Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #12

[OldSteve]

Interesting new (May 16th, 2011) article: "Amanda Knox trial blogger silenced by Google"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...enced-by-google/2011/05/16/AFofFp4G_blog.html

 

[SMK]

Interesting new (May 16th, 2011) article: "Amanda Knox trial blogger silenced by Google"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...enced-by-google/2011/05/16/AFofFp4G_blog.html

Thanks for this link, Steve!

 

[SMK]

From the Washington Post article, linked by Old Steve:


Mignini isn’t the only one to push back on Sfarzo for covering the Knox trial. Sfarzo says that during the past four years, he has been kicked by a cop, brutally beaten by five officers, spent a night in jail, and charged with assault.

Last month, the Committee to Protect Journalists wrote an open letter to the president of Italy, saying they were “deeply concerned about local authorities’ harassment of journalists...and by the manifest intolerance to criticism displayed by Perugia Public Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini....Of the cases that have come to CPJ’s attention, one stands out.” That case is Frank Sfarzo’s.

Sfarzo’s treatment is also being compared to the earlier case of Mario Spezi — a journalist who covered the Monster of Florence murders that took place from the 1960s-1980s — who was jailed after running afoul of Mignini.

Last week, CPJ called on authorities to drop what they called a “trumped-up defamation lawsuit” against Perugia Shock.

Italy recently fell back into the “partly free” speech category, according to Freedom House, because of limitations by courts and libel laws, and increased intimidation of journalists.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/amanda-knox-trial-blogger-silenced-by-google/2011/05/16/AFofFp4G_blog.html

 

[otto]

Only the head D.A. is elected, otto, and that's only true in terms of state systems. Of course, the D.A. puts pressure on the Asst. DAs who actually try cases, but your average prosecutor is just gaining experience until he can go into private practice and make real money as a defense attorney.

But people don't become lawyers because they have no egos. Like anyone, they care about public perception of their job performance; unfortunately, that perception is often based--simplistically--on win/loss records. I doubt human nature is so very different in Europe.

To wit, in the U.S., federal prosecutors are appointed. I've never heard anyone suggest they care less about their trial records.

I don't believe that all lawyers are lawyers because they are people with big egos. Every profession has some egotistical people, but no single profession is filled with big ego people. There are many reasons why people choose particular professions.

 

[otto]

Oh, OK. Well, I believe justice should hold supremacy over egos and reputations, but perhaps not too realistic....

I think there are plenty of prosecutors that choose the life of a civil servant, ie: prosecutor, because they want to help people and because they care about justice. There are many lawyers that remain with the prosecutor's office throughout their careers; never moving into private practice. They are not there to get rich, and they are not there because they are fixated on winning. I believe they choose that career path because they want to see justice for victims of crime, and that is more meaningful to them than private practice big bucks, or winning for the sake of winning (arguing that a murder is not guilty).

 

[Nova]

I don't believe that all lawyers are lawyers because they are people with big egos. Every profession has some egotistical people, but no single profession is filled with big ego people. There are many reasons why people choose particular professions.

There are variations within any group, of course, but it takes considerable ego to have confidence that your arguments are superior to those of others.

(Oh, and BTW, I've worked with literally hundreds of lawyers over the past three decades. I haven't met one who didn't have a sizable ego.)

 

[otto]

Similarly, an over zealous prosecutor can be thrown out. My fear with lifelong positions - Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I don't think that prosecutors walk into a job and then keep that position throughout their careers. There are different responsibilities in a prosecutor's office ranging from co-counsel, chief counsel, assistant chief prosecutor (overseeing a team of prosecutors), chief prosecutor (overseeing the assistant chief prosecutors), and so on to Judges and Attorney General. There is rotation in most of these positions, at set intervals, so that everyone gets a full range of job task experience. I think it is rare (if not impossible) that one person is stuck in one position for 25 years and that this person becomes corrupt with power while a team of prosecutors does nothing ... that just isn't how it works.

 

[otto]

It's important to remember what exactly we're talking about here. The way Otto describes these stories he makes it sound as if Amanda was glorifying or exploiting the acts of rape and drug abuse, almost as if these are fantasy stories about those subject matters. The "Baby Brother" story is about an older brother reprimanding his younger brother for raping a girl, and contains no actual rape in it - it's all the aftermath. This is pretty in tune with any Lifetime made for TV movie, if you ask me... or an afterschool special. If it were a movie it would be rated PG. There are no curse words. There is no rape. There is no drug use.

The second story written in prison, speculated to be written by Amanda, is about a man who finds the girl he loves overdosed on drugs and tells her goodbye as she is taken to the hospital. Again. Why the over-embellishment of these stories? Perhaps Otto can explain just what's so offensive and telling about them...

I have always held the believe, based on my understanding of the circumstances of the murder of Meredith Kercher, that this was borderline thrill kill. Knox and Sollecito both have some aspects of their personalities that tend to the very dark side. Together, that dark side may have been the bond that grew. I think it's possible that they included Guede because he may have had some drugs, and I think that going to the cottage with Rude (rather than Sollecto's apt) was because that was a place where Amanda was familiar with indulging her drug abuse. I think it's quite possible that on the Night of the Dead, Sollecito (who still suffered emotional problems regarding his mother's death - see his online blogs) and Knox decided to explore hard drugs (for which Sollecito had prior documented use). Knox was the common bond between Sollecito and Guede, and as a manipulative person (see Berlin myspace notes), they would have been vulnerable to female manipulations due to the mutual absence of a strong female roll model in their lives.

The rest is history.

 

[Nova]

I have always held the believe, based on my understanding of the circumstances of the murder of Meredith Kercher, that this was borderline thrill kill. Knox and Sollecito both have some aspects of their personalities that tend to the very dark side. Together, that dark side may have been the bond that grew. I think it's possible that they included Guede because he may have had some drugs, and I think that going to the cottage with Rude (rather than Sollecto's apt) was because that was a place where Amanda was familiar with indulging her drug abuse. I think it's quite possible that on the Night of the Dead, Sollecito (who still suffered emotional problems regarding his mother's death - see his online blogs) and Knox decided to explore hard drugs (for which Sollecito had prior documented use). Knox was the common bond between Sollecito and Guede, and as a manipulative person (see Berlin myspace notes), they would have been vulnerable to female manipulations due to the mutual absence of a strong female roll model in their lives.

The rest is history.

That's a very creative short story, otto. Should I assume you have some personality defect that allows you to imagine such things? I think not.

More to the point is that the timeline simply doesn't allow time for all you imagine to occur. And you, like Mignini, have AK manipulating boys with whom she doesn't share fluency in any one language. A neat trick, that!

I trust that as educated adults, we all understand that the "dark side" to which you refer is merely a metaphor and not a real place, physically or psychologically.

 

[SMK]

I have always held the believe, based on my understanding of the circumstances of the murder of Meredith Kercher, that this was borderline thrill kill. Knox and Sollecito both have some aspects of their personalities that tend to the very dark side. Together, that dark side may have been the bond that grew. I think it's possible that they included Guede because he may have had some drugs, and I think that going to the cottage with Rude (rather than Sollecto's apt) was because that was a place where Amanda was familiar with indulging her drug abuse. I think it's quite possible that on the Night of the Dead, Sollecito (who still suffered emotional problems regarding his mother's death - see his online blogs) and Knox decided to explore hard drugs (for which Sollecito had prior documented use). Knox was the common bond between Sollecito and Guede, and as a manipulative person (see Berlin myspace notes), they would have been vulnerable to female manipulations due to the mutual absence of a strong female roll model in their lives.

The rest is history.

Otto, for a long time this psychological profile/analysis made perfect sense to me. Weird things happen all the time. (In the 90s, in our county we had a 15 year old girl who knifed both her mother and brother to death. She had been a good student and a cheerleader.) What happened to change my mind, is the evidence fell apart. NOT that, "Oh, these 2 angels could never have done this." Not at all. If the evidence had not disintegrated and fallen to dust, I would still hold to exactly what you are saying.

 

[otto]

There are variations within any group, of course, but it takes considerable ego to have confidence that your arguments are superior to those of others.

(Oh, and BTW, I've worked with literally hundreds of lawyers over the past three decades. I haven't met one who didn't have a sizable ego.)

It takes considerable confidence to stand at the front of a lecture hall with 150 sets of eyes staring at you and present yourself as an expert on a subject. Are all instructors egotistical, or could they be experts willing to impart their knowledge? I've met my share of lawyers as well, and ego was not the personality quality that I saw. In fact, most prosecutors I know have internalized the pain and suffering of the victims of crime. They dream about, drink to forget about it, and sometimes do extreme things to clear their heads of the ugliness they encounter. Pretrial evidence reduces them to tears, they are sleepless throughout the trials, and preparing closing arguments is a bit like a brain splat where they want to ensure that they've covered every angle that the defense presented. Many prosecutors are damaged people by the end of their careers, having been consumed by their years of service.

I can see that those who are unhappy with the jury decision to find Knox and Sollecito guilty want to blame someone, and that they have chosen to blame only one of the prosecutors rather than both of them or the jury, but I would be reluctant to jump to the generalization that all lawyers or prosecutors are egotistical maniacs that want to win at all cost. If people disagree with the jury's verdict, then disagree with it ... don't blame one of the prosecutors that presented the case, and don't paint all lawyers as egotistical maniacs that would find joy in convicting the innocent if only for the sake of winning. That's the stuff of books, not life.

 

[SMK]

If people disagree with the jury's verdict, then disagree with it ... don't blame one of the prosecutors that presented the case, and don't paint all lawyers as egotistical maniacs that would find joy in convicting the innocent if only for the sake of winning. That's the stuff of books, not life.

(Snipped by SMK for emphasis)
Otto, I believe that in these kinds of events, books and life do merge. It is NOT that they would "find joy in convicting the innocent if only for the sake of winning"---it is rather, once a theory emerges within the mind, the mind becomes blocked and cannot see alternatives. The ego insists one is right, and reason in the end yields to the ego.

 

[otto]

That's a very creative short story, otto. Should I assume you have some personality defect that allows you to imagine such things? I think not.

More to the point is that the timeline simply doesn't allow time for all you imagine to occur. And you, like Mignini, have AK manipulating boys with whom she doesn't share fluency in any one language. A neat trick, that!

I trust that as educated adults, we all understand that the "dark side" to which you refer is merely a metaphor and not a real place, physically or psychologically.

Maybe I'll become a creative writer like Knox. Actually, I have to attribute my short story inspiration to the trial evidence, but if you prefer to believe that my understanding of the trial evidence implies that I have a personality defect, by all means ... have at it ... but please keep it off the board. PM me if you feel you need to make personal remarks towards me (thanks in advance).

Rudy speaks English, so no language barrier there. Amanda only has the language barrier when it's convenient. On the one hand all she could say in Italian was I'd like a beer or a pizza but on the other hand she was a remarkably talented linguist from Seattle. Either way, Knox and Sollecito were able to communicate their way from an afternoon concert into bed later in the evening, and to 10 days of intense relationship.

I'm not seeing any language barriers once we discontinue adapting the "language barrier" to suit the situation.

 

[Nova]

There are rules here (at least they were clearly spelled out during the Brad Cooper trial) about sleuthing and posting personal information about people associated with a case. I'm assuming that it is beyond the TOS to post personal information about the Prosecutor in any case discussed here, but perhaps one of the moderators can offer clarification.

A prosecutor is not just "people associated with a case." Comparing a prosecutor to, say, the mother of a crime victim is absurd.

If you mean there should be rules against posting a prosecutor's home address and cell phone number, or info about members of his family, I agree.

But otherwise, government officials should expect heightened scrutiny. Anything concerning their professional life (and anything concerning their personal life that proves corruption or hypocrisy without betraying innocent parties) should be fair game.

I'll be very surprised if Tricia feels otherwise.

 

[otto]

Otto, for a long time this psychological profile/analysis made perfect sense to me. Weird things happen all the time. (In the 90s, in our county we had a 15 year old girl who knifed both her mother and brother to death. She had been a good student and a cheerleader.) What happened to change my mind, is the evidence fell apart. NOT that, "Oh, these 2 angels could never have done this." Not at all. If the evidence had not disintegrated and fallen to dust, I would still hold to exactly what you are saying.

The evidence has not yet fallen to dust, but that may well happen. Thus far, three points of evidence are being reviewed under appeal. DNA has been tested, and there are problems with retesting because there simply is nothing left of the two reviewed samples to test. Will that mean that the original DNA results will be removed from the evidence list, or will that mean that the original DNA results will be upheld? I don't know ... but I suspect we'll have to wait until the fall to find the answer. Until it falls to dust, it still stands as evidence in the case justifying the jury's finding of guilt.

 

[Nova]

Otto, for a long time this psychological profile/analysis made perfect sense to me. Weird things happen all the time. (In the 90s, in our county we had a 15 year old girl who knifed both her mother and brother to death. She had been a good student and a cheerleader.) What happened to change my mind, is the evidence fell apart. NOT that, "Oh, these 2 angels could never have done this." Not at all. If the evidence had not disintegrated and fallen to dust, I would still hold to exactly what you are saying.

I agree. It's the lack of physical and other evidence that is telling, not that a 20-year-old woman can't commit a crime. That being said, LE commonly assumes that a person who has committed crimes in the past is more likely to do so in the future. We know which of the principals in this case was a petty criminal. That alone doesn't prove he murdered MK, but there is plenty of forensic evidence against him as well.

 

[Nova]

It takes considerable confidence to stand at the front of a lecture hall with 150 sets of eyes staring at you and present yourself as an expert on a subject. Are all instructors egotistical, or could they be experts willing to impart their knowledge? I've met my share of lawyers as well, and ego was not the personality quality that I saw. In fact, most prosecutors I know have internalized the pain and suffering of the victims of crime. They dream about, drink to forget about it, and sometimes do extreme things to clear their heads of the ugliness they encounter. Pretrial evidence reduces them to tears, they are sleepless throughout the trials, and preparing closing arguments is a bit like a brain splat where they want to ensure that they've covered every angle that the defense presented. Many prosecutors are damaged people by the end of their careers, having been consumed by their years of service.

I can see that those who are unhappy with the jury decision to find Knox and Sollecito guilty want to blame someone, and that they have chosen to blame only one of the prosecutors rather than both of them or the jury, but I would be reluctant to jump to the generalization that all lawyers or prosecutors are egotistical maniacs that want to win at all cost. If people disagree with the jury's verdict, then disagree with it ... don't blame one of the prosecutors that presented the case, and don't paint all lawyers as egotistical maniacs that would find joy in convicting the innocent if only for the sake of winning. That's the stuff of books, not life.

Yet another straw man argument, otto? One would think the room was already crowded with them.

Nobody has said that Mignini knowingly set out to convict innocent people, but that he made a snap judgment and is too arrogant to consider that he may have made a mistake.

I don't doubt that many prosecutors care very much about the victims of the crimes they prosecute. I'm also sure many feel great pressure to achieve justice for crime victims. Neither fact negates a common refusal to admit their mistakes; in fact, concern for the victim may only make the prosecutor more rigid in his judgments.

BTW, the comparison of trial attorneys to college professors is inexact because professors rarely have to face an opposing expert who contests their every word. Sure, professors have egos, but the job doesn't require the same level of confidence.

 

[otto]

(Snipped by SMK for emphasis)
Otto, I believe that in these kinds of events, books and life do merge. It is NOT that they would "find joy in convicting the innocent if only for the sake of winning"---it is rather, once a theory emerges within the mind, the mind becomes blocked and cannot see alternatives. The ego insists one is right, and reason in the end yields to the ego.

20-30 years ago, prior to advances in technology and DNA evidence, tunnel vision was a problem in criminal investigation. Through education and profiling, investigators have become educated on the problems of tunnel vision. Through technology, police forces established communication tools that widened the suspect pool. The development of DNA evidence has established methods to elliminate cirucmstantial suspects that looked good for a crime. Tunnel vision is not nearly the problem is was 20 years ago, but memories are long and innocent people are still in jail due to convictions based on antiquated investigative methods.

I would agree that once it was established that the break in was staged, the suspect pool in Meredith's murder was drastically reduced. The defense has been unable to refute the obvious signs that the break in was staged. I realize that people unconnected with the crime, people that have never been to the crime scene, attended the trial or set foot in Italy, have tried to argue that the broken window was not staged, but those people have not been appointed as witnesses, they are not experts in the court-appointed expert context, and their theories are really nothing more than speculations based on looking at some photos. At this time, no expert has successfully testified (that I'm aware of) that the break in was not staged.

 

[otto]

A prosecutor is not just "people associated with a case." Comparing a prosecutor to, say, the mother of a crime victim is absurd.

If you mean there should be rules against posting a prosecutor's home address and cell phone number, or info about members of his family, I agree.

But otherwise, government officials should expect heightened scrutiny. Anything concerning their professional life (and anything concerning their personal life that proves corruption or hypocrisy without betraying innocent parties) should be fair game.

I'll be very surprised if Tricia feels otherwise.

I'll await clarification from moderators, but my impression is that in the Brad Cooper case the Prosecutors were not on trial - they were doing their jobs - and it was not acceptable to be dragging them through the mud in order to argue that Cooper was suffering malicious prosecution.

 

[Nova]

Maybe I'll become a creative writer like Knox. Actually, I have to attribute my short story inspiration to the trial evidence, but if you prefer to believe that my understanding of the trial evidence implies that I have a personality defect, by all means ... have at it ... but please keep it off the board. PM me if you feel you need to make personal remarks towards me (thanks in advance).

If you'll look at my post again, you'll see I said the opposite of what you imply: I was emphatic that your writing in one post tells us nothing about your personality.

Rudy speaks English, so no language barrier there. Amanda only has the language barrier when it's convenient. On the one hand all she could say in Italian was I'd like a beer or a pizza but on the other hand she was a remarkably talented linguist from Seattle. Either way, Knox and Sollecito were able to communicate their way from an afternoon concert into bed later in the evening, and to 10 days of intense relationship.

I'm not seeing any language barriers once we discontinue adapting the "language barrier" to suit the situation.

Rudy is said by one writer to have "a working knowledge of" English. We have no way to know what that means exactly, but it indicates something less than fluency.

AK does seem to have a knack for languages (particularly by American standards which are admittedly low), but she was still in her first year of study of Italian. (For the record, it is VERY rare for an American student to be able to read a book in a foreign language by the end of high school (unless, of course, he or she was raised in a multi-lingual family). One isn't expected to do so until at least the fourth semester of college study.)

RS spoke little if any English.

That Mignini imagines this trio in a conspiracy with AK as the ringleader says something very weird about his attitude toward women, if you ask me. I won't venture to guess why you agree with him so emphatically.