pocketknife (which did not correspond with Meredith’s stab wounds), his Japanese comic book collection (which included girl-power Sailor Moon), an incident at school when he was caught viewing porn, and the one Marilyn Manson song on his computer. Because he was present and supportive of me in the immediacy of the discovery of the murder and because my surviving roommates had described us as piccioncini (“lovebirds”—a far cry from the dominatrix/slave), the prosecution assumed and pursued the theory of Raffaele’s unquestioning devotion/obsession with me.

The prosecution has sustained this theory for years even when, to begin with, they had even less of an objective case against Raffaele than against me. An unreliable trace of Raffaele’s DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp. A partial bloody footprint on a bathmat that more closely corresponds with Rudy Guede’s footprints. The unreliable testimony of a homeless, heroin-using serial witness who claims to have seen Raffaele and I in Piazza Grimana between 9-11:30 p.m. the night of the murder. That’s it.

In a recent email exchange, Raffaele expressed his frustration to me: “I don’t want to be punished for, nor have to continue to justify, those things that regard you and not me. Obviously the evidence demonstrates both of our innocence, but it seems that for the judges and the people this objectivity is of no importance.” The point being that the prosecution’s case is founded upon unreliable and irrelevant circumstantial evidence that furthermore has nothing to do with Raffaele at all. As tenuous as the case is against me, it is illogical and unfair that Raffaele should be held legally answerable for it. No judicial panel in their right mind can determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for Raffaele based on the objective evidence specifically related to him that the prosecution presented in court.

Raffaele’s experience of surviving injustice, documented courageously and honestly in his memoir Honor Bound, has been uniquely traumatic and desperate. Part of that struggle has been having to come to terms with the fact that his judicial system has disregarded him as an individual who is capable of self-determination and owed the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise.

Raffaele has plenty of reason for resentment, but not against me. The only reason he has been dragged into this is because he happens to be my alibi. He is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”.

 

[acbytesla]

I have no idea, but I do know that billionaire John Arnold and his wife, Laura, invest in the Innocence Project and even sit on the board.

I believe the Innocence Project is only starting to get involved now, after reviewing the case, and obviously it is because Knox is an American. I say this because I have never seen anyone from the organization speak on this until now.

I'm pretty sure the Innnocence Project was involved while they were incarcerated in Italy. Keep in mind that DNA expert Dr. Greg Hampikian is part of the Innocence project and has been a critic of Stefanoni and her practices. How much more involvement, I do not know.

 

[kcoh]

I'm pretty sure the Innnocence Project was involved while they were incarcerated in Italy. Keep in mind that DNA expert Dr. Greg Hampikian is part of the Innocence project and has been a critic of Stefanoni and her practices. How much more involvement, I do not know.

I did not know that. Thank you!

 

[RoseMontague]

Tell me, what am I wrong about in the post you were responding to? And while you are at it, you could show me just one post where I've said that AK and RS are guilty.

Don't take this the wrong way because I see nothing wrong with pointing out things you think are crass comments but the impression most people have is that you support the side of guilt because you normally are just pointing out the crass comments from the pro innocent side of the case.

 

[lionking]

Don't take this the wrong way because I see nothing wrong with pointing out things you think are crass comments but the impression most people have is that you support the side of guilt because you normally are just pointing out the crass comments from the pro innocent side of the case.

There's another side here? Barely...

 

[icerat]

Planigales are from Australia! We are top predators (very small top predators).

Aussie here as well, just don't live there any more. For the record there's pretty much no coverage of the case in Sweden.

 

[RoseMontague]

There's another side here? Barely...

Well, I guess you took my comment the wrong way when I was trying to be sincere. This discussion has a long history and the pro guilt side was once far more represented than it is now. Still there are the racist and filthy mafioso comments about the pro innocent posters among the few from the pro guilt crowd that remain as well as the Obama's dog comment regarding Amanda recently. Just off the top of my head.

Hearts and Minds, as one poster said recently. The impression you give is that you are on the side of guilt regardless if you have said that Raffaele and the Knox girl are guilty. Just my opinion.

 

[RoseMontague]

A poster at IA has pointed out a mock video done by the local TV in the Perugia area. This is similar to the mock tweeting they are doing after changing the sign Amanda held up in her recent tweet. Evidently there is a lot of slang as well as a mixture of other languages in their voice over but the main point of it is to have Amanda saying she is happy for all the money and fame she has received.

 

[Rolfe]

Tell me, what am I wrong about in the post you were responding to? And while you are at it, you could show me just one post where I've said that AK and RS are guilty.

Look, I remember you making this challenge some time ago, and I remember linking to just such a post in response. I'm hardly going to search back months or years in the "continuation" threads to do it again though.

I don't know what your problem is. You acknowledge that massive mistakes were made and an innocent woman convicted in the Lindy Chamberlain case. You acknowledge that massive mistakes were made and an innocent man convicted in the Lockerbie bombing case.

You've had all the problems with this case explained to you time and time again. It's actually significantly further out on the bizarro-land spectrum than either of these other two cases. There is a perfectly sensible, logical explanation for what happened which fits all the evidence, the killer was identified and caught and jailed. It's not a difficult or puzzling case at all, which the other two were, most certainly.

The puzzling part of this case is why the authorities are so hell-bent on convicting a couple of people where there was no serious reason to suspect them, and against whom they have no solid evidence whatsoever. Even there, the explanation isn't that hard to find. The cops jumped to a wrong conclusion at a very early stage, and couldn't bear the loss of face that would have resulted if they'd admitted to that mistake when they should have done.

I really don't know why, in the face of all this, you pretend to sit on the face and snipe in one direction only.

Rolfe.

 

[anglolawyer]

This about sums up Lionking's 'sceptical' approach in these cases.

 

[RoseMontague]

This about sums up Lionking's 'sceptical' approach in these cases.

To be fair, I recall that lk said he regretted making that post but I am not sure if it was in that particular thread.

 

[anglolawyer]

To be fair, I recall that lk said he regretted making that post but I am not sure if it was in that particular thread.

I am pretty sure it was not in the thread because I don't remember seeing any expression of regret there. Good for him if he did though.

 

[katy_did]

Aussie here as well, just don't live there any more. For the record there's pretty much no coverage of the case in Sweden.

Aussie abroad here too (well, Welsh/Aussie. Long story). I was back in Australia last year and remember there being a fair bit of coverage of the Supreme Court decision. One of the best interviews Amanda's given was to a Kiwi radio station; I think the only better one was the recent Guardian article/video interview.

 

[katy_did]

I know it has already been posted, but I thought I would post the entire article.

Clinical law professor, Steve Drizin, is now speaking on the behalf of Amanda Knox. He specializes in wrongful convictions and false confessions. Hannah Riley, his co-author, works for the Innocence Project. I was wondering when that organization would become involved.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-drizin/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-_b_4757435.html

What's actually pretty heartening is that there are a fair few thoughtful articles coming out now in support of Amanda and Raffaele. A real contrast to the white noise produced by the Machine and his pals. It's almost enough to make me hopeful the intelligent commentary might actually win out in the end...