Slander huh? I wasn't going to go there. I was going to leave it to other people- blogs, newspapers, TV reporters, etc... It wasn't that I didn't have anything to say, I just figured it was probably best if I didn't say it. You know, kind of hold my tongue and wait for the outcome. Then I realized that way too many people are holding their tongues as concerns Amanda Knox- people in positions of power- People who could make a difference. Well that sure isn't me- all I can do is sound off about things. I don't have to worry about if it's politically correct, or if the prosecutor's office in Perugia is getting bent out of shape because someone is voicing their opinion on the matter.
I kind of have a feeling though that the powers that be in the U S are paying attention to the Amanda Knox situation. Just being quiet and waiting for the outcome of things. It is completely understandable that Hilary Clinton did nothing as concerns Amanda's conviction last December. What could she do? Butting into a murder conviction that was handed down in another country is not 'politically correct'. Not unless the conviction was so plainly biased that even the average person on the street is complaining about it- and the average person in this instance, knows very little about Amanda's plight. I do have to give credit though to some people who did defend the principle- politically correct or not, and that would be a certain judge and junior senator from the state of Washington.
However, this is not a murder conviction this time. This is a case of slander that Amanda is charged with. Something where in the U S the average person is free of such nonsense. People are free to grumble about the police and politicians in America- we do it all the time. And people are free to say what they want in their own defense in court without fear that the local prosecutor will file criminal charges and the police try and sue you for money.
All because Amanda actually had the 'nerve' to say the Perugia police were getting aggressive with her- including a couple cuffs on the back of the head. And she actually had the 'nerve' to say this in court in her own defense. She must have thought she was back home in the land of the free, without realizing that in Italy one does not talk against the police (does it actually warn you of this in travel guides?).
So this Friday, October 1st, Amanda goes to court for slander, and faces a judge that has dealt harshly with her in the past- one Claudia Matteini. Despite Amanda's defense objections to this judge sitting in on the case- she refused to step aside and she was confirmed by a higher court to be qualified. So I guess we can rest assured that there will be no bias from Judge Matteini.
And it keeps getting better- Amanda's parents are also charged and have a court date for October 15th. It appears that they repeated what Amanda had told them about that night at the police station to a British reporter and Mignini charged them also. No wonder they want to make a movie out of the Amanda Knox case- it beat's the hell out of fiction.
As surreal as all this appears I still can not imagine, how exactly does one lose a case like this in court. That night in question was never taped by the police in breech of Italian law, so how would the police prove Amanda was lying (as they contend) and how would Amanda prove that she was telling the truth? Does it in fact come down to who the judge chooses to believe? Does she take the word of a dozen cops or does she find Amanda is being truthful? As concerns Amanda it seems there is never much evidence against her- yet evidence has never played much of a part in finding her guilty. Is this time going to be any different? I can only hope that if things go badly for Amanda that the powers that be in this country are watching, and are prepared to speak out and defend the principle.
Amanda's Book Due Out April 30, 2013
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Judges Motivation Report Should Free Amanda Knox
The so-called Motivation Report which was released in March 2010 and signed by Judges Giancarlo Massei and Beatrice Cristiani should do more to free Amanda Knox at her coming appeal in November than many people realize. Contrary to what some people think- it is NOT a damning report. Instead, this long wordy report clearly shows the lack of critical thinking on the part of those responsible for Amanda's conviction in December 2009.
The original report was released in Italian, but there has been an English translation available online since mid August 2010. This English translation has been thrown in the face of anyone who thinks Amanda Knox is innocent- by those who think she is guilty of course. It makes me wonder if those who praise the report have actually given it a good read, or if they are simply suffering from the same faulty thinking as the judges who wrote it.
This post is not an attack on Italy or the Italian legal system. Nor is this a put-down of the Italian legal tradition of writing motivation reports after a trial. My sole purpose here is to point out that this particular report, the one that supported Amanda's conviction for murder, is full of errors, faulty thinking and speculation. And I intend to back up what I say.
I have gone over this report in detail and it is now up as a separate page linked to this forum/blog. My intention is to go over the important issues and point out the errors and speculation that the motivation report contains. This will be ongoing and over time- taking one issue only at a time. There is a lot of information and one needs to digest it little by little- one point at a time- in order to fully comprehend the difference between the reality of events and what is simply speculation unsupported by fact.
You will find a page called Motivation Report In Focus and it is located under 'pages' seen on the upper right side of the main forum page (home). There is a place to comment and ask questions for those who wish to do so, providing the comments are civilized and to the point. I have started with the so-called 'staged break-in' and will move forward from there. I will be using the English translation and any quotes from the report will be based on that. Hopefully this will open a few people's eyes, however if one does not wish to see the point then they won't. All that is required is an open mind and an IQ higher than Boo Radley- and we're good to go.
THE MOTIVATION REPORT IN FOCUS PAGE HAS BEEN PUBLISHED AND THE FIRST PARTS ARE READY AND LOCATED AT THE UPPER RIGHT OF THE MAIN FORUM PAGE- UNDER THE CAPTION "PAGES". IT WILL BE ADDED TO UNTIL THE ENTIRE REPORT HAS BEEN COVERED.
The original report was released in Italian, but there has been an English translation available online since mid August 2010. This English translation has been thrown in the face of anyone who thinks Amanda Knox is innocent- by those who think she is guilty of course. It makes me wonder if those who praise the report have actually given it a good read, or if they are simply suffering from the same faulty thinking as the judges who wrote it.
This post is not an attack on Italy or the Italian legal system. Nor is this a put-down of the Italian legal tradition of writing motivation reports after a trial. My sole purpose here is to point out that this particular report, the one that supported Amanda's conviction for murder, is full of errors, faulty thinking and speculation. And I intend to back up what I say.
I have gone over this report in detail and it is now up as a separate page linked to this forum/blog. My intention is to go over the important issues and point out the errors and speculation that the motivation report contains. This will be ongoing and over time- taking one issue only at a time. There is a lot of information and one needs to digest it little by little- one point at a time- in order to fully comprehend the difference between the reality of events and what is simply speculation unsupported by fact.
You will find a page called Motivation Report In Focus and it is located under 'pages' seen on the upper right side of the main forum page (home). There is a place to comment and ask questions for those who wish to do so, providing the comments are civilized and to the point. I have started with the so-called 'staged break-in' and will move forward from there. I will be using the English translation and any quotes from the report will be based on that. Hopefully this will open a few people's eyes, however if one does not wish to see the point then they won't. All that is required is an open mind and an IQ higher than Boo Radley- and we're good to go.
THE MOTIVATION REPORT IN FOCUS PAGE HAS BEEN PUBLISHED AND THE FIRST PARTS ARE READY AND LOCATED AT THE UPPER RIGHT OF THE MAIN FORUM PAGE- UNDER THE CAPTION "PAGES". IT WILL BE ADDED TO UNTIL THE ENTIRE REPORT HAS BEEN COVERED.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
The Myths About Amanda
I think what is necessary at this point in time is to address some misinformation that has been going round and round the web for months now. Not all those interested in this case have the same knowledge of the case. Some believe Amanda is guilty and some think she is innocent, yet what comes to mind is the old saying: It's not what you believe- it's why you believe it. This site/blog was created for the purpose to educate those who wanted to know more about the case and Amanda herself. That is not a simple task as from the beginning misinformation has been planted to make the case more complex than it needs to be.
I will start by addressing some of the myths surrounding Amanda Knox and the case in general. I will stick to the known facts and common sense- hopefully that will suffice.
Myth: Amanda Knox is a psychopath/ An anti-social personality.
Really? And where did that come from? The simple answer is that it came from a group of people who do not like Amanda Knox- whatever their reasons. They either think, or want her to be guilty and go to great lengths to try and convince others that she is some kind of dangerous mental case. There is no history of any anti-social behavior regarding Amanda. The key word here is 'empathy'. Anti-social personalities do not care about others, yet Amanda has a reputation for being kind and helpful to many people. Her friends say she is amazing and will help anyone in need. Her teachers say, she is the first one to help out others in their schoolwork or anyone in need. So how then did this myth originate? Probably from the beginning of the trial when she would be photographed smiling and seemingly making light of it all. That's Amanda- she is known for trying to see the good in any situation- and try to lighten the drama. I think in the beginning she did not think it was a charge to be taken seriously- that it was a mistake that would be cleared up and she would go home. It is called making the best of a bad situation. If it was tactful or not is beside the point. As the trial progressed I think she changed her opinion and became more serious when she saw- not the evidence- but the determination of the prosecution to convict her. It is a fact that anti-social personalities do not possess the quality of empathy yet Amanda is known to have this quality in abundance.
Myth: Amanda must be guilty- she confessed and falsely accused an innocent man.
The two do not go hand in hand. Many people who make confessions under stress, are in fact innocent. They are not guilty just because they made a false confession and that is exactly what Amanda did. Shortly after making this so-called confession she sent a note to the police retracting it. To understand the reasons for this, one must put themselves in Amanda's shoes at the time and place this so-called confession happened. Consider now- You are an American in Italy. You are 20 years old and you do not speak Italian very well. Your room mate in Italy has just been murdered and you find yourself in a police station, being worked on for hours and hours until you are so tired all you want to do is sleep. You are alone- no lawyer- no friends or family present. And you are being yelled at and grilled in Italian- a language you do not understand well. Now there are other details which are not completely clear such as did the police hit her? Did she understand correctly what was being said to her? Were things suggested to her? Was she threatened? etc... One fact does remain clear- the Italian Supreme Court stated that Amanda's rights were violated during the so-called confession and was not to be used against her. People will do a lot of things under stress- including making a false confession just to make a bad situation stop and get some sleep. Did the police mention Patrick and push his name over and over until she said something they wanted to hear. Interestingly the so-called confession was never taped as it was suppose to have been according to Italian law- so we will never know for certain exactly what went on in that police station. So, does this 'confession', made after long hours make Amanda Knox guilty? No it does not, particularly as it was retracted almost immediately. There are many cases of false confessions on record in all countries, and making one does not make a person guilty. The police are very good at what they do. They know how to wear a person down- hey, they literally do it for a living.
Myth: The DNA left at the scene proves Amanda Knox is guilty.
Actually- no. The DNA left at the scene of the crime in Meredith's bedroom (murder room) by Amanda is just about zero. The only thing the prosecution had for Amanda's DNA is traces of her DNA in the house in general- but considering she lived in that house that is not surprising. There is no DNA evidence of Amanda's in the murder room. The only thing the prosecution could put forth- and mistakenly- was that there was a knife taken from her boyfriend's apartment that had Amanda's DNA on the handle- um- she cooked in that house- her DNA should have been on the handle. And- they found Meredith's DNA on the blade (so they say). Now that shakes things up right? Not when you know the facts. The DNA of Meredith's on the blade was not blood and it was so tiny an amount that it is called LCN DNA (Low Copy Number DNA) which means it is so small an amount that special testing only would reveal it.
Now- the problem with LCN DNA is that it in many cases is the result of contamination. Now what that means is, it is so tiny an amount that it can literally be transported from one place to another by a light breeze. Or what is called secondary transfer- which means one person gets the DNA on their feet or hands and transfers it to a different location. Also there is the high probability that such LCN DNA can be transfered in the police lab that is testing it. How?
First of all the Italian lab that did the testing was not qualified to do LCN DNA testing and for such testing to be valid it calls for a special lab- sterile with no other items being tested in the lab- The Italian lab was testing everything and DNA does get on people's clothes and on their feet and even transported through the air. So it goes without saying the Italian lab that did the testing was not the environment to preform such tests and that the results of such tests should be viewed as probable contamination.
It is worth noting that an independent group of forensic experts has found that the evidence of DNA in the Amanda Knox case should not be used as it is quite possibly the result of contamination. These experts were from the U S and the UK- a group of a dozen experts in the field of LCN DNA testing. So please do not get confused about the DNA in this case- to put it rather simply and to the point, the DNA in this case was a joke and should never have been used in a court of law to convict anyone. The DNA in this case was simply put- invalid. I am not giving my opinion- I am giving you the results of the experts in this field that have disputed the so-called DNA evidence in the Amanda Knox trial.
If you do not understand- please ask and I will do the best I can to explain it better- it is a rather complex issue and one that most people just pass by- But, considering that it is one of the things that the Italian jury found as evidence to convict Amanda Knox- it is worth knowing.
I will start by addressing some of the myths surrounding Amanda Knox and the case in general. I will stick to the known facts and common sense- hopefully that will suffice.
Myth: Amanda Knox is a psychopath/ An anti-social personality.
Really? And where did that come from? The simple answer is that it came from a group of people who do not like Amanda Knox- whatever their reasons. They either think, or want her to be guilty and go to great lengths to try and convince others that she is some kind of dangerous mental case. There is no history of any anti-social behavior regarding Amanda. The key word here is 'empathy'. Anti-social personalities do not care about others, yet Amanda has a reputation for being kind and helpful to many people. Her friends say she is amazing and will help anyone in need. Her teachers say, she is the first one to help out others in their schoolwork or anyone in need. So how then did this myth originate? Probably from the beginning of the trial when she would be photographed smiling and seemingly making light of it all. That's Amanda- she is known for trying to see the good in any situation- and try to lighten the drama. I think in the beginning she did not think it was a charge to be taken seriously- that it was a mistake that would be cleared up and she would go home. It is called making the best of a bad situation. If it was tactful or not is beside the point. As the trial progressed I think she changed her opinion and became more serious when she saw- not the evidence- but the determination of the prosecution to convict her. It is a fact that anti-social personalities do not possess the quality of empathy yet Amanda is known to have this quality in abundance.
Myth: Amanda must be guilty- she confessed and falsely accused an innocent man.
The two do not go hand in hand. Many people who make confessions under stress, are in fact innocent. They are not guilty just because they made a false confession and that is exactly what Amanda did. Shortly after making this so-called confession she sent a note to the police retracting it. To understand the reasons for this, one must put themselves in Amanda's shoes at the time and place this so-called confession happened. Consider now- You are an American in Italy. You are 20 years old and you do not speak Italian very well. Your room mate in Italy has just been murdered and you find yourself in a police station, being worked on for hours and hours until you are so tired all you want to do is sleep. You are alone- no lawyer- no friends or family present. And you are being yelled at and grilled in Italian- a language you do not understand well. Now there are other details which are not completely clear such as did the police hit her? Did she understand correctly what was being said to her? Were things suggested to her? Was she threatened? etc... One fact does remain clear- the Italian Supreme Court stated that Amanda's rights were violated during the so-called confession and was not to be used against her. People will do a lot of things under stress- including making a false confession just to make a bad situation stop and get some sleep. Did the police mention Patrick and push his name over and over until she said something they wanted to hear. Interestingly the so-called confession was never taped as it was suppose to have been according to Italian law- so we will never know for certain exactly what went on in that police station. So, does this 'confession', made after long hours make Amanda Knox guilty? No it does not, particularly as it was retracted almost immediately. There are many cases of false confessions on record in all countries, and making one does not make a person guilty. The police are very good at what they do. They know how to wear a person down- hey, they literally do it for a living.
Myth: The DNA left at the scene proves Amanda Knox is guilty.
Actually- no. The DNA left at the scene of the crime in Meredith's bedroom (murder room) by Amanda is just about zero. The only thing the prosecution had for Amanda's DNA is traces of her DNA in the house in general- but considering she lived in that house that is not surprising. There is no DNA evidence of Amanda's in the murder room. The only thing the prosecution could put forth- and mistakenly- was that there was a knife taken from her boyfriend's apartment that had Amanda's DNA on the handle- um- she cooked in that house- her DNA should have been on the handle. And- they found Meredith's DNA on the blade (so they say). Now that shakes things up right? Not when you know the facts. The DNA of Meredith's on the blade was not blood and it was so tiny an amount that it is called LCN DNA (Low Copy Number DNA) which means it is so small an amount that special testing only would reveal it.
Now- the problem with LCN DNA is that it in many cases is the result of contamination. Now what that means is, it is so tiny an amount that it can literally be transported from one place to another by a light breeze. Or what is called secondary transfer- which means one person gets the DNA on their feet or hands and transfers it to a different location. Also there is the high probability that such LCN DNA can be transfered in the police lab that is testing it. How?
First of all the Italian lab that did the testing was not qualified to do LCN DNA testing and for such testing to be valid it calls for a special lab- sterile with no other items being tested in the lab- The Italian lab was testing everything and DNA does get on people's clothes and on their feet and even transported through the air. So it goes without saying the Italian lab that did the testing was not the environment to preform such tests and that the results of such tests should be viewed as probable contamination.
It is worth noting that an independent group of forensic experts has found that the evidence of DNA in the Amanda Knox case should not be used as it is quite possibly the result of contamination. These experts were from the U S and the UK- a group of a dozen experts in the field of LCN DNA testing. So please do not get confused about the DNA in this case- to put it rather simply and to the point, the DNA in this case was a joke and should never have been used in a court of law to convict anyone. The DNA in this case was simply put- invalid. I am not giving my opinion- I am giving you the results of the experts in this field that have disputed the so-called DNA evidence in the Amanda Knox trial.
If you do not understand- please ask and I will do the best I can to explain it better- it is a rather complex issue and one that most people just pass by- But, considering that it is one of the things that the Italian jury found as evidence to convict Amanda Knox- it is worth knowing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
