Category: Hoaxers from 2011
How America’s Premier Justice College Misrepresents Italian Justice - To Global Audience
Posted by brmull
Conflicts between Kassin’s academic and court personas
Saul Kassin is a psychologist with the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. He tries to advance the notion academically and in court that many confessions are coerced by the police and thus false.
In writing about American cases of confessions, Kassin would normally be very sure to interview all the parties to the confession. Police would not simply be sidelined, and the confessor’s tale would not be the only narrative he pays attention to. His academic pieces would normally be peer-reviewed and any claims which were questionable would be examined by the academic peers or the readership. False claims by Kassin could result in criminal complaints and civil lawsuits.
It is quite clear from online postings that Saul Kassin was taken on as a hired gun for the Knox defense in the Knox/Sollecito trial in Perugia. He was being paid NOT to simply be academic and objective, he was being paid to give the police witnesses and prosecution as hard a time as possible.
Although he seems to have flown to Perugia at one point he definitely did not encounter let alone interview even one police officer, even one prosecutor or even one judge. He made no visit to the questura where the Knox questioning took place. He doesnt speak or read Italian so he would not be able to get to grip with original evidence.
He does not reveal if and when he interviewed Amanda Knox herself. She makes no mention of any meeting with Kassin in her book. Kassin was definitely not in court in mid-2009 when Amanda Knox was cross-examined for two days on the witness stand about her false allegations against Patrick Lumumba. Her stint on the stand was regarded as a disaster for her by most of those present.
Conflicts consequentially plaguing Kassin’s academic judgments
During the Hellmann appeal in 2011 [subsequently annulled by the Supreme Court in 2013] Kassin started to use his academic standing and ostensible objectivity to propagate to American and later global audiences his hired-gun take for the defense. He had still not interviewed anyone in the Perugia police or prosecution.
He never made clear that his description of Knox’s interrogation was already UNIVERSALLY discredited in Italy - and that even Knox had admitted that the police treated her fairly. He never explained what peer review process his many pieces went through. Not one police officer or prosecutor in Perugia was contacted by any peer reviewer seeking confirmations. This suggests either that there was no peer review or it was unethically cooked in some way.
Our own peer reviews of Kassins proliferating claims
One month ago my fellow poster the Machine took apart ten claims which Saul Kassin made last year in a Seattle radio interview. As the Machine showed, every one of those claims fall apart once one refers to official documents and the more objective case books and websites.
Another post one month ago by my fellow poster Fuji showed that Amanda Knox is NOT likely to issue false confessions in the heat of an interrogation moment.
That is Kassin’s key claim here, and in effect Fuji used Kassin’s own “science” against him.
Then we were warned by a John Jay colleague critical of Kassin that he had repeated these same spurious claims live on television - and that Kassin had made even more wrong claims in a keynote speech to a conference of the elite John Jay College in June in New York, in front of an influential international audience.
And he did so again in a paper, possibly peer-reviewed, which the respected journal American Psychologist has placed online. This post provides the truth on the Knox-related claims at the front and back ends of that American Psychologist paper.
Saul Kassin still appears to want to argue that Amanda Knox was convicted ONLY based on a false confession (as the Machine and numerous posts on TJMK show, she wasn’t - and in fact, Knox didn’t even confess) and he now makes almost 50 erroneous assertions about the case.
You can see highlighted in the first box-quote below those misleading and erroneous passages of PR shill Kassin which I correct in the second box-quote below.
(1) SAUL KASSIN’S ORIGINAL VERSION WITH WRONG STATEMENTS HIGHLIGHTED
As illustrated by the story of Amanda Knox and many others wrongfully convicted, false confessions often trump factual innocence. Focusing on consequences, recent research suggests that confessions are powerfully persuasive as a matter of logic and common sense; that many false confessions contain richly detailed narratives and accurate crime facts that appear to betray guilty knowledge; and that confessions in general can corrupt other evidence from lay witnesses and forensic experts””producing an illusion of false support. This latter phenomenon, termed “corroboration inflation,” suggests that pretrial corroboration requirements as well as the concept of “harmless error” on appeal are based on an erroneous presumption of independence among items of evidence. In addition to previously suggested reforms to police practices that are designed to curb the risk of false confessions, measures should be taken as well to minimize the rippling consequences of those confessions….Meredith Kercher was found raped and murdered in Perugia, Italy. Almost immediately, police suspected 20-year-old Amanda Knox, an American student and one of Kercher’s roommates””the only one who stayed in Perugia after the murder. Knox had no history of crime or violence and no motive. But something about her demeanor””such as an apparent lack of affect, an outburst of sobbing, or her girlish and immature behavior”” led police to believe she was involved and lying when she claimed she was with Raffaele Sollecito, her new Italian boyfriend, that night.
Armed with a prejudgment of Knox’s guilt, several police officials interrogated the girl on and off for four days. Her final interrogation started on November 5 at 10 p.m. and lasted until November 6 at 6 a.m., during which time she was alone, without an attorney, tag-teamed by a dozen police, and did not break for food or sleep. In many ways, Knox was a vulnerable suspect””young, far from home, without family, and forced to speak in a language in which she was not fluent. Knox says she was repeatedly threatened and called a liar. She was told, falsely, that Sollecito, her boyfriend, disavowed her alibi and that physical evidence placed her at the scene. She was encouraged to shut her eyes and imagine how the gruesome crime had occurred, a trauma, she was told, that she had obviously repressed. Eventually she broke down crying, screaming, and hitting herself in the head. Despite a law that mandates the recording of interrogations, police and prosecutors maintain that these sessions were not recorded.
Two “confessions” were produced in this last session, detailing what Knox called a dreamlike “vision.” Both were typed by police””one at 1:45 a.m., the second at 5:45 a.m. She retracted the statements in a handwritten letter as soon as she was left alone (“In regards to this “˜confession’ that I made last night, I want to make it clear that I’m very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock, and extreme exhaustion.”). Notably, nothing in the confessions indicated that she had guilty knowledge. In fact, the statements attributed to Knox were factually incorrect on significant core details (e.g., she named as an accomplice a man whom police had suspected but who later proved to have an ironclad alibi; she failed to name another man, unknown to police at the time, whose DNA was later identified on the victim). Nevertheless, Knox, Sollecito, and the innocent man she implicated were all immediately arrested. In a media-filled room, the chief of police announced: Caso chiuso (case closed).
Police had failed to provide Knox with an attorney or record the interrogations, so the confessions attributed to her were ruled inadmissible in court. Still, the damage was done. The confession set into motion a hypothesis-confirming investigation, prosecution, and conviction. The man whose DNA was found on the victim, after specifically stating that Knox was not present, changed his story and implicated her while being prosecuted. Police forensic experts concluded that Knox’s DNA on the handle of a knife found in her boyfriend’s apartment also contained Kercher’s blood on the blade and that the boyfriend’s DNA was on the victim’s bra clasp. Several eyewitnesses came forward. An elderly woman said she was awakened by a scream followed by the sound of two people running; a homeless drug addict said he saw Knox and Sollecito in the vicinity that night; a convicted drug dealer said he saw all three suspects together; a grocery store owner said he saw Knox the next morning looking for cleaning products; one witness said he saw Knox wielding a knife.
On December 5, 2009, an eight-person jury convicted Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito of murder. The two were sentenced to 26 and 25 years in prison, respectively. Finally, on October 3, 2011, after having been granted a new trial, they were acquitted. [Actually they still stand accused - and facing a tough fact-based prosecution appeal] Ten weeks later, the Italian appeals court released a strongly worded 143-page opinion in which it criticized the prosecution and concluded that there was no credible evidence, motive, or plausible theory of guilt. For the four years of their imprisonment, this story drew international attention (for comprehensive overviews of the case, see Dempsey, 2010, and Burleigh, 2011).1
It is now clear that the proverbial mountain of discredited evidence used to convict Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito was nothing but a house of cards built upon a false confession. The question posed by this case, and so many others like it, is this: Why do confessions so often trump innocence? ...
Third, it is important to realize that not all evidence is equally malleable or subject to corroboration inflation. Paralleling classic research indicating that expectations can color judgments of people, objects, and other stimuli that are ambiguous as opposed to those that compel a particular perception, forensic research indicates that ambiguity is a moderating condition. Asked to report on an event or make an identification decision on the basis of a memory trace that cannot be recovered, eyewitnesses are particularly malleable when confronted with evidence of a confession (Hasel & Kassin, 2009). This phenomenon was illustrated in the case against Amanda Knox. When police first interviewed Knox’s British roommates, not one reported that there was bad blood between Knox and the victim. After Knox’s highly publicized confession, however, the girls brought forth new “memories,” telling police that Kercher was uncomfortable with Knox and the boys she would bring home (Burleigh, 2011). ...
In recent years, psychologists have been critical of the problems with accuracy, error, subjectivity, and bias in various types of criminal evidence””prominently including eyewitness identification procedures, police interrogation practices, and the so-called forensic identification sciences, all leading Saks and Koehler (2005) to predict a “coming paradigm shift.” With regard to confessions, it now appears that this shift should encompass not only reforms that serve to minimize the risk of false confessions but measures designed to minimize the rippling consequences of those confessions””as in the case of Amanda Knox and others who are wrongfully convicted.
(2) MY REPLACEMENT VERSION WITH CORRECT FACTS AND CONTEXT NOW INCLUDED
On November 2, 2007, British exchange student Meredith Kercher was found sexually attacked and murdered in Perugia, Italy. The next day, 20-year-old Amanda Knox, an American student and one of Kercher’s roommates, became a person of interest, along with Meredith’s downstairs neighbors and several of her other acquaintances. Interviewing close contacts is a cornerstone of police work. Two of Meredith’s close English friends, who were so scared they couldn’t sleep alone, left Perugia in the immediate aftermath of the murder. Everyone else stayed on.Months before arriving in Perugia, Knox received a citation for a noise violation when a going-away party she’d thrown for herself in Seattle got out of hand. One of the officers described it as a “scene from Baghdad.” Within about three weeks of moving into the cottage in Perugia, Knox was ejected from a nightclub for pouring her glass on the head of a disc jockey.
It’s often said that Knox had no motive to kill Meredith, but it was Knox’s claim of drug use which indicated a possible motive: a drug-fuelled assault. There are various others, though a motive is not actually required for conviction. In crime scene videos from the day Meredith’s body was discovered, Knox can be seen outside the cottage glancing furtively around. Still, it was not this and other odd behavior, but rather the many conflicting witness statements by Knox and her new Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, that led police to believe Knox was involved and lying when she claimed she was with Sollecito at his home continuously on the night of November 1.
Police interviewed dozens of witnesses in the days after the murder, some more than once. All witness statements were written down and signed for, not recorded. The police interviewed Sollecito for the third time beginning at 10:40pm on November 5. Knox later testified that she voluntarily accompanied her boyfriend to the station, because she didn’t want to be alone. The police did not summon her. To the interviewers’ surprise, Sollecito repudiated his earlier alibi when shown phone records, and now said Knox had left his apartment for much of the evening. Some time after 11:00pm the police asked if they might interview Knox. An interpreter was called and by 1:45am Knox had given a signed statement that she had witnessed the sounds of her employer, bar owner Patrick Lumumba, murdering Meredith at the cottage.
In that statement she acknowledged that she had been given an interpreter, and that she herself was now officially a suspect. Knox later testified that she was treated well. She was offered snacks and drinks during the interview and afterward. Made aware that she could not be interrogated without a lawyer, but still anxious to put out as much information as possible, she then requested a chance to make a spontaneous statement without any questioning. Dr Mignini, the magistrate on duty, was called from his home, and she gave a statement in front of him very similar to her witness statement from hours earlier. He asked no questions.
Knox and the police gave different accounts of how the 11:00 to 1:45 am interview was conducted. Police said Knox was told Sollecito now no longer confirmed her alibi and he had called her a liar. She now had no alibi. Sympathetic to her because Knox was freaking out, the interpreter urged her to try to remember at least something. Shown a text she had sent to Lumumba at 8:35pm saying “See you later. Have a good evening!” she was asked to explain this. The police describe how Knox started to cry and burst out, “It’s him! It’s him!”
Both Knox’s witness statement at 1:45 a.m and her voluntary suspect statement at 5:45am were written out in Italian and translated back to her before she signed. After Knox was formally taken into custody at midday on November 6, she asked for paper and wrote a slight modification of her earlier statements, adding: “In regards to this “˜confession’ that I made last night, I want to make it clear that I’m very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock, and extreme exhaustion.”
Lumumba was arrested along with Knox and Sollecito. Knox and her mother held out on his non-involvement for weeks, but he was eventually determined to have a solid alibi. Another man, Rudy Guede, was identified through a hand print in Meredith’s bedroom. Knox appeared to have substituted Lumumba for Guede in her statements, and several details of the crime in her so-called confession were later corroborated by witnesses.
Because police had not needed to provide Knox with an attorney at the impromptu witness interview after 11:00, the Supreme Court ruled that statement inadmissible in the murder case against her. However both statements were ruled admissible in court for the purpose of establishing the crime of defamation against Patrick Lumumba. Knox’s November 6 letter was also ruled admissible.
Guede, the man whose DNA was found on the victim, told a friend while he was still on the run that he had found Meredith stabbed and that Knox had nothing to do with the murder. However, in the same conversation, which was recorded by police, he speculated that Knox and Sollecito might have been at the cottage. In a letter dated March 7, 2010, while his sentence was awaiting final confirmation by the Supreme Court, Guede wrote that Knox and Sollecito murdered Meredith. He reiterated this claim as a witness during Knox and Sollecito’s appeal.
Forensic police from Rome concluded that a kitchen knife found in Sollecito’s apartment had Knox’s DNA on the handle and Meredith’s DNA on the blade. Sollecito’s DNA was on the victim’s bra clasp in Meredith’s locked bedroom.
Several eyewitnesses came forward. Three neighbors testified that they heard a disturbance around 11:30pm in the vicinity of the cottage. A homeless man who at appeal admitted heroin use was reading a newsmagazine at the basketball court near the cottage. He testified that he saw Knox and Sollecito four or five times that night. An Albanian, a possible drug dealer. who the Massei court deemed unreliable after the Micheli court accepted him, said he had seen all three suspects together, and that Knox had accosted him with a knife. A grocery store owner testified he saw Knox at his shop early on the morning after the murder.
The conflicting alibis of the two were never resolved during trial. On December 4, 2009, an eight-person panel consisting of two professional judges and six lay judges found Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito guilty of murder aggravated by sexual assault, simulation of a burglary, unlawful carrying of a knife and, in Knox’s case, criminal defamation of Patrick Lumumba. The two were sentenced to 26 and 25 years in prison, respectively….
Knox’s mother later described her daughter as “oblivious to the dark side of the world.” Knox herself wrote that, on the night of the murder, she and Sollecito were talking about his mother’s suicide. She told him her philosophy was “life is full of choices and that these choices are not necessarily between good and evil, but between what’s better and what’s worse.”...
Results of our own peer-group analysis
Kassin asserted that the witnesses in this case imagined “new memories” unfavorable to Knox because of her highly-publicized confession. He referenced an experiment in which an unknown actor walked into a classroom and stole a laptop. The students were asked to try to identify the thief from a line-up. Two days later, the students were told which person in the line-up had confessed. Many changed their minds when told of the confession, although in truth the thief was never in the line-up at all.
Obviously this contrived scenario has nothing at all to do with Amanda Knox or people who had met her.
In his book, Meredith, the victim’s father John Kercher recalls his daughter complaining about Knox’s poor hygiene and how she brought home strange men several weeks before the murder. Numerous witnesses recounted specific anecdotes of Knox’s sharp-elbowed and offputting behavior. Her circle of friends quickly diminished only to Sollecito.
Really, could all these be “new memories”?
Psychologists studying eyewitness testimony, interrogation techniques and false confessions need to be circumspect. Even DNA testing, considered the best of the forensic sciences, requires a thorough understanding of circumstances in order to be interpreted correctly.
Kassin’s continued stonewalling and legal risks
I really wonder who agreed to publish him. I work in a science-based field. When I first learned Kassin had been recruited by Curt Knox’s hatchet men as a PR shill, had been put directly in touch with Knox herself, and had been provided with pre-selected reading materials, I wrote to ask him why he hadn’t disclosed all this to his readers.
Still no reply.
It’s true that numerous talking heads have exaggerated their qualifications and concealed their conflicts of interest and financial stakes when speaking in support of the defense. Judge Mike Heavey abused his oath of office to try to sway the process.
What’s different about Kassin is that, using his John Jay College aura, he has corrupted the scientific record with misinformation.
And he has done this, at least in part, with the goal of misleading an Italian court. These dirty tricks are especially dangerous because most people, including judges, expect that what’s stated as fact in prominent academic journals is objective and true.
Kassin looks to us nothing like an academic here. He looks instead like a defense hired gun who (only in English and only in America) has repeatedly falsely accused police officers of serious felonies in how they questioned Knox as a witness.
If even a single complaint is lodged in Italy and Kassin cannot prove his 50 or so seemingly-spurious and very damaging claims, he could find himself facing years in an Italian prison for attempted obstruction of justice.
Kassin’s peers need to press him for the truth once and for all, and to stop him using his academic mantle illegally and academically unethically as a cloak for a sleazy defense campaign.
[Everything in this post applies equally to the ludicrously inaccurate claims of ex FBI “mindhunter” John Douglas in his books and lobbying at the State Department.]
Why “Buyer Beware” Re Amanda Knox Could Be A Very Good Idea For The Innocence Project
Posted by Our Main Posters
1. Innocence Project Conference
The annual national conference of Barry Sheck’s Innocence Project is to take place on Friday and Saturday in Portland, Oregon.
Dozens of American who claim they were unfairly treated by the American justice system will share their stories and give pointers for measures that paid off for them.
We tend to believe them. We have long highlighted that in terms of fairness and carefulness the American system and Italian system are poles apart.
At this conference Amanda Knox will try to get the Project’s support.
However. Knox may be the least useful convicted perp on the planet for the Innocence Project to get behind or learn anything from.
- First, the Italian system is not remotely as she and her colleague Sollecito describe it. It is in fact a system the United States is starting to emulate. If widely adopted the Innocence Project would have a very light load and most of those at the conference would not even have had cause to be there.
- Second, the case against Knox and Sollecito is an overwhelming one with far more and far stronger evidence points than UK and US courts normally require for conviction. The 2011 appeal was automatic; in the US and UK grounds for allowing an appeal would have been considered lacking. (The Supreme Court ordered the 2013 appeal.)
- Third, the Knox-Mellases have run a despicable multi-million-dollar PR campaign. That has proved not only ineffectual but massively damaging to many good people, and a source of tension between two countries. The blood money Knox and Sollecito have achieved from their dishonest books and endless money-grubbing create a new world record for illegally profiting from a crime.
- Fourth, a drooling and irresponsible academic who represents the Innocence Project in Idaho, who may be beholden to the mafias, and who criminally inserted himself into the appeal process in Italy, claims to be beating the drum for Knox at the conference.
Barry Scheck and REAL victims everywhere would really be best served by taking these wise precautions
(1) kicking the foolish grandstanding mafia tool Greg Hampikian out of the Innocence Project,
(2) learning things from the very impressive Italian system, which could help many REAL victims,
(3) deny Knox yet another forum to frame Italians, mislead Americans, and make even more illegal blood-money .
For Barry Scheck and genuine justice and REAL victims everywhere, distancing themselves from Knox would be the smart outcome. Let her stick to autographing this in the lobby.
Innocence Project: Seven Years Clutching Knox And Trashing Italian Justice To Joy Of Mafias #1
Posted by Hopeful
Jason Flom, Amanda Knox
1. Series Overview
Barry Scheck’s Innocence Project quite openly admits to bending the 2011 appeal via collaboration with the “independent” DNA consultants.
Anyone who thinks Idaho IP representative Greg Hampikian’s seemingly illegal involvement in the court-ordered DNA re-testing was somehow competent and truth-based should read KrissyG and James Raper for two blasts of reality.
Beginning early in 2014 (soon after the Florence Appeal Court reaffirmed Knox’s guilty verdict and a whole year prior to the Supreme Court outcome) the Innocence Project clutched Knox firmly and propelled her onto the elite speakers’ circuit. It has repeatedly used her since as a keynoter and potent draw for attendees and presumably for funding too.
Knox’s speaking career would have gone absolutely nowhere if Barry Scheck & Co had not promoted her with such manic enthusiasm. They still remain unencumbered by comprehensive due diligence or a fact-based narrative. Much simply seems unknown. Trashing Italy is apparently just fine.
Late next month at an Innocence Project “gala” in Kansas City Knox will yet again be an IP keynote speaker.
2. The Jason Flom Podcast
Jason Flom is a founding board member of the Innocence Project. As the sharp eyes of our main poster Guermantes picked up, Flom interviewed Knox in January 2017 for a podcast: The Wrongful Conviction of Amanda Knox.
Flom seems to have done little or no homework. Most of these posts predate this interview. So an open-minded interviewer not toeing the self-serving IP party line could have avoided the naivety and manipulation we can see here.
Knox tells Flom the Perugian investigators (actually the highly respected national elite) were like children pretending to process a crime scene but making major mistakes. Her tone of voice suggested mockery and ridicule of them playing at being forensic scientists.
Flom laps up this nonsense unquestioningly. However Knox’s lies to Flom were mainly of omission, so much that she didn’t want to speak of and that Flom could not even comprehend.
When he asked her why she was targeted when several other people were at the cottage the morning the police arrived (Filomena, her boyfriend, Raffaele) Knox explained that her behavior didn’t impress police as that of an innocent person because she was kissing Raffaele and being comforted in the yard of the cottage.
There is no special sign that she was targeted. And she omits a mountain of other behavior. She refuses to tell Mr. Flom of her highjinks in the Questura, her tongue sticking out, her cartwheels, or her thong-buying visit to Bubbles, nor of her skipping the memorial service for Meredith in the days after the death. None of that escapes her lips.
She does pretend some indignation about Rudy Guede the “real killer”. Mostly she talks of every single sad emotion she endured in the 8 months of incarceration before she was charged with murder.
She mentions Meredith throughout the interview very little. She seems to be mostly swept up in memories of how she was robbed of hope behind bars, and she revels (this was 2017) in how a few persons who first thought her guilty have been convinced by more recent media that she is innocent and have apologized to her. She ascends skyward on such thoughts.
Her main concern seems to be with her public image and her power to con the world. It becomes evident when she narrates to Flom her morning at the cottage in the hours before Meredith’s body was discovered, when she first entered the cottage saying the door was wide open and she was there alone to take a shower before proceeding to go to Gubbio for the weekend with loverboy, that she was in a deep mental quandary as to the meaning of the open door, the small bits of blood in the sink (she emphasized to Flom how small the specks were) and the dirty toilet in a nearby bathroom that she was so greatly alarmed enough to want to slow down her trip out of town and instead bring Raf back over to see about things at the cottage and give his opinion.
She was so worried, she pretends. So terribly worried, but not worried enough to walk a few feet down the hall and open a bedroom door to see if a roommate were present and hadn’t heard her “hello, is anybody there?” Ridiculous. She also mentions that her computer was safe in her own bedroom and hadn’t been stolen but not one word that her lamp was missing”¦ as if she wouldn’t have noticed that.
She talks much of her own humanity, that people who meet her will not judge her but will find her innocent, but if they haven’t met her in person they will assume guilt. She seems to feel that they need to be blinded by her “humanity” and give her a pass on having destroyed Meredith’s life. She says very little to Jason Flom about Raffaele, depicting him as a non-threatening puppy and their relationship before the murder as one of sweetness and a juvenile thing.
Mr. Flom suggests it was like a high school relationship between two college students, she half-way assents to his description. She said that the language barrier circumvented them from discussing deep issues, that it was mostly hand-holding and him wanting to give her perfume like Italian women wore and to show her some new store or market he had discovered.
Knox seems to hold her greatest anger and disdain (well-hidden of course unless you know this case backwards and forwards and have seen Knox’s wiles) toward Philomena. It was Philomena’s hysterics and shouts of “a foot, a foot” and the general screaming and shouting of spontaneous anguish and grief over knowing it was Meredith’s body in the bedroom, that seems to antagonize Knox the most. Imagine that, some people actually GRIEVED for Meredith and thought her worthy of a display of emotion and concern.
Knox tells Jason Flom that it was Philomena’s SIM card inside the cell phone that Meredith was using, that tied the phone to the cottage. It was Filomena’s SIM card that enabled the first police to rush to the cottage so fast, and who interrupted Knox in her little last minute cleaning scheme and that threw her out of her rhythm and almost tripped her up by arriving so quickly, perhaps that was why Knox despised Filomena so much. Also it was Filomena’s boyfriend who kicked open the door and thus sent Knox out of the cottage quickly and permanently. She seemed to show irritation with Flom when she spoke of being rousted from her house in Perugia.
She tells Flom that she believed the police when they said she was being sent to prison for her own protection, thinking she was a witness (untrue: grounds for arrest were fully explained by Dr Mignini). She said she should have realized when they put her in handcuffs that this was ludicrous, but she was naïve and idealistic.
She said she went to Japan and to Germany when she was 14 years old, and that her beloved Oma, her German grandmother, had wanted her to be an exchange student to Germany. She was taking German and Italian language classes before she went to Perugia, she said.
She seems to imply slightly that it was her father’s fault that she took the language courses rather her first love of creative writing. She said she felt she couldn’t have sold Dadddy on the usefulness of a creative writing degree, so she detoured and took the languages degree hoping to become a translator. She said that the University for Foreigners in Perugia was not demanding or rigorous at all and she was disappointed at that. (Hint hint, is she suggesting she had too much free time from studies and thus went wild due to “idle hands are the devil’s workshop”? She could easily have enrolled at the main university and gained course credits for her degree back in Seattle - as her parents believed she was doing.)
She bristles with rage at the thought of friends who suggested she change her name to deflect publicity. Never. Her ego is limitless and she wants to be herself, that is paramount. She said her biggest fear was that she would forever have to cower in a corner. She speaks of her determination to do the opposite now that she has her freedom back and is safe to speak.
She seems sincerely grateful to people who spent their energy and time in trying to get her free from prison, and feared she might have been forgotten and left to languish behind bars. She seems sincerely moved that people who didn’t have to care about her, did so. No doubt this is the natural reaction of anyone sprung from prison cells, whether guilty or innocent.
Her main beef behind bars was that she could not sway the entire world with her words alone. She talks a smooth line and certainly had Mr. Jason Flom in her sway. She also claimed that Meredith’s DNA had been thought to have been on the knife but that it was not (Carabinieri labs confirmed it was, so there’s another lie from Knox).
It irks me that people who question Knox won’t take time to read up on the case.
Why can’t they ask Knox about the 5 spots of her DNA mixed in Meredith’s blood throughout the cottage? Knox also laughs with Jason Flom about the impossibility of her cleaning up the crime scene, when it’s proven without question that a bloody footprint was erased that led to the footprint on the blue bathmat. Knox is lying about the cleanup.
And when Knox explained to Flom her discomfort at discovering the unflushed toilet, she tells him that Laura and Filomena were neat freaks (liked to keep a very clean house). She did not say the same for Meredith, but only mentioned Laura and Filomena being clean freaks. She did not tell Mr. Flom of her normal unflushed toilets that the long-suffering Meredith Kercher had to face daily.
Knox omits much of the truth, and twists the rest of the truth. Her best truth is whatever she can think up for the occasion. And the daffy Mr Flom swallows it.
3. Tip For IP Contributors
On Amanda Knox. Innocence Project Idaho rep Hampikian’s ONLY achievement was to be main cause of annulment of 2011 appeal, to anger of defense counsel. Thus he subjected Knox and RS to much tougher appeal, leading to desperate measures to bend Supreme Court. Thus Hampikian directly caused mafia involvement that Knox and RS must hide for life.
4. Next post in this series.
Click for Post: Innocence Project: Seven Years Clutching Knox And Trashing Italian Justice To Joy Of Mafias #2
Innocence Project: Seven Years Clutching Knox And Trashing Italian Justice To Joy Of Mafias #2
Posted by KrissyG
Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments
1. Post Overview
Previously main poster Hopeful showed up the intensely superficial grasp of the case by an Innocence Project founder who is a lusty huge booster of Knox.
We see no sign that anyone in the Innocence Project (IP) has ever done due diligence, or has any better grasp of the case than Jason Flom. We certainly don’t see any on video or in print. We see only appallingly misleading and illegal work…. and nothing else. As Hopeful said in that post:
Anyone who thinks Idaho IP representative Greg Hampikian’s seemingly illegal involvement in the court-ordered DNA re-testing was somehow competent and truth-based should read KrissyG and James Raper for two blasts of reality.
This may come as a surprise. In ten years nobody whatsoever has ever landed the slightest blow on the huge (though not pivotal) DNA component of the case.
The defenses and many others have seriously misrepresented it, yes, but that is something else.
2. Chief IP Misleader Hampikian
Nearly a year before Knox ever turned up at her first Innocence Project meeting in Oregon, we had highlighted IP Idaho rep Greg Hampikian’s very misleading work here.
Our main poster the Machine had acidly remarked about Greg Hampikian in that post:
- 1. He is ignorant of most of the basic facts of the case.
2. He hasn’t read the official court documents in their entirety, but has instead relied on Amanda Knox’s family and supporters for his information without bothering to do any fact-checking.
3. He incessantly downplays or misrepresents the hard evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and overstates that against Rudy Guede.
4. He doesn’t limit himself to his own narrow area of expertise, but speaks about other aspect of the case and gets basic facts wrong.
5. Like so many in the seedy defense operation he ridicules his counterparts in Italy, most of whom are much better qualified in criminal-case DNA than he is.
Do please read all of the Machine’s very damning post. Note that Hampikian has never ever tried to answer back, though he is still as much of a self-infatuated rooster as before. I would add to the Machine’s profile of Hampikian these further revealing points:
- 1. In an aura of personality cult he incessantly proclaims that he is the founder and director of the Idaho Innocence Project.
2. He took quite a shine to Amanda Knox and went white-water rafting with her. He broke with his wife, shortly after.
3. This absurd claim appears on his Wikipedia page - those are often written by the “celebrities” themselves:
During the high-profile case of Amanda Knox, on May 23, 2011, Greg Hampikian announced that, based on its independent investigation and review, DNA samples taken at the crime scene all pointed to African drifter Rudy Guede and excluded Knox and Sollecito. Upon reexamination of the DNA, he concluded that the evidence is unreliable and contaminated. Hampikian’s findings are one of the main reasons that Knox and Sollecito were set free.
Really?! The mafias had no role? Hard to believe from this that Hampikian was never an official witness put under cross-examination at the trial or appeals. He had zero official role, and the very extensive DNA evidence really proved nothing of the sort. More DNA samples of Knox than of Guede were at the scene. No contamination was ever proven. In fact, it was categorically ruled out by the courts.
4. He has appeared in numerous Youtube clips in especially prepared tv shows, in which he presents himself as “the objective scientist” not letting on that he is essentially only a PR shill.
5. Hampikian was claiming a government grant for his department at Boise State University. Journalist Andrea Vogt suspected he was using the funds to promote Amanda Knox’s marketing. Vogt applied for information under the Freedom of Information Act. Hampikian evaded the demand by claiming his work was a top trade secret. Academic scientists are supposed to be transparent and make their work replicable and peer-reviewed by other scientists. So Vogt’s instincts seem correct, given the unlikely reason.
6. He praises himself on his wiki page as “Prof. Hampikian is also an accomplished amateur folk singer and songwriter.” Indeed, he appears on a Youtube video, sounding like a hundred cats in pain singing about his d-i-v-o-r-c-e., after his rafting expedition with Knox. She appears grinning by his side in pictures.
7. He has given evidence under oath in court several times (though never in Italy) claiming he was THE expert who got Amanda Knox “exonerated”. Knox has never been exonerated, certainly not on the DNA evidence, and the mafias clearly had a role in springing the pair. So, Hampikian is not someone who takes solemn oaths seriously, although his illegal interference was real.
8. The defence lawyers for Paul Jenkins and Fred Lawrence are currently in court to try to pin the DNA evidence on another convict, David Wayne Nelson, with Hampikian as the “˜expert DNA witness’ claiming,
“˜“I do a lot of cases,” said Hampikian. “This is the second time I can remember one of my cases where it cleared two men and someone else is a hit to the database.”
He doesn’t say to whom he is referring in this absurd claim, but no doubt it is Knox and Sollecito with Guede as the “˜hit’. Hampikian, thus, is a stranger to the truth, as Knox and Sollecito’s DNA at the crime scene is legally sound.
Comment by Ergon
Examples of typical dishonesty from Greg Hampikian in this article
1. “We asked the Italian lab to supply validation of such a sensitive measurement, but they never complied”.
Yes they did, though maybe not to the professor from Idaho.
2. “a new study on the knife was then ordered in Italy. This failed to repeat the DNA finding”.
They didn’t retest the “˜DNA finding’.
3. “This finding was never repeated, despite many attempts”.
There was only one attempt, which the defense accepted as all that could be done.
4. “As DNA consultant for the defence in the Amanda Knox case”.
You weren’t hired “˜by the defense’ but inserted yourself in your personal capacity using public funds.
5. “but when fingerprints and DNA from the scene were analysed, only two profiles were identified: those of the victim and Rudy Guede”
Also Raffaele Sollecito’s, and Amanda Knox’s blood DNA mixed with Meredith Kercher’s.
6. “Calls followed for global standards on use of low copy number DNA”.
Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA profile on the bra clasp wasn’t LCN DNA, nor was contamination proven against any of Stefanoni’s findings.
7. “a kitchen knife at Sollecito’s house. It didn’t match many wounds on the body and tested negative for blood.”
Because there were two knives, and it tested negative for blood because it was rigorously washed in bleach.
3. Who Manages Or Crosschecks Hampikian?
Hampikian seems to have a pass to claim whatever he wants in the name of the Innocence Project. No quality control, no peer review, no reporting, no accountability at all. Just a near-endless stream of lies.
If Hampikian was to be checked out and made to stop lying and acting as a PR shill, and to stick only to the truth, whose job in the IP would be that? Presumably the man at the top. Barry Scheck.
Has Barry Scheck been asleep at the switch? If so, not for the first time. .
4. Ten Quick Facts About Barry Scheck
1. Born 1949, at Yale Scheck was a “˜fervent anti-war demonstrator’. In Los Angeles he was a key member of OJ Simpson’s “˜dream team’, which got OJ off a murder rap in 1995.
2. Barry Scheck, as a law professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York City, is a forensic and DNA evidence expert. He joined the “Dream Team” to help them “˜harness the power of forensic and DNA evidence’ to assist in Simpson’s defence.
3. Scheck is also known for his work as co-founder and co-director of the Innocence Project, a non-profit organization that uses DNA evidence to “˜clear the names of wrongfully convicted inmates’.
4. Scheck co-founded the Innocence Project in 1992 with Peter Neufeld, also his co-counsel on the O.J. Simpson defence team.
5. The Project claims it is “˜dedicated to the utilization of DNA evidence as a means to exculpate individuals of crimes for which they were wrongfully convicted’.
6. To date, it claims 343 wrongful convictions have been overturned by DNA testing “˜thanks to the Project and other legal organizations’.
7. The Innocence Project claims “˜it does not use legal technicalities to challenge convictions; the Project accepts only cases in which newly discovered scientific evidence can potentially prove that a convicted person is factually innocent’.
8. Scheck unsuccessfully defended British baby sitter Louise Woodward against a charge of killing a baby in her care, shortly after the OJ acquittal, leading some to perceive a “˜backlash’ against his defence methods.
9. Scheck and Neufield were heavily criticised in 1999 in a case where eight cops were charged with abusing Abner Louima or shooting dead Amadou Diallo-to benefit their own civil cases on behalf of those victims, putting the police at risk of an unfair trial.
10. Scheck and Neufield called a press conference before the criminal trial, revealing potentially incriminating evidence against the four policemen from an autopsy report, which revealed Diallo was shot in his foot and legs whilst already down. Their ethics were questioned. Outside the press conference, 1,000 Scheck supporters chanted, “˜“No justice, no peace, no more racist police.”
5. So The Bottom Line On Scheck Is?
Thus, we have a picture of someone who sees himself as a warrior for social justice, and anti-establishment. Scheck uses his privileged position as a lawyer and DNA expert to help the disadvantaged and oppressed.
However, after the OJ Simpson trial, which saw Scheck shoot to fame, and not necessarily in a good way, but as a silver-tongued crafty defence lawyer who could persuade a jury that night is day by any means at his disposal, regardless of ethics, there emerges a hint of a ruthless man driven by an urge to get the better of his perceived opponents.
So far so good, this is 100% of what we the public have cynically come to expect of a winning-at-all-costs lawyer. We want them to write our “˜strong letters’ for us, or to win our compensation; perhaps get us off a rap.
We want them to “˜be on our side’, and when you are poor, dispossessed and otherwise “˜invisible’ to the establishment, finding such a high-profile lawyer to champion your case, then fawning gratitude transforms into hero-worship and cult following.
Such is the effect of Scheck’s Innocence Project, thousands of prisoners in the USA claiming to be “˜wrongfully convicted’, whether they are or not, flock to sample the “˜exoneration’ he holds out as the prize for joining up.
Add to the pot US attorneys who as part of their standards are expected to devote a substantial part of their time towards “˜pro bono’ work (free representation), then the ready pool of the poor and deprived that make up the Innocence Projects are ready made clients for them.
6. IP Does Indeed Do Some Good Work
We have shown again and again that American law enforcement, justice and incarceration systems, not their Italian equivalents, are the systems where injustices are off the charts.
Read for example the series of three posts starting here. An estimated 200,000-plus sitting in prison because prosecutors scared them into a plea-bargain.
Barry Scheck’s target group and release rate is absolutely miniscule compared to this 200,000, but it is not a net negative on the whole. Every little bit of pushback can help. Scheck’s interviews and speeches are often good.
7. But Things Do Go Badly Wrong.
The Medill Innocence Project Case
There seems plenty of evidence that the Innocence Project is only loosely managed from the top. Other grandstanders and corner cutters and law-breakers like Hampikian are far from unknown.
And to IP host institutions like lawschools “mistakes” like this one below can bring major harm.
In the Medill Innocence project, a professor at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism, David Protess, was picked to head this.
His work had overturned convictions in a number of high-profile cases that won freedom for the “˜wrongfully imprisoned’ and earned him fame and prestige that included a TV-movie deal and a new post. From the start, Protess got his law students to were acting as amateur gumshoes, Protess dispatched them to interview witnesses and dig up new evidence.
Protess was looking for wrongful convictions. He thought he had found one in Anthony Porter, who had narrowly escaped execution for a 1982 murder and had since served fifteen years, after winning a last minute reprieve.
Protess was keen to highlight that the State had been prepared to execute an innocent man, and he and his private eye students pinpointed an “˜alternative perpetrator’ in Alstory Simon.
“This investigation by David Protess and his team involved a series of alarming tactics,” the Cook County State’s Attorney, Anita Alvarez, said in her statement after Simon’s eventual release. The Medill Innocence Project’s tactics, “were not only coercive and absolutely unacceptable by law-enforcement standards, “they were potentially in violation of Mr. Simon’s constitutionally protected rights.”
Perhaps the worst of those alarming tactics were used by Paul Ciolino, a private investigator working with Protess who got Simon to confess to the murder. According to Alvarez’s findings, Ciolino threatened Simon, promised him a short sentence and financial rewards for cooperating, and used an actor to play a witness who accused Simon of the shooting.
Finally, Ciolino volunteered a lawyer, Jack Rimland, to represent Simon in court. Rimland, a personal acquaintance of Ciolino, may have had a conflict of interest defending a man that his associate was trying to prove guilty, but that didn’t stop him from taking the case.
At the time, it did the trick. Alstory Simon confessed to the murder on video and within days, after more than a decade on death row, Porter walked free.
The State prosecutors then had to spend time and money retrying Porter and reaffirming the seemingly overwhelming evidence of his guilt (six eye witnesses named him). However, the case against Porter was dropped a month later. Following on from this case, Illinois banned the death penalty, in 2011.
More from the report in the Daily Beast.
After initially defending the program, Medill launched an investigation of its own. In the end, it was found that students working under Protess had used false pretenses in trying to elicit witness statements.
More damningly, the professor’s claim that the records from his class’s work were protected by journalistic privilege was undermined by the discovery that he’d altered an email instructing that the project’s findings should be turned over directly to defense counsels without any copies retained.
When it was all over, Protess had negotiated his retirement and left the school. His reputation bruised but with legacy of his central victory””winning Anthony Porter’s freedom””still intact.
After Simon’s release last month and the accusation that Protess helped put an innocent man in prison for 15 years, possibly freeing a killer in the bargain, his legacy may be the least of his concerns.
The IP Role
This is a perfect illustration of what can happen when badly supervised lawyers try to solve a case outside of a courtroom. Delusion, fanaticism and a disregard for due process can blind an Innocence Project lawyer or law student to the truth of culpability. In other words, they find themselves fighting the establishment, whatever that is, rather than true injustice.
The State prosecutor, Alvarez, said at the time:
“The bottom line is, the investigation conducted by Protess and private investigator Ciolino as well as the subsequent legal representation of Mr. Simon were so flawed that it’s clear the constitutional rights of Mr. Simon were not scrupulously protected as our law requires.”
In 2016, Alstory Simon filed a $40m lawsuit From the Chicago Tribune.
A federal judge on Tuesday gave the green light to a $40 million lawsuit alleging Northwestern University and former star professor David Protess conspired to frame a man for an infamous double murder that became one of the most significant wrongful conviction cases in Illinois history.
The lawsuit brought by Alstory Simon alleges Protess and private investigator Paul Ciolino manufactured bogus evidence, coaxed false statements from witnesses, intimidated Simon into confessing and set him up with a lawyer, Jack Rimland, who coached him to plead guilty.
In denying a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Robert Dow said that it was plausible the money and publicity Protess had brought to Northwestern had allowed a culture of lawlessness and unethical conduct at the university.
The Bombshell Twist
In June 2017 Chicago Tribune reported a “˜bombshell’ twist. It was revealed that in 2014 at the time of Simon’s release a 28-page internal report wherein the deputies of the then State Attorney Alvarez had concluded, “˜there is not sufficient evidence to seek to vacate Simon’s convictions’.
Many High-profile Innocence “˜Exonerees’ Earn $‘000’s
Simon is like so many prisoners released early, whether or not there is an “˜Alford’ deal ““ where release is on condition the prisoner accepts the State does not accept liability that the conviction was wrongful and no “˜certificate of innocence’ is provided.
This type of deal is true, for example, for “˜Sunny’ Jacobs, released from death row and finally prison for her role in the murder of two policemen in Florida, and the notorious WM3 which includes Damien Echols, who has since made millions from books and tours on the back of “˜innocence’.
Amanda Knox, Damien Echols and the other two WM3 are listed by All American Entertainment as exonerated “˜speakers’ charging up to $10,000 a time. Yet none have had a “˜certificate of innocence’. Thus, by Ciolino’s own words, they cannot be classed as ‘exonerated’.
Cook County “˜Wanted to Prosecute David Protess and Paul Ciolino’
The reason Cook County gives for refusing to vacate Simon’s conviction is because he failed to come clean on the deception a taking a rap for another man’s crimes in exchange for a shorter sentence. The reports states:
Simon was not a child or inexperienced at any relevant time. As of 1982 he had accumulated an extensive criminal history. He had been arrested for robberies or armed robberies five times between 1966 and 1977. He had three felony or armed robbery convictions. ... He was 47 when he (pleaded) guilty. This certainly complicates his claims regarding coercion and being misled.
The report criticises the “˜less than ideal circumstances’ in which Ciolino tricked Simon into confessing the first time, after which Simon continued the masquarade by spontaneously admitting to firing the fatal shots for some time after his conviction. For example, in a letter to his lawyers.
However, in spite of these reservations, Alvarez had called a news conference and announced there was “˜no other conclusion’ than that Simon should be freed. Pointedly, she indicated that if it were not for the statute of limitations (time limit for bringing a charge) she would have prosecuted Protess and Ciolino.
Subsequently she declined to send representatives to contest Simon’s effort to win a “certificate of innocence,” a document that allows wrongfully incarcerated, factually innocent persons to collect cash damages from the state. It was because whilst Simon probably did not commit the murders, he was part of the innocence fraud which put him in prison and which freed Porter.
Paul Ciolino Hits Back
The latest news, as of January 2018, leading on from the supposed “˜leaked’ document of 2014 which showed Simon’s convictions were merely “˜vacated’ is that Paul Cionlino is suing Simon, Alavarez, and a couple of the “˜Park’ filmmakers, a Chicago Tribune journalist and policemen for damages for “˜defamation’.
The 66-page petition mirrors the counterclaim Ciolino filed before and which was dismissed last year. He claims his reputation and career were destroyed by the allegations in the Simon case. Ciolino claims Simon was “˜paid thousands of dollars’ and witnesses interfered with by these anti-Innocent Project forces.
The Murder in the Park documentary, asserts there are many other cases where “˜the wrong man is imprisoned and the right one was freed, which Ciolino claims is defamatory. He highlights the letter to Simon’s lawyers in which he states he killed Hillard in self-defence and Green by accident. Ciolino’s new lawsuit is described as “˜frivolous and without merit’ (Prieb) and “˜so false as to be sanctionable’ (Ekl)
Simon had alleged Ciolino impersonated a police officer and used actors as fake eye witnesses. He claims Ciolino said if he confessed, he’d get a shortened sentence by claiming “˜self defence’ and avoid the death penalty. He was also “˜promised large sums of money from book and movie deals’ if he played along, the suit alleges.
Paul Ciolino Acknowledges a Vacated Conviction Does Not Mean “˜Exoneration’
If this illustrates anything, it’s that Innocence Projects running parallel to the US legal system can cause all sorts of chaos and confusion. In effect, Alvarez the State Prosecutor having freed Simon, is now refusing to vacate his conviction. The Innocence Project does not see a vacated conviction as an “˜exoneration’ as evidenced by Ciolino suing for defamation on the grounds that “˜Simon is guilty after all’.
If a vacated conviction does not mean exoneration to people like Ciolino, then people like Ryan Ferguson, the West Memphis Three and Amanda Knox, whom the Innocence Projects spearhead as their “˜Star Exonerees’ are gods with clay feet standing on a false pedestal.
It calls into question the integrity of Innocence Project lawyers, such as Kathleen Zellner, who is said to earn more than $12m per annum as a conservative figure. The last published Annual Report of the Innocence Project shows a turnover of $26m, with a surplus gain of >$3m in the “˜not-for-profit’ org in 2016. Zellner is famous for obtaining “˜death bed’ confessions from prisoners on Death Row taking the rap for the alleged crimes of her clients, thus securing their release.
8. My Conclusion About This Above
Given these pressures and these possibilities for mismanagement, what of the IP’s illegal intervention into the case in Italy? What of the false touting of an “innocent” Knox? What of the trashing of Italian justice, in witting or unwitting harmony with the mafias?
Another IP trainwreck waiting to happen. And happen it did.
9. Tip For IP Contributors
On Amanda Knox. Innocence Project Idaho rep Hampikian’s ONLY achievement was to be main cause of annulment of 2011 appeal, to anger of defense counsel. Thus he subjected Knox and RS to much tougher appeal, leading to desperate measures to bend Supreme Court. Thus Hampikian directly caused mafia involvement that Knox and RS must hide for life.
10. Next post in this series.
Click for Post: Innocence Project: Seven Years Clutching Knox And Trashing Italian Justice To Joy Of Mafias #3
Innocence Project: Seven Years Clutching Knox And Trashing Italian Justice To Joy Of Mafias #4
Posted by Our Main Posters
One of two Sollecito footprints matching in EXACT dimensions
1. What Hampikian Omits In Misleading The American Audience (2)
Hampikian’s illegal nonsense on the DNA in the case is quite obviously worse than useless.
It actually came to HURT the defenses rather than helped them, and drew the mafias in (see Part 2 below). Do please feel free to purge your mind of it, and take in our forensic Powerpoints.
Click each image below, and keep clicking.
1. DNA: A Very Clear Intro To A Vital Subject By Nicki
2. DNA Evidence May Be A Tough Mole To Whack By Nicki
3 Telling Forensic Evidence Against Sollecito By Kermit
4. How Pro-Knox Mafia Tools Doctored A Sollecito Footprint By Kermit
5. Total Evidence Suggests AK & RS Guilty By James Raper w/Kermit
2. Tip For IP Contributors
On Amanda Knox. Innocence Project Idaho rep Hampikian’s ONLY achievement was to be main cause of annulment of 2011 appeal, to anger of defense counsel. Thus he subjected Knox and RS to much tougher appeal, leading to desperate measures to bend Supreme Court. Thus Hampikian directly caused mafia involvement that Knox and RS must hide for life.
5. Next post in this series.
Click for Post: Innocence Project: Seven Years Clutching Knox And Trashing Italian Justice To Joy Of Mafias #5
Innocence Project: Seven Years Clutching Knox And Trashing Italian Justice To Joy Of Mafias #5
Posted by Our Main Posters
Joint press conference of American and Italian prosecutors
1. Perverse Denigration Of Italian Justice
The stance of Barry Scheck’s Innocence Project on Amanda Knox is not only opportunistic and dishonest. It is perverse in terms of their main mission.
We don’t approve of their broad-brush undermining of forensic science. Statistics show that forensic science has made quantum advances since most of their cases were sent to prison, and these days very few new cases of bent science are showing up. The CSI Effect is a defense device not based on current reality.
But we do approve of any highlighting of how the American system rains massive unfairness, such as the huge tilt toward plea-bargaining by hard-line and mostly elected prosecutors (in Italy only highly-trained career judges can enter into their restrained form of plea-bargaining) and to push for much-needed reforms. And of any learning from other, better, justice systems.
They are not too far down the road on the latter, but seem sincere about it - and there is a great deal that they could learn from Italy.
So the Innocence Project’s incessant use of Amanda Knox, a FAKE exoneree who for big bucks is demonizing perhaps the world’s FAIREST system, is not helpful to either the Italian or American situations.
Here below from our numerous comparison posts are some that highlight the many pluses and several minuses of the Italian justice system.
In essence: it is an extremely effective system. it is widely respected by competent counterparts (as contrasted with the wildly incompetent Steve Moore, Michael Heavey, and so on), it works very closely with the FBI and exchanges officers, it keeps Italian crime at a very low level, it very bravely takes on the mafias despite over 100 assasinations, and it gives an exceptional list of breaks to perpetrators. Recidivisms - repeat crimes - are among the world’s lowest.
2. Main Pluses And Minuses Of The Italian Justice System
1. Plus: Italy Has Little Crime, Few Murders, Small Prison Population
Click for Post: Compared To Italy, Say, Precisely How Wicked Is The United States?
2. Plus: The Well-Trained Well-Equipped Italian Police Are Also Well-Liked
Click for Post: Italian Police Long Known As Among Europe’s Coolest, Now Also Being Remarked Upon As”¦
3. Plus: Italian Cops, Judges, Labs Work Exceptionally Closely With US’s FBI
Click for Post: FBI Reporting Close Co-operation With Italy In Arresting And Soon Extraditing A Fugitive Swindler
4. Plus: Italy And United States Cooperate Daily On Effecting Extraditions
Click for Post: Italian Justice & The Telling Status Of Extraditions To And From Italy
5. Plus: Italy Has Implemented Perhaps World’s Best Anti-Terrorism System
Click for Post: Counterterrorism: Another Way Italian Law Enforcement Is An Effective Model For Everywhere Else
6. Plus: The Career Prosecutors Are Well-Trained, Straight, Very Hard to Bend
Click for Post: Why The Italian Judiciary’s Probably Less Prone to Pressure Than Any Other In The World
7. Plus: Those Charged Get Repeated Chances To Walk Free Before Trial
Click for Post: “They Were Held For A Year Without Even Being Charged!!” How Italian Justice REALLY Works
8. Plus: The Courts Take Reasonable Doubt At Trials Very, Very Seriously
Click for Post: Reasonable Doubt In Italian Law: How Sollecito, Hellmann, And Zanetti Seriously Garbled It.
9. Plus: The Appeal System Is Ponderous But Its Fairness Exceptional
Click for Post: How The Italian Appeals Process Works And Why It Consumes So Much Time
10. Plus: The Italian System Learns Fast And Seeks Incessantly To Improve
Click for Post: Meredith May Not See Justice (Yet) But She Will Leave At Least Three Legacies
11. Minus: Mafias And Corrupt Politicians Have Somewhat Bent a Good System
Click for Post: Trashing Of Italian Justice To Bend Trial Outcomes And How The Republic Pushes Back
12. Minus: The System Is So Fair To Perps, Victim’s Families Can Suffer Terribly
Click for Post: The Terrible Weight On The Victim’s Family Because The Italian System Is So Very, Very Pro Defendant
13. Plus: Still, A Fine System Continuously Improving, Already Good As A Global Model
Click for Post: Italian Justice: Describing A Fine System And How To Improve It
14. Plus: And The System Really Has Gone The Extra Mile In Meredith’s Case
Click for Post: From Shortly Before Last December’s Verdict: Our Poster Hopeful’s Moving Tribute To Italian Justice
3. Final post in this series.
Click for Post: Innocence Project: Seven Years Clutching Knox And Trashing Italian Justice To Joy Of Mafias #6