Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #18

[SkewedView]

It's not hyperbole, it's an observable fact. Listening to some in discussion, it is as though they believe this case is the centre of the universe to the Italians, that this is the only case they deal with, have ever dealt with and as such are all green and don't know what they are doing in their inferior little system with their inferior little experts and require the input of kindly foreigners on message boards who know best to highlight the errors of their ways and teach them what's what. There is the idea that this is some 'special' case that is going to cause fundamental change in the Italian legal system because it's highlighted all these inferiorities in their system that certain people on message boards seem to think there are. Just for example, one poster just a few posts ago declared it would probably change Dr Stefanoni's career as from now on, everyone will go over her records. Another poster earlier, seemed to think that because of this case, Italy as a nation will have to change its DNA policy. I've seen others moot that this case is going to force all sorts of other changes in the Italian system, like it's some sort of game changing affair. And one doesn't just read it here, but on pretty much any board or comments section Knox supporters tend to gather.

Before you make such broad statements about other posters, and being as you are new here, it might behoove you to take a look through the many, many previous threads, where you will find that those who are criticizing aspects of the investigation etc are doing so within the context that such things occur in all legal systems to one degree or another. Belittling those posters with sarcastic, passive aggressive misinterpretations of their intent only weakens your position.

There are certain unpleasant realities of nearly every Justice System, such as blind trust in the validity of prosecutorial witnesses and the rarity of reviews of the work of State Labs, that are well documented phenomena, yet when these things are pointed out, sarcastic attributions of xenophobia etc are the response, a cheap shot at best, and rather silly given the rather cosmopolitan makeup of the posters on this website.

 

[Fulcanelli]

otto,

I was obviously not referring to interrogation tactics. The false information I had in mind (the bleach receipt business, the Harry Potter book, the supposedly missing clothing, the supposedly clear CCTV images, the pink bathroom photo, etc.) were primarily, perhaps entirely released after Knox and Sollecito were in custody. At this point ILE had no business releasing information about them, let alone false information.

Was any of it used to convict them in their trial? If not, how is it relevant?

And, how much is it down to the media getting things wrong, rather then the police?

As for the CCTV images, I don't recall the police ever referring to them as 'clear'. What have the pink bathroom photos got to do with anything? The police released a batch of crime scene photos, without caveat. The press decided which ones to print and what captions to put on them. I think you put too much blame on the police, that should actually be put on the media.

The police are perfectly entitled to release information if they wish, it's allowed in Italy. Italy doesn't have juries, but judges. The reason why information isn't released in say, the US or UK, is because we have juries and it's to prevent pollution of the jury pool, not to protect the reputation or image of suspect. Since they don't have juries in Italy, that isn't a concern. But, I can understand why the accused and their supporters may not like it much.

 

[SkewedView]

Why is that a problem? Is there an established limit on how many times someone can be a witness to something? The man is homeless. As someone who is homeless, he is forced to sleep in areas where...let's say, criminal elements may gather. And being homeless, no doubt he is treated as many homeless people are...like he's invisible and doesn't exist and as such people may do things when he's in eyeshot, that they wouldn't consider risking doing in front of 'normal' people. And for others, they may even give it the view that 'He's homeless, who will listen to him anyway?'. I am not the slightest bit surprised that he's seen a lot of stuff in the ten years he's been on the streets and it requires no sinister or conspiraloon explanations. The conspiraloon offering at the moment blows itself up, considering Curatolo is in jail...which kind of sabotages the whole idea that he's been acting as a witness because he's in the thrall of the police. If that were so, then he wouldn't be in jail.

The only gorilla in the room is innuendo and innuendo means squat.

Respectfully bolded by me:

You might want to re-read the part of my post where I said this:

This is not to say that the prosecution told the guy to lie, more likely, as with many serial witnesses, he wanted to make himself useful to them in the (obviously futile) hope of being owed 'favors' if he got in trouble (which he did get into, and is paying for it, thus killing any reasonable conspiracy theories, IMO).

Really, if you look into other cases with serial witnesses, they very, very rarely turn out to be truthful. That accusations of lying are so freely thrown around at AK & RS, followed by such vehement insistence on the veracity of this guy's incredibly dubious tale is just mind boggling to me.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Here is a portion of an abstract on stomach emptying times:
quote
Results:
The mean±SD of half gastric emptying time (T1/2) of a fluid test meal was determined to be 80.5±22.1 min and for Tlagto be 40.3±10.2 min. However, the T1/2 and Tlag of solid meals did not fit to normal distribution and thus median and percentiles were determined. The median time of T1/2 for solids was 127 min (25–75% percentiles: 112.0–168.3 min) and 81.5 min for Tlag (25–75% percentiles: 65.5–102.0 min). No significant correlation was found between gastric emptying and age, sex or BMI.”
S. Hellmig et al., “Gastric emptying time of fluids and solids in healthy subjects determined by 13 C breath tests: influence of age, sex and body mass index,” Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 21 (2006) 1832–1838.
endquote

We have a good idea about when Meredith ate from the testimony of her friends.

 

[SkewedView]

Was any of it used to convict them in their trial? If not, how is it relevant?

And, how much is it down to the media getting things wrong, rather then the police?

As for the CCTV images, I don't recall the police ever referring to them as 'clear'. What have the pink bathroom photos got to do with anything? The police released a batch of crime scene photos, without caveat. The press decided which ones to print and what captions to put on them. I think you put too much blame on the police, that should actually be put on the media.

The police are perfectly entitled to release information if they wish, it's allowed in Italy. Italy doesn't have juries, but judges. The reason why information isn't released in say, the US or UK, is because we have juries and it's to prevent pollution of the jury pool, not to protect the reputation or image of suspect. Since they don't have juries in Italy, that isn't a concern. But, I can understand why the accused and their supporters may not like it much.

It is an issue because your 'Lay Judges' are still just average schlubs taken from off the streets, with no experience or training in how to maintain an unbiased mindset, or how to filter out information from the mass media. Giving these people a fancy title does not suddenly make them more enlightened than the rest of the general populace (whom, I should point out, fell for these tactics hook, line and sinker).

Oh, and Italian law explicitly forbids the pre-trial release of info about a case once charges have been pressed - all in the interests of a fair trial. However, you are correct that at the time that this stuff was released, it was perfectly legal, as it was during the nearly year long period that AK & RS were detained but not charged.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Before you make such broad statements about other posters, and being as you are new here, it might behoove you to take a look through the many, many previous threads, where you will find that those who are criticizing aspects of the investigation etc are doing so within the context that such things occur in all legal systems to one degree or another. Belittling those posters with sarcastic, passive aggressive misinterpretations of their intent only weakens your position.

There are certain unpleasant realities of nearly every Justice System, such as blind trust in the validity of prosecutorial witnesses and the rarity of reviews of the work of State Labs, that are well documented phenomena, yet when these things are pointed out, sarcastic attributions of xenophobia etc are the response, a cheap shot at best, and rather silly given the rather cosmopolitan makeup of the posters on this website.

After years of observation, I feel qualified to make them. I may be new 'here', but I am not new to this case and I'm not new to many of the other posters here...I know quite a few of them, as they know me and we have 'debated' together many times in many other places.

Cosmopolitan? Are any of you Italian then? Or are you all non-Italian 'cosmopolitan'?

I wouldn't go so far as xenophobia (although it certainly may exist in one or two individuals), rather I'd phrase it more as 'Anglocentrism' to coin a word. There certainly is a sense of cultural superiority. I've sat here and read through posts where posters seem to be desperate to find fault with the Italian system and where they don't find it, they manufacture it and when they are unable to do that, they infer fault with innuendo. As you say, all systems have their faults and the way of pointing them out is with constructive criticism, but that's not what I've seen on offer here. What I've seen instead, is a whole load of Italy bashing, being done for no other reason then the fact they have the audacity to be prosecuting a girl a whole lot of people want to see get off. So no, it's not a cheap shot, it's an observation that is very on point, is obvious to any observer and I'm offering it for free.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It is an issue because your 'Lay Judges' are still just average schlubs taken from off the streets, with no experience or training in how to maintain an unbiased mindset, or how to filter out information from the mass media. Giving these people a fancy title does not suddenly make them more enlightened than the rest of the general populace (whom, I should point out, fell for these tactics hook, line and sinker).

Oh, and Italian law explicitly forbids the pre-trial release of info about a case once charges have been pressed - all in the interests of a fair trial. However, you are correct that at the time that this stuff was released, it was perfectly legal, as it was during the nearly year long period that AK & RS were detained but not charged.

That's as may be, but a jury system vulnerable to prejudice from biased jurors, because they don't have to justify or even explain their pov, whereas Italian judges do. If you only have prejudice, then you don't have a logical argument to explain your conclusion over a piece of evidence, fact or clue and that would form grounds of appeal for the defence. You can't wing it as an Italian judge, you have to explain all of your actions. Moreover, you are being constantly guided by two professional judges through the process and their job is to ensure any prejudice is ironed out of the process. Moreover, the Italian system has two automatic appeals. In addition, you will have had to have gone through multiple courts to have even got to trial and those courts will have been presided over by purely professional judges. I could go on, but that will do. The fact is, the Italian system has multiple inbuilt safeguards that do not exist in their common law counterparts with their amateur juries. You are in effect, comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Nova]

Your accusations of 'hatred' are rather hyperbolic, it must be said. I can see no hatred in Otto's post. Perhaps I'm missing it and I need it spelling out for me?

As for the Knox's, the crime they have been accused of is libel, which when I last looked, is also unlawful in America and the UK and people sue each other for it all the time.

The post to which I referred was merely the latest in a series accusing the Knoxes of all sorts of things.

"Libel" is a tort in the U.S. It is actionable in civil court, which isn't exactly the same thing as being "illegal." But I'm sure that's what you meant.

 

[SkewedView]

After years of observation, I feel qualified to make them. I may be new 'here', but I am not new to this case and I'm not new to many of the other posters here...I know quite a few of them, as they know me and we have 'debated' together many times in many other places.

Cosmopolitan? Are any of you Italian then? Or are you all non-Italian 'cosmopolitan'?

I wouldn't go so far as xenophobia (although it certainly may exist in one or two individuals), rather I'd phrase it more as 'Anglocentrism' to coin a word. There certainly is a sense of cultural superiority. I've sat here and read through posts where posters seem to be desperate to find fault with the Italian system and where they don't find it, they manufacture it and when they are unable to do that, they infer fault with innuendo. As you say, all systems have their faults and the way of pointing them out is with constructive criticism, but that's not what I've seen on offer here. What I've seen instead, is a whole load of Italy bashing, being done for no other reason then the fact they have the audacity to be prosecuting a girl a whole lot of people want to see get off. So no, it's not a cheap shot, it's an observation that is very on point, is obvious to any observer and I'm offering it for free.

Original comment deleted by myself for allowing myself to respond to rudeness with rudeness. My apologies.

Just an FYI, Webslueths is not like those other boards. This is a victim friendly site, which generally supports LE and prosecutors as a default - except when they go wrong, such as the disturbing trend of labeling any missing teen as a runaway despite evidence to the contrary. That this thread is on this site and yet is so divided in opinion should tell you something.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Respectfully bolded by me:

You might want to re-read the part of my post where I said this:



Really, if you look into other cases with serial witnesses, they very, very rarely turn out to be truthful. That accusations of lying are so freely thrown around at AK & RS, followed by such vehement insistence on the veracity of this guy's incredibly dubious tale is just mind boggling to me.

Wanted to make himself useful? Why not just do charity work? Why stop at only three times? What about all those crimes he didn't come forward about? Someone being a tramp...and wanting to make themselves useful. You do understand, those are not exactly two things that easily go together?

What's dubious about his 'tale'? He only claimed he saw them sitting on a bench. Reading you, one would thing he'd claimed he saw them doing something fantastic...like levitating across the basketball court.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The post to which I referred was merely the latest in a series accusing the Knoxes of all sorts of things.

"Libel" is a tort in the U.S. It is actionable in civil court, which isn't exactly the same thing as being "illegal." But I'm sure that's what you meant.

Why does accusing the Knox's of something equate to 'hatred'? Generally, people accuse people of something because they they think they did what they are accusing them of, not because they hate them. And it's also worth mentioning, the Knox's have a track record. That is well documented elsewhere, so there's little need to repeat it all here.

If something is actionable, then it is 'unlawful'...that means illegal. There is no reason why, I can see, that a legal system needs to have a civil and criminal distinction and having one certainly doesn't make it 'right' or superior over those that don't. The only reason I can see for having it is not for legal reasons, but simply to remove part of the burden off of the state. If you make it the individual's responsibility rather then the state's for prosecuting a designated set of crimes, then you remove a huge slice of the state's financial burden. The state also doesn't care so much about those crimes it does not perceive to be against the state, but just the person. It's an expediency and convenience for the state, rather then being born of any moral or ethical or legal philosophy.

That all said, ut all works out the same, so the distinction isn't really there. If the knox's are convicted of defamation, they will get essentially the same punishment they would get if found guilty of libel in the UK or US...having to pay compensation and ordered to pay costs. In fact, they can avoid it altogether if they make a retraction and apologise, although they may still have to pat some legal costs since the police have already gone through part of the legal process.

Anyway, time for bed for me. Night

 

[sherlockh]

Just an FYI, Webslueths is not like those other boards. This is a victim friendly site, which generally supports LE and prosecutors as a default - except when they go wrong, such as the disturbing trend of labeling any missing teen as a runaway despite evidence to the contrary. That this thread is on this site and yet is so divided in opinion should tell you something.

It wasn't all that divided at first. If you browse back to earlier threads you see that most posters have simply moved on by now. So it tells me nothing except that this is not a new case. Had this murder happened today, you would see most will be pointing the finger at AK. Covered body, locked bedroom door, alibie lies, their refusal to testify. It is all pretty much websleuths basics. This case never was difficult. JMO.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

It wasn't all that divided at first. If you browse back to earlier threads you see that most posters have simply moved on by now. So it tells me nothing except that this is not a new case. Had this murder happened today, you would see most will be pointing the finger at AK. Covered body, locked bedroom door, alibie lies, their refusal to testify. It is all pretty much websleuths basics. This case never was difficult. JMO.

sherlockh,

Amanda did testify. I have read that it is not always in the best interests of defendants to testify, even when they are innocent. Given Comodi's ability to bring up a nonexistent telephone call to make Amanda look bad, I can understand the concept. From what I have heard, a covered body is the sign of an inexperienced killer, not necessarily a female killer. I am not sure what you mean by an alibi lie with respect to Amanda, unless you mean the interrogation of 5-6 November.

 

[Malkmus]

It wasn't all that divided at first. If you browse back to earlier threads you see that most posters have simply moved on by now. So it tells me nothing except that this is not a new case. Had this murder happened today, you would see most will be pointing the finger at AK. Covered body, locked bedroom door, alibie lies, their refusal to testify. It is all pretty much websleuths basics. This case never was difficult. JMO.

Sherlock, the poll here still exists and has much input from people with opposing views of the case who do not post on this thread - and the results of that poll show that Websleuths is divided, though not equally. There is no way to know why people who posted here in the early days do not anymore unless they speak for themselves. That being said, I could infer just as strongly that they "moved on" because much of the early days evidence has not held up to scrutiny or flat out been proven to be false. Regardless, I don't see much of any point in guessing one way or the other as to why there is less of a pro-guilt sentiment around here than there used to be.

The poll: Do you think Amanda Knox is GUILTY? **LIST ONLY NO DISCUSSION** - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[sherlockh]

Sherlock, the poll here still exists and has much input from people with opposing views of the case who do not post on this thread - and the results of that poll show that Websleuths is divided, though not equally. There is no way to know why people who posted here in the early days do not anymore unless they speak for themselves. That being said, I could infer just as strongly that they "moved on" because much of the early days evidence has not held up to scrutiny or flat out been proven to be false. Regardless, I don't see much of any point in guessing one way or the other as to why there is less of a pro-guilt sentiment around here than there used to be.

The poll: Do you think Amanda Knox is GUILTY? **LIST ONLY NO DISCUSSION** - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

The poll should have been if AK did it or not. I think a lot of people went for legally innocent. It is perfectly normal that people move on when they agree with a verdict. Guessing is not part of that statement.

 

[SkewedView]

Why does accusing the Knox's of something equate to 'hatred'? Generally, people accuse people of something because they they think they did what they are accusing them of, not because they hate them. And it's also worth mentioning, the Knox's have a track record. That is well documented elsewhere, so there's little need to repeat it all here.

If something is actionable, then it is 'unlawful'...that means illegal. There is no reason why, I can see, that a legal system needs to have a civil and criminal distinction and having one certainly doesn't make it 'right' or superior over those that don't. The only reason I can see for having it is not for legal reasons, but simply to remove part of the burden off of the state. If you make it the individual's responsibility rather then the state's for prosecuting a designated set of crimes, then you remove a huge slice of the state's financial burden. The state also doesn't care so much about those crimes it does not perceive to be against the state, but just the person. It's an expediency and convenience for the state, rather then being born of any moral or ethical or legal philosophy.

That all said, ut all works out the same, so the distinction isn't really there. If the knox's are convicted of defamation, they will get essentially the same punishment they would get if found guilty of libel in the UK or US...having to pay compensation and ordered to pay costs. In fact, they can avoid it altogether if they make a retraction and apologise, although they may still have to pat some legal costs since the police have already gone through part of the legal process.

Anyway, time for bed for me. Night

Bold by me:

I thought you were an expert in Italian Law? In Italy, Defamation and Libel are not just Civil offenses, but Criminal as well (in violation of the EU's Human Rights Charter, I might add). This means that if they are found guilty, they will be imprisoned unless they choose to abandon their daughter (assuming that her conviction stands) and refuse to return to Italy for the final verdict and ever after.

And before you go after me for being 'down' on this aspect of Italian Law, again note that the EU Human Rights Court has continuously censured Italy for what is essentially a left over fascist policy on the issue.

 

[SkewedView]

It wasn't all that divided at first. If you browse back to earlier threads you see that most posters have simply moved on by now. So it tells me nothing except that this is not a new case. Had this murder happened today, you would see most will be pointing the finger at AK. Covered body, locked bedroom door, alibie lies, their refusal to testify. It is all pretty much websleuths basics. This case never was difficult. JMO.

It's not difficult, if you just take the prosecution's word for everything, as we all tend to do when a case first comes to light. However, when it started to come to light that PLE and the prosecutors were engaging in questionable behavior, and with questionable methods, right from the start, then things started to become a bit more cloudy...as often happens when people are falsely accused. We have a moderate selection of threads here that followed that pattern - and I should add that most of them are still divided, to one degree or another. If you look at the vast majority of 'old cases' here, however, you will see very little debate over guilt.

 

[SkewedView]

The poll should have been if AK did it or not. I think a lot of people went for legally innocent. It is perfectly normal that people move on when they agree with a verdict. Guessing is not part of that statement.

A sweeping, broad statement, without any way of proving or disproving it, with the implication that other posters here are just 'fringe', irrelevant individuals. Very nice.

 

[Malkmus]

The poll should have been if AK did it or not. I think a lot of people went for legally innocent. It is perfectly normal that people move on when they agree with a verdict. Guessing is not part of that statement.

Speaking for other posters who are no longer here, and asserting as fact that they've all moved on because they agree with the verdict is presumptuous, and still just a guess, end of debate.

 

[SkewedView]

This link is from IIP, so I know that it will be instantly discounted by some, but it should be read because it is a very well written look into how easily innocents become victims of the system because they are innocent, the perils of LE's assumptions that anyone they suspect is in fact guilty, and how lying by LE during questioning actually makes it more likely that they will force a false confession from a purely innocent person.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Kassin.AP_innocense_at_risk.05_read.pdf