Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[CoulsdonUK]

Do you think they shouldn't be?

I would argue that they should - and this is hugely more important if you're interrogating a possible suspect. Do you not agree with this?

As in America I think it is subject to the laws of the land. It is for the Italian people decide not us as foreigners to dictate.

 

[LondonJohn]

Nencini is either:
1) dimwitted,
2) willfully ignorant,
3) misrepresenting, or
4) all of the above.

Take your pick.
In this multiple choice exam, only Nencini knows the answer. And I not sure about that.

Having done my own cod-translations of Nencini a while ago, I assumed that the ugliness of my conversational-business-Italian translations was my fault. It now turns out that it is Nencini's fault!

It truly is an astonishingly poor piece of judicial reasoning. In my opinion, his court makes multiple serious errors in fact and in law. There are (again, in my opinion) several extremely strong grounds of appeal, whether to the SC or, ultimately to the ECHR under the right to a fair trial. It's a horrible, unjudicial mess.

 

[Desert Fox]

Chris_Halkides

Okay just so that I am clear, you are unsure whether every US state is legally obliged to record (interview or interrogations), fair enough.

Nonetheless, you are stating that Italy should be, have I got that right?

Don't you think a nation should follow their own laws?
This is one of the issues in this case - The police / prosecutors / judges definitely broke many of their own laws.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CoulsdonUK,

Nothing of what you wrote remotely addresses any of my points. I don't have a strong opinion as to whether or not ethnic origin was the driving factor, although I suspect it played a role. I do have a strong opinion that the Central Park Five case can and should be held up as an object lesson to illustrate why the entire interrogation should be recorded, not just a confession, and I provided one or two links to allow people to explore this idea. Do you agree or disagree that recordings should be made of an entire interrogation, not just the confession? Do you agree or disagree that this applies to Perugia just as much as it applies to New York City?

I disagree with the wording of your last sentence. My point was that no one should be disqualified from voicing an opinion on this case because of the real or perceived shortcomings of his or her own country's CJ system. However, cases from the U.S. and from Australia (both of which I often use) are not irrelevant in that they illustrate the mechanisms of wrongful accusations and wrongful convictions.

I really do believe it is up to each country to decide, although yes in principal in an ideal world I agree police interview\interrogations of a serious crime should be recorded and videoed. I do not believe that foreigners can or should dictate what another democracy should do with regards its own laws that is for its electorate to decide.

Can you imagine the outcry in Texas if a bunch of foreigners tried to interfere with Texas State law regarding to executions?

 

[LondonJohn]

Example error in law #1:

The infamous "osmosis" argument, and its stunning misunderstanding/misapplication by Nencini's court.

In general jurisprudence (and explicitly enshrined in Italian law), the rules of evidence state that each individual piece of evidence must be tested for reliability, credibility and accuracy before it is allowed to form part of the case. If it passes this test, then it can be considered alongside other pieces of evidence in forming an overall assessment of guilt/non-guilt.

That's what "osmosis" means. "Osmosis" doesn't magically strengthen the reliability/credibility/accuracy of any individual piece of evidence. Rather, it means that even if each individual piece of evidence (assuming of course that it has passed the reliability test) doesn't necessarily point in a certain direction, all the reliable pieces of evidence, taken together, might indeed point inexorably towards guilt (or non-guilt).

Example: Mrs A is found shot dead with a .38 gun outside her office building. Mr A is a suspect. There are three different pieces of evidence: 1) Mr A was heard by neighbours having a violent argument with Mrs A the night before the murder; 2) Mr A owned a .38 revolver prior to the murder, and that gun is now missing; 3) Mr A cannot account for his whereabouts in the hour surrounding the murder.

Now, each of these items of evidence, considered in total isolation, would almost certainly not constitute sufficient proof that Mr A was the murderer. But all three, considered together, clearly make it far more likely that Mr A was the murderer. THAT's "osmosis" in action.

But that's true ONLY if each of those three items of evidence is itself proven to be reliable and accurate. Suppose instead that the alleged argument might in fact have been an entirely different couple in the same apartment block. Or suppose that it's unclear whether Mr A really did own a .38 at the time of the murder: he claims to have got rid of it several years ago and none of his gun club friends ever recall seeing it in the previous five years.

If each piece of evidence is itself unreliable, the "osmosis" effect will not suddenly miraculously make it more reliable! The court in the above example would not be entitled to say something along the lines of: "well, we don't really know whether or not it was Mr A and Mrs A having the violent argument, but when we consider it alongside the other evidence, we are entitled to reason that it probably WAS between Mr and Mrs A".

And that appears to be exactly the sort of thing that Nencini's court is doing in its reasoning. It ought to be immediately appealable.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Chris_Halkides

Okay just so that I am clear, you are unsure whether every US state is legally obliged to record (interview or interrogations), fair enough.

Nonetheless, you are stating that Italy should be, have I got that right?

CouldonUK,

From a link I previously provided, "Seventeen states – along with the District of Columbia – have already adopted some degree of videotaping requirement. Last September, the commissioner of the world's largest police force announced that it would adopt the practice." link

I would be happy if all jurisdictions recorded interrogations, and I would be delighted if people from the UK, Canada, and Australia wrote to US authorities to suggest it. This reform would reduce the number of false confessions. Let's have a race to the top to see who can do it first.

However (as others have already said), Italy broke its own laws with respect to the interrogations of 5-6 November.

 

[toto]

Amanda's shower at her house

Just to add:

Mignini interview:
Knox: When I had woken up in the morning I was at Raffaele’s house, the 1st of November, and I went to my house to have a shower to change myself.
Nencini:
(it appears, moreover, that Amanda Marie Knox had already had a shower at Raffaele Sollecito’s home on the day of 1 November 2007…)

To any pro guilt posters am I missing something? Or did Amanda have more than one shower that day, and if so, so what?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

CouldonUK,

From a link I previously provided, "Seventeen states – along with the District of Columbia – have already adopted some degree of videotaping requirement. Last September, the commissioner of the world's largest police force announced that it would adopt the practice."

I would be happy if all jurisdictions recorded interrogations, and I would be delighted if people from the UK, Canada, and Australia wrote to US authorities to suggest it. This reform would reduce the number of false confessions. Let's have a race to the top to see who can do it first.

However (as others have already said), Italy broke its own laws with respect to the interrogations of 5-6 November.

Police interview\interrogations (of serious crimes) in the UK are subject to audio\video recording.

 

[Diocletus]

Just to add:

Mignini interview:
Knox: When I had woken up in the morning I was at Raffaele’s house, the 1st of November, and I went to my house to have a shower to change myself.
Nencini:
(it appears, moreover, that Amanda Marie Knox had already had a shower at Raffaele Sollecito’s home on the day of 1 November 2007…)

To any pro guilt posters am I missing something? Or did Amanda have more than one shower that day, and if so, so what?

Note use of the word "appears", which is a sure sign that he is totally wrong.

 

[Dan O.]

Just to add:

Mignini interview:
Knox: When I had woken up in the morning I was at Raffaele’s house, the 1st of November, and I went to my house to have a shower to change myself.
Nencini:
(it appears, moreover, that Amanda Marie Knox had already had a shower at Raffaele Sollecito’s home on the day of 1 November 2007…)

To any pro guilt posters am I missing something? Or did Amanda have more than one shower that day, and if so, so what?

There are no pro guilt posters here. There are a couple of authoritarians that believe only the rightful authorities should be allowed to talk about the case. They won't answer direct questions concerning the case. They won't offer opinions and discuss the reasons behind those opinions. They don't even bother to inform themselves of the facts and make the same stupid mistakes as Nencini so often does in his motivations report.

The answer is that Amanda may have had two showers on November 1. She is not certain because the second may have been the night before and therefore preceded the first.

 

[Desert Fox]

I really do believe it is up to each country to decide, although yes in principal in an ideal world I agree police interview\interrogations of a serious crime should be recorded and videoed. I do not believe that foreigners can or should dictate what another democracy should do with regards its own laws that is for its electorate to decide.
Can you imagine the outcry in Texas if a bunch of foreigners tried to interfere with Texas State law regarding to executions?

That is essentially what happened with the West Memphis Three and my response is "tough". . . .If you don't like it then don't screw up.

 

[Numbers]

Example error in law #1:

The infamous "osmosis" argument, and its stunning misunderstanding/misapplication by Nencini's court.

In general jurisprudence (and explicitly enshrined in Italian law), the rules of evidence state that each individual piece of evidence must be tested for reliability, credibility and accuracy before it is allowed to form part of the case. If it passes this test, then it can be considered alongside other pieces of evidence in forming an overall assessment of guilt/non-guilt.

That's what "osmosis" means. "Osmosis" doesn't magically strengthen the reliability/credibility/accuracy of any individual piece of evidence. Rather, it means that even if each individual piece of evidence (assuming of course that it has passed the reliability test) doesn't necessarily point in a certain direction, all the reliable pieces of evidence, taken together, might indeed point inexorably towards guilt (or non-guilt).

Example: Mrs A is found shot dead with a .38 gun outside her office building. Mr A is a suspect. There are three different pieces of evidence: 1) Mr A was heard by neighbours having a violent argument with Mrs A the night before the murder; 2) Mr A owned a .38 revolver prior to the murder, and that gun is now missing; 3) Mr A cannot account for his whereabouts in the hour surrounding the murder.

Now, each of these items of evidence, considered in total isolation, would almost certainly not constitute sufficient proof that Mr A was the murderer. But all three, considered together, clearly make it far more likely that Mr A was the murderer. THAT's "osmosis" in action.

But that's true ONLY if each of those three items of evidence is itself proven to be reliable and accurate. Suppose instead that the alleged argument might in fact have been an entirely different couple in the same apartment block. Or suppose that it's unclear whether Mr A really did own a .38 at the time of the murder: he claims to have got rid of it several years ago and none of his gun club friends ever recall seeing it in the previous five years.

If each piece of evidence is itself unreliable, the "osmosis" effect will not suddenly miraculously make it more reliable! The court in the above example would not be entitled to say something along the lines of: "well, we don't really know whether or not it was Mr A and Mrs A having the violent argument, but when we consider it alongside the other evidence, we are entitled to reason that it probably WAS between Mr and Mrs A".

And that appears to be exactly the sort of thing that Nencini's court is doing in its reasoning. It ought to be immediately appealable.

LondonJohn,

Thanks for your clear explanation of how reliable evidence is to be added up!

I know that the ECHR requires a statement of reasons (or equivalent) and has rarely found a particular statement of reasons incoherent. Do you believe that ECHR would declare a trial unfair if the logic of evaluating and combining the bits of evidence was grossly defective?

Also, ECHR states that evaluating the reliability of evidence is generally not in its domain. However, for the DNA evidence in this case, would the failure to have followed international (or any?) protocols cause ECHR to question the fairness of introducing such DNA evidence?

 

[Numbers]

I really do believe it is up to each country to decide, although yes in principal in an ideal world I agree police interview\interrogations of a serious crime should be recorded and videoed. I do not believe that foreigners can or should dictate what another democracy should do with regards its own laws that is for its electorate to decide.

Can you imagine the outcry in Texas if a bunch of foreigners tried to interfere with Texas State law regarding to executions?

Couldson,

To me you appear to have some odd ideas, from an American view point, about freedom of speech.

Criticizing the official (or unofficial) actions of one's state or the Federal government, or another state or country (democracy or not) is a right in the US. Why would such criticism be considered "dictating"?

I understand that in Italy people are cautious about criticizing the police and courts too specifically because of Italian laws against defamation.

 

[kwill]

Criticizing the official (or unofficial) actions of one's state or the Federal government, or another state or country (democracy or not) is a right in the US.

Heavens, it's our national pastime. We love it more than baseball, apple pie, and mom all wrapped up together.

 

[carbonjam72]

As in America I think it is subject to the laws of the land. It is for the Italian people decide not us as foreigners to dictate.

And when Islamic countries decide that stoning to death is an appropriate punishment for adultery, or that blasphemy can be punished by death, or leaving the religion of Islam is punishable by death, none of that bothers you?

Just their tough luck for being born into a backwards society which we all need to respect, because to do otherwise would be just so inappropriate?

I wouldn't wish on anyone what Amanda and Raf have been through, but I doubt you'll be able to empathize with their plight until you yourself have a taste of that level of injustice. If such a fate should befall you, please know I'll be on your side, and do what I can to help.

 

[carbonjam72]

Just to add:

Mignini interview:
Knox: When I had woken up in the morning I was at Raffaele’s house, the 1st of November, and I went to my house to have a shower to change myself.
Nencini:
(it appears, moreover, that Amanda Marie Knox had already had a shower at Raffaele Sollecito’s home on the day of 1 November 2007…)

To any pro guilt posters am I missing something? Or did Amanda have more than one shower that day, and if so, so what?

I think the idea that Amanda would want to take showers regularly, indeed more so than Italians perhaps are used to, contradicts the idea that Amanda's poor hygiene was a cause of the imaginary friction between Amanda and Meredith.

Mignini has to unravel reality to fit his fantasies, or his grand sexual murder fairy tale falls to pieces. Which is something he cannot allow, as his whole identity is wrapped up in this fraudulent concoction. Shame on Mignini yes, but shame on the Italian judiciary for covering for him when they know full well he is a menace to society.

 

[Machiavelli]

Couldson,

To me you appear to have some odd ideas, from an American view point, about freedom of speech.

Criticizing the official (or unofficial) actions of one's state or the Federal government, or another state or country (democracy or not) is a right in the US. Why would such criticism be considered "dictating"?

I understand that in Italy people are cautious about criticizing the police and courts too specifically because of Italian laws against defamation.

It's an odd "understanding". It qualifies some speakers on this board. In fact Italians domestic criticism of their own institutions and authorities has little equal around the world.

But Italian culture tends to strongly distinguish the concept of criticism from that of spreading false information (allegation of false/unsupported facts).

Italian laws are voted democratically and, about defamation, they are similar to other European states (such as Germany). Actually, I think instead Italians have an own mindset tending to think words as "heavvy tools" and do not have a culture of making wild use of 'freedom of speech'; their disapproval of 'calunnia' and 'defamation' is not a consequence a fear of defamation law, but rather the other way around, the laws are a consequence of their idea about the moral use of words. Bear well in mind - as I already shown in previous posts - defamation laws do not protect 'institutions', instead they are used by private citizens to defend particular interests. On the other hand, I bet if you ask a number of Italians if they approve or disapprove to wild allegations against police or magistrates in the name of 'freedom of speech', most people would express disapproval, they would express concern about not harming the legitimacy of this or that person/authority, they would think about the "danger" that words may cause "damage" to others or to public safety, rather than to the consequences for the person who speaks.

 

[Diocletus]

It's an odd "understanding". It qualifies some speakers on this board. In fact Italians domestic criticism of their own institutions and authorities has little equal around the world.

But Italian culture tends to strongly distinguish the concept of criticism from that of spreading false information (allegation of false/unsupported facts).

Italian laws are voted democratically and, about defamation, they are similar to other European states (such as Germany). Actually, I think instead Italians have an own mindset tending to think words as "heavvy tools" and do not have a culture of making wild use of 'freedom of speech'; their disapproval of 'calunnia' and 'defamation' is not a consequence a fear of defamation law, but rather the other way around, the laws are a consequence of their idea about the moral use of words. Bear well in mind - as I already shown in previous posts - defamation laws do not protect 'institutions', instead they are used by private citizens to defend particular interests. On the other hand, I bet if you ask a number of Italians if they approve or disapprove to wild allegations against police or magistrates in the name of 'freedom of speech', most people would express disapproval, they would express concern about not harming the legitimacy of this or that person/authority, they would think about the "danger" that words may cause "damage" to others or to public safety, rather than to the consequences for the person who speaks.

Sounds like some people need to toughen up.

 

[Machiavelli]

I think the idea that Amanda would want to take showers regularly, indeed more so than Italians perhaps are used to, contradicts the idea that Amanda's poor hygiene was a cause of the imaginary friction between Amanda and Meredith.

Mignini has to unravel reality to fit his fantasies, or his grand sexual murder fairy tale falls to pieces. Which is something he cannot allow, as his whole identity is wrapped up in this fraudulent concoction. Shame on Mignini yes, but shame on the Italian judiciary for covering for him when they know full well he is a menace to society.

Angela Antonelli, a former chief prison guard, recalls about Knox:

(...) she paid no attention to her personal hygiene. She was dirty and the others in her cell complained that she smelled.
Sweating
Every Monday was laundry day but she hardly ever had laundry and always let her hair get greasy. When she had to go to the tribunal I used to suggest she wash her hair, so she did.
But often she didn't wash it for a month and wore the same jumper and jeans for a week(...) She was always stretching and then running like a crazy person round the courtyard for the hours they were allowed out. She came in sweating but didn’t shower or change. She didn't look after herself.

According to Sophie Pourthon and Robyn Butterworth, Meredith complained that Amanda Knox had some poor personal hygiene habits.

 

[kwill]

According to Sophie Pourthon and Robyn Butterworth, Meredith complained that Amanda Knox had some poor personal hygiene habits.

How catty of them to make their friend sound like such a back-biter. Also, how irrelevant to the question of innocence.

Has anyone anywhere ever heard Amanda say anything critical at all about Meredith? Seen her write anything? Recorded her saying anything?

No, of course not. That's because Amanda liked Meredith.