Messages

No. There were too many other possibilities and the whole thing smacks of a fishing expedition.

It definitely sounds like a fishing expedition. Which begs the question: Are there circumstances in which this is ever ok? That also goes to the profiling thingy which is also nothing more than that. And in a sense, this was a result of profiling where the reasoning is that people who purchase legal images of naked kids are also likely to "upgrade" to illegal ones. It's just that in most cases one never hears about it as there isn't a public figure involved.

I'd guess that originally they monitored him more passively, but once it was clear that Edathy was tipped off, they went all in and got a search warrant.

I don't know the particulars of German laws, or the procedures of their parliament and what they're expected to do with the laptops. I assume it's doing government business, in which case government has an interest in keeping the data secure, including making online backups. Connection data is the really iffy part; I can't think of any legitimate reason for them to do that, and it smacks of an easy way for opportunists to dig up dirt on the opposition.

Which is the question I had all along: who are his political enemies, and is the prosecution etc. known allies of them?

Well, you raise an interesting point there. Of course, the biggest political enemies usually are within one's own ranks and they're usually also the ones nobody ever hears about.

In this case, there's an interesting twist though which did in fact spawn lots of conspiracy theories once the story originally broke last year, namely that Mr. Edathy was the chairman of a parliamentary board of enquiry which was supposed to get to the bottom of the NSA spying scandal (in the previous parliament, before the elections). Ultimately, it didn't go anywhere of course, but he was supposedly rather dedicated and asked lots of inconvenient questions. Which is also why he was on the short list to get a prominent job within the new administration after his party finally got back a seat at the table of power.

So while there aren't any known enemies, the American "allies" and their friends in German politics (whoever either of them are) certainly didn't shed any tears that Edathy's political career was cut short.

I've had debates on here in the past regarding criminal prosecution and the rights of the individual against it. Currently, there's a public case in Germany which really makes me scratch my head and I don't feel comfortable to come down on either side. Anyway, I'll share the details here would like to get the perspective of the community on it.

It all started last year when Sebastian Edathy, an up and coming German politician from the Social Democratic Party (SPD) appeared on a list of a Canadian seller of Kiddie porn that was just raided by the Canadian police. Of course the German police was informed and an investigation was started.

Right there is the first issue, because apparently the material he bought was legal in Canada and most likely also legal in Germany, although law experts do disagree there as it's a grey area. German law regarding kiddie porn is rather strict. What Edathy bought were videos of naked kids. That in itself isn't illegal in Germany, only when the kids start "to pose" or when the genitals are in the focus of the video, which obviously is a judgement call.
Anyway, this was enough for the prosecution to launch an investigation.

Now it gets really dicy though. Because right at that time the Germans elected a new government. Neither the Conservatives (CDU) nor the SPD got a majority on their own, so they started coalition negotiations.
Since Edathy was a member of parliament, the then secretary for the interior (CDU) was informed.
He then told his colleagues from the SPD that they might not want to propose Mr Edathy for any official posts during these negotiations as there was an investigation against him and it could have a negative backlash for the SPD and the government as a whole if one important member was found guilty of owning kiddie porn.
This was obviously illegal and the secretary would later have to step down because of it as he betrayed secrets he wasn't allow to betray.

But the cat was out of the bag now and Mr Edathy was tipped off by some unknown party (though indications are that it was someone from within the SPD). He stepped down from his seat in parliament and form all official posts and disappeared.
The prosecutors were perplexed and guessed what had happened and immediately got a search warrant. Once they arrived at his home, most of his computers were gone and they found remnants of destroyed hard drives. Two days later, Mr. Edathy reported that his government Laptop was stolen on a train ride to Amsterdam, that it happened a month earlier, but that he just hadn't gotten around to report it yet.

So hardly any evidence was found, but the circumstances clearly indicate that Mr Edathy did in fact own illegal kiddie porn, it's all just too convenient. At that point though, it seemed as if there wouldn't be a lawsuit as the evidence was lacking and the Canadian material simply not good enough to make a strong case.

Now however, a lawsuit was filed. The prosecution was able to produce evidence, however the question now is if that evidence was obtained legally.
For one, they went through the backup of Mr Edathy's government laptop on the parliament servers where they supposedly found illegal material. Here, it is however not clear if there's a legal basis for keeping such a backup in the first place.
Next, they apparently found connection data from the government laptop to illegal child porn sites. Again it is not clear if it was legal for the parliament to save them in the first place.
Lastly, they found prints and a CD in his home with material that the prosecution classifies as kiddie porn.

However, the prosecution might have made a formal blunder when they searched Mr Edathy's home. Members of parliament enjoy immunity before the law and the parliament first has to revoke that immunity before a prosecution can begin. In Mr Edathy's case, he stepped down, so his immunity expired anyway (I think within two days), but the police allegedly went into his house hours before said immunity officially expired.



So, two questions I'd like to get your opinions, but feel free to comment on any aspect of it:
1) Was it justifiable for the prosecution to start a criminal investigation, based solely on the (likely) legal purchase of videos of naked kids?

2) Should it be legal (regardless of whether it actually is) for the German parliament to keep backups and connection data of their government laptops that are loaned to MPs and should the prosecution be allowed to search them?

OK, I'm listening to the transcript: it shows me that Bartaloso is a real scumbag: ordering her to basically stitch up the whole operation. he's also an idiot, who clearly doesn't understand the science of earthquakes.

what I find disturbing in the implication that the scientists were basically there to make the whole thing look legitimate, rather than a meaningful investigation: a show of giving a shit, rather than risking (in his mind's eye) the panic of the population. There is little implication that the scientists themselves were bribed--simply that they're going to be in this meeting to "reassure the public". considering they were largely forbidden to speak to the public, this would not have been difficult to do. without a full transcript of the conversation with the seismologist, I cannot infer much more (it would reveal if he were indeed bribed).

Most of my information stems from that detailed radio program I told you about. I even tracked it down, unfortunately, they only make their programs available for a couple of months on their website, so I couldn't re-listen to it.

It's been a while but I think it was pretty clear from the wire taps that the scientists knew what they were getting into, they weren't just there in the background in order to give the press conference and the bogus claims made a more sciency feel.
Though I don't remember if money was promised or if it was about grants for their research, or simply a case of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours."

In any case, as you can see, it wasn't about "not predicting an earthquake", but about misleading the public due to political pressure.

And the rest is just as false. NONE of Amanda's DNA was found on or near the victim, there was NONE of Amanda's blood, etc. They THOUGHT there was at one time, but they turned out to be contaminated samples. So if this is what you're going on, no wonder you're confused about it!

Well, that's the gist of it. I agree, if all those samples were bogus, then there isn't much of a case left. On the other hand, if all those samples are legit, then she sure as hell was in on it.

I don't know how you can assess that it's all bogus. I mean, I even agree with you, but it's not open and shut, merely that the doubts regarding the samples are too big for me personally. I have the feeling that you're approaching this from a very biased position. I mean how do you explain those two guilty verdicts then? Are the Italians too stupid to weigh the evidence and apply the law? Are they corrupt (and if so, why, and who paid them)? Do they simply want to stick it to the US and Amanda was their proxy? Or did they actually believe that they had a solid case against her and for good reason? Do I have to explain to you how conspiracy theories work? Try to take one step back from your American-centric perspective, from the American media with their axes that they grind and the biases they have. You like to apply Bayesian mathematics, so why don't you do it by taking everything into account, rather than only after you decided to throw out all the evidence?

You sound like one of this creationists who dismiss all the evidence for evolution after reading on their favorite website that it's all bogus anyway. Ok, that was mean, I'm sorry, it's not THAT bad. 

How would it not?

Because the same rules as with any trial apply. So the chances of someone innocent being convicted should be the same.
However, if we apply strict standards, the chance would in fact decrease, as only solid evidence could justify a re-trial.

Government gets more cracks at it whenever they want.

No they would not. They'd have nothing to do with it. It would be firmly located within the judiciary branch, just as the court system should be anyhow...(unfortunately in the US there are many overlaps, but that doesn't mean that there have to be...again, maybe you should take a step back from your American-centric perspective).

And there's no such thing as an "independent judge." Judges are just politicians in black robes.

That's what I thought. Sorry, but if that's what you think, then you should be advocating to get rid of courts altogether. Either judges are biased by definition, then they're no good no matter if it's a first or a second trial.

Or judges can at least in theory be impartial, then again it doesn't matter if we're talking about a first or a second trial.

I guess if rampant corruption and injustice is "trustworthy" by you...

Certainly more trustworthy than the US system. I'm pretty sure that the "rampant" corruption and injustice (citation needed) in the Italian judiciary system are far lower than in the US...I mean you guys elect your prosecutors which opens up the entire system to abuse, guys who are "tough on crime" get elected and individual rights suffer (hooray, who can achieve more death sentences?), then the jury system opens it up to storytelling being more important than facts, etc.
At least in Italy, even Berlusconi was unable to bribe his way out of the courts...oh yeah, and they don't have capital punishment either. If Amanda was an Italian student in front of an American jury, she'd probably be on death row right now, whereas in real life, she can do interviews from the comfort of her home.

Of course the Italian judiciary system isn't prefect. Wherever humans are at work, mistakes happen. But the safeguards within it seem to be much better than in the US. So yeah, if I was falsely accused of being a murderer and I could choose between the US and Italy, I'd definitely stand trial in Italy.

...but the main thing here is you CANNOT use the defendant's behavior as primary evidence.

I agree that the behavior ALONE cannot possibly be considered evidence. But if it fits into a larger narrative that is (crucially) ALSO supported by physical evidence, then you have something.

You need physical evidence linking to her first, and THEY DON'T HAVE IT.

I edited my posting to include a link which lists all the evidence brought forth.

It shouldn't have happened AT ALL! Once you're acquitted, that's IT!

No, you can't. Because then you'd have 10 innocent people imprisoned for every 1 guilty person that goes free, instead of the other way around.

I really don't see how that would follow. If you have an independent judge analyzing whether new evidence justifies a re-trial, how does that lead to relatively more innocent people in prison?
Th only argument I can think of is that trials inevitably lead to false rulings, including the conviction of innocents. But if that's the problem, then we'd have to stop enforcing the law period.

Quite frankly, I'd take the Italian legal system over the American one every day of the week. Despite my own prejudices regarding the Italian political system and the corruption within it, their legal system seems to be one of the most trustworthy ones.

is there a transcript, or the recordings proper? If so, I'd be very interested to see or hear this. If it is the case, I think more people should know about it. It certainly has troubling implications on the matter: if they are taking bribes or similar, then it raises a BIG question mark on the integrity of the Italian scientific scene.

I'm sure there are transcripts, in fact I know there are. Some of the taps are even on YouTube. But I don't speak Italian, so it's difficult for me to sieve through all of that. I followed the story from Germany and here we got most of the same coverage as people in the US did. So at first I was just as enraged about it. But once I dug a little deeper, I saw that it really wasn't about science but about corruption.

A quick google search provided me with this English language article, talking about the wiretaps and also linking to some audio files:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22439-bugged-phone-deepens-controversy-over-italian-quake.html?full=true#.UvAxenlPuTo

Nope. No do-overs from an acquittal.

I get that this is an Anglo-Saxon principle in the judiciary system. But I fail to see why this has to be so. In fact, I find it to be just wrong. I don't see any good reason for why mistakes shouldn't be allowed to get corrected.

What if it turns out that a judge/jury that lets a murder suspect go was bribed to do so? What if other new evidence appears?

I get that a citizen should be protected from being sued over and over again for the same "crime" until the verdict suits the prosecutor. But you can have that protection and still allow for a re-trial when new evidence appears.

Smaller quakes are NO predictor of a bigger one coming.

Sure, but that's not what I claimed and it's not what this was about. See my post above.

None of Knox's DNA was on the victim.

I checked it once again, and YES, they DID find DNA of her. Which if you think about it isn't too surprising as they shared an apartment. It would have been more extraordinary if they didn't find her DNA. Crucially however, they did find Amanda's DNA on the bra the victim was wearing.

Nope, just hers the victim's. None of the victim's Knox's DNA was on the knife. (EDIT: Sorry, I wrote that incorrectly before.)

That's true, I have since read more on the issue and while a first test found both, her and the victim's DNA, a second test didn't. In that case, it should be "in dubio pro reo".
Apart from the DNA evidence, what did play the biggest role in the original lawsuit (and I would guess also in the most current one) were her contradictory statements and her accusation of someone who turned out to be innocent, combined with a faked break in to the apartment.

As I said, I'm also in the "not guilty" camp, but I wouldn't call it obvious. I think the overall evidence (as far as I'm aware of it) is too flimsy so convict anyone. But there's another chance as there's one more appeal court to go to.

EDIT: Here's an overview of the evidence against Amanda and her former boyfriend. It comes from a biased source I guess, so take it with a grain of salt. Again, I'm still not convinced that this is enough to convict them. But it shows that this isn't as open and shut as you made it out to be:
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Evidence

OK, let the Geologist here actually have some input:

firstly, the Geologists in general didn't really say what you imply they said: they said at the meeting of theirs there was no way to know that there was an earthquake coming: it may or may not. big difference. As Boschi pointed out, the only way they could have avoided this whole bullshit was to say: "yeah! and Earthquake is definitely coming!" but, not being God, he and the others couldn't, and can't.

secondly, and very much worth noting is that the Geologists--especially the geophysicists and seismologists--themselves were not allowed time to talk to the media regarding this: a couple of the commissioners (one of whom was a volcanologist) did try to reassure the public, but even if we were take it as saying "there will be no earthquake" (which it wasn't), that's just two of the six people: why punish four others for what two did?

so I hate to break it to you, but yea, they are being punished for failing to predict an earthquake: pretty it up all you want, but it's the truth. failure to predict an earthquake, is not the same as saying "there will be no earthquake", since the persons in question only had to to say "I don't know, and there is no way to know", and still meet the criterion of failing to predict an earthquake.

http://www.livescience.com/39978-enzo-boschi-denounces-laquila-conviction.html

Sorry, but that is just factually wrong. I'm sure that most of the time these geologists in question were honest and said that there is no way of knowing when an earthquake might hit you, but here there was clear evidence that local politicians and these scientists came together and conspired to give the public the perception of there not being any danger.

For example there was the case of Giampaolo Giuliani, a technician who has been able to predict a couple of earthquakes in the past. The city of L'Aquila funded his research and shortly before the devastating earthquake, he predicted it. What the people that were later sued did was not only to doubt his prediction (which they would have been perfectly justified to do as he is a bit of a crank), they actually sued him for panic mongering claiming that no earthquake was coming.

Secondly, there were lots of wiretaps going on at the time due to suspicion of corruption (many of which turned out to be justified) and they proved that the geologists were persuaded by the politicians to act against better knowledge.

Lastly, on the night before the quake, there was the fatal press conference with those scientists in which they didn't qualify their statements by saying that nobody can predict earthquakes or that the chances of an earthquake are as they always are. They deliberately (as the wiretaps proved) failed to do so. What they did say was that there's nothing to fear and that the inhabitants should make themselves a nice evening. A couple of hours later, more than 300 were dead.

Back when the court case was finished, I heard a radio program where they questioned German geologists about the case and while they were shocked by the severity of the sentences, they agreed with the lawsuit being brought forth to begin with as the scientists and politicians in question "made statements that were simply factually wrong".

So as I originally said, this is more complicated than it is made out to be. It's really less a case about science and more about Italian corruption.

I think I've seen ONE picture of Amanda Knox. And I can't even call up what she looks like in my head. This isn't about that. It's about an obviously innocent person being railroaded.

Well, what I remember from the original lawsuit was that her looks were made into a big deal by the media. I think she was called "angel with icy eyes" in Italy. Of course that shouldn't have anything to do with anything, and I'm confident that at least when it comes to the courts, it doesn't.

However, I wonder how you know that she's "obviously innocent". Personally, I certainly lack the necessary information to make a call on the matter, but I seem to know more than you do. From what I know, I'd still plead 'not guilty', but I wouldn't say that it's obvious. But even if I thought it was obvious, I wouldn't claim it to be without being in possession of all the facts, preferably reading all the court's transcripts. It's somewhat presumptuous to make such a bold statement without knowing the basics of the lawsuit, let alone the details.

It doesn't matter if she was convicted FIFTY times! Once you're found not guilty, that's that!

Why's that? Again that's a very bold statement. Say a murder suspect gets away due to insufficient evidence, then later new evidence appears that prove beyond doubt that he/she did it, for example a video tape. Shouldn't he/she be convicted then?

Ok, so I guess I was right. I dunno where you got your info, but I just checked some news stories from 2009 where Amanda Knox' sentence was discussed. According to the verdict, there was DNA of Amanda on the victim and they found a knife in Amanda's boyfriends flat that had both her and the victim's DNA on it. While the evidence appeared to be flimsy, it's certainly false that they didn't find anything.

On the Italian legal System thing:
I have to admit that I barely followed the Knox trial back in the days, but I seem to remember that the evidence wasn't as bad as you made it out to be. I will look into that, however, you are clearly wrong about the remark regarding the scientists getting jailed for not predicting an earthquake. They weren't convicted for that. In fact, it's much more complicated. There were some smaller earthquakes before and the population was becoming very nervous. So local politicians approached these geologists trying to convince them to tell the public that there is no danger of a major earthquake whatsoever in order to prevent a panic. The scientist in question did so against better knowledge. That's what they were held accountable for. It's not that they failed to predict an earthquake, it's that they predicted that none would occur when they knew that this was impossible to predict. BTW, the politicians in question were also convicted.