Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

This is a typical js202 post. My problem with this kind of post is not the ad hominem, but rather the complete absence of any argumentation or cite of fact except the ad hominem statement.
I note a number of judgemental hurls from js202 without recalling an argument within them.

We were trying to work out how Ms Knox slaughtered Ms Kercher in a room with the dimensions of 11 feet x 9.5 feet, with four people in it and with free space around the furniture of about 8 feet x 6 feet with more than two litres of spilled and aspirated blood but left no evidence behind and took no evidence with her.

We were wondering if you had any ideas, because we sure don't!

 

[Kauffer]

Calunnia law says you may not place false evidence about a crime against a person whilst you know that person is innocent of that crime.
(The US has perjury laws which are often equivalent).

I don't see what's wrong with this principle.

What's wrong with it in this case is that we know the police were investigating Mr Lumumba prior to the final interrogations and brought into those interrogations the sure and certain knowledge, from their point of view, that he was involved and that, according to them, they went on at Ms Knox until she told them "what they knew to be true". So quite a lot of 'pressure' was applied.

 

[Machiavelli]

I don't see much difference between Italians confidence in the judicial system and that of Americans or most of Europe for that matter.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/178757/confidence-judicial-systems-varies-worldwide.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/171992/americans-losing-confidence-branches-gov.aspx

Although since 1 in 31 Americans is under “correctional” supervision... I wonder if they even get to partake in these polls.

In fact, the US incarceration rate is five times China's and almost doubles Russia; it's more like North Korea's informal incarceration rate than like the figure of any Western country. But the USA call themselves "the Land of freedom".

 

[Kauffer]

Calunnia law says you may not place false evidence about a crime against a person whilst you know that person is innocent of that crime.
(The US has perjury laws which are often equivalent).

I don't see what's wrong with this principle.

How can anyone know objectively without exculpatory evidence before them that anyone is innocent of a crime? Would you agree that if the police pressured Ms Knox to name Lumumba - whether you agree they did or not - this would mean Ms Knox is not guilty of calunia.

 

[Kauffer]

In fact, the US incarceration rate is five times China's and almost doubles Russia; it's more like North Korea's informal incarceration rate than like the figure of any Western country. But the USA call themselves "the Land of freedom".

This wasn't under discussion. What was under discussion was that two recent surveys revealed that more than 40 per cent of Italians think that your judiciary is corrupt, takes bribes and abuses power. I posted the survey details and the link.

 

[Machiavelli]

What's wrong with it in this case is that we know the police were investigating Mr Lumumba prior to the final interrogations and brought into those interrogations the sure and certain knowledge, from their point of view, that he was involved and that, according to them, they went on at Ms Knox until she told them "what they knew to be true". So quite a lot of 'pressure' was applied.

Oh whell, if you "know" this than you should tell some judge about it, you must have evidence no one else has seen, since there is nothing like such a claim in the Kercher trial from any of the defence lawyers, nor anything like that has emerged.
What we know is Knox admitted she was the first one who made the name of Lumumba.
As for your seemingly eternal refrain of one of the classical "innocentisti" myths, that allegedly the police stated they were already expecting to hear "what they knew to be true", I challenge you: I state that what you say is false, it is one of the pro-Knox translation hoaxes (like the "control-room", or the story that Mignini "ordered to stop the interrogation", and other hoaxes like those). I challeng you to quote the actual alleged statement (in Italian) from the police press conference.
The original one not a twist of it.
You won't find it, or you will find a statement that says something rather different.

 

[Bill Williams]

Oh whell, if you "know" this than you should tell some judge about it, you must have evidence no one else has seen, since there is nothing like such a claim in the Kercher trial from any of the defence lawyers, nor anything like that has emerged.
What we know is Knox admitted she was the first one who made the name of Lumumba.
As for your seemingly eternal refrain of one of the classical "innocentisti" myths, that allegedly the police stated they were already expecting to hear "what they knew to be true", I challenge you: I state that what you say is false, it is one of the pro-Knox translation hoaxes (like the "control-room", or the story that Mignini "ordered to stop the interrogation", and other hoaxes like those). I challeng you to quote the actual alleged statement (in Italian) from the police press conference.
The original one not a twist of it.
You won't find it, or you will find a statement that says something rather different.

Welcome back, Machiavelli. You have been sorely missed!

What would be helpful in the claims you make.... as well as the demands for evidence "in Italian", would be if you would put together a timeline of events - a timeline which explains the evidence.

The constant refrain that, "well the defence never brought this up, so it must be an innocentisti hoax," wears a little thin.

You are under no obligation to do so - but it sure would be helpful in understanding your point of view if you simply drew things out onto a timeline.

 

[Machiavelli]

This wasn't under discussion. What was under discussion was that two recent surveys revealed that more than 40 per cent of Italians think that your judiciary is corrupt, takes bribes and abuses power. I posted the survey details and the link.

"My judiciary" is not exactly a unitary entity, if it is meant as a diffuse figure than I think actually 40% would be very low, and I am among those ones. I would subscribe 100% to the statement that there are judges who take bribes or help crime. (In fact, I think Hellmann was one of those). That there are corrupt judges in Italy is not an opinion, it's a proven fact: I know of about two judges who have been sentenced this year (one woman sentenced to 15 years and a man sentenced to 18 years).
I think it is a proven fact that there are abusive, corrupt or politicized judges in the US too; the difference is that in the US, sometimes they lead the Supreme Court (or maybe you think the Bush vs. Gore Supreme Court sentence was somethign different from a Banana Republic verdict).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

luminol-positive stains and DNA

Machiavelli,

Three of the luminol-positive stains contained Ms. Kercher's DNA. Is it your position that they were negative to TMB because DNA profiling has a lower limit of detection than TMB does?

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
The constant refrain that, "well the defence never brought this up, so it must be an innocentisti hoax," wears a little thin.
(...)

It is an innocentisti hoax simply because of factual grounds. The fact that the defence didn't bring it up may just help you to illuminate that.

You won't be able to quote a source reporting in Italian about the press conference that says that. This is a quite factual element.
I recall what the police said at the press conference: it was something different (as I explained in the past).

 

[Bill Williams]

What we know is Knox admitted she was the first one who made the name of Lumumba.

For instance, it would be helpful if you would sketch out what happened immediately before this, who the actors were.... things like when Rita Ficarra asked to see Knox's phone.... was this before or after the "naming of Lumumba"?

When did the translator arrive? Did Anna Donnino start her self-confessed "mediation" before or after the naming of Lumumba?

Things like that.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is an innocentisti hoax simply because of factual grounds. The fact that the defence didn't bring it up may just help you to illuminate that.

You won't be able to quote a source reporting in Italian about the press conference that says that. This is a quite factual element.
I recall what the police said at the press conference: it was something different (as I explained in the past).

That's a great line.

I prefer, "pro-guilt lobby", but then again your mileage has always differed from mine.

 

[Machiavelli]

How can anyone know objectively without exculpatory evidence before them that anyone is innocent of a crime?

Maybe because she is directly involved herself in the crime?
Besides this, jurisprudence of calunnia is about malice, rather than about knowledge. What matters is that you think or you assume the person is innocent, not that you have a proof in front of you.

Would you agree that if the police pressured Ms Knox to name Lumumba - whether you agree they did or not - this would mean Ms Knox is not guilty of calunia.

No. First, must be said there is absolutely zero evidence the police pressured Knox to name Lumumba, despite the innocentisti wild assertions of the contrary, and btw there is also an admission onf the part of Knox that she made the name first.
Second, even in the event the police pressured Knox to name Lumumba, that wouldn't be a sufficient justification; Knox would need to give some evidence that for some reason she was completely mentally incapable in that moment therefore she had no faculty to know or will and could not whithstand external pressure.
Third, actually Knox repeated the action of giving false testimony against Lumumba several times and over a long period; the police interrogation had ended at 01:45. But she made a new accusation without being interrogated, with no police questions, in a statement that was put on record at 05:45 before a Magistrate. Then she wrote down further two hand written memoirs in which she presents again a false testimony that places evidence against Lumumba. And finally, she chose to keep her position and to not answer any question before the Investigating judge on Nov 8. and she kept silence about Lumumba's innocence (or wrote further ambiguous statements) for weeks.

 

[Kauffer]

"My judiciary" is not exactly a unitary entity, if it is meant as a diffuse figure than I think actually 40% would be very low, and I am among those ones. I would subscribe 100% to the statement that there are judges who take bribes or help crime. (In fact, I think Hellmann was one of those). That there are corrupt judges in Italy is not an opinion, it's a proven fact: I know of about two judges who have been sentenced this year (one woman sentenced to 15 years and a man sentenced to 18 years).
I think it is a proven fact that there are abusive, corrupt or politicized judges in the US too; the difference is that in the US, sometimes they lead the Supreme Court (or maybe you think the Bush vs. Gore Supreme Court sentence was somethign different from a Banana Republic verdict).

You have evidence that Hellmann took bribes? In connection with the Kercher murder trial?

How can anyone have confidence in Italian justice when even you admit that corruption is rife?

There are also problems with the police:

"Informant J1 mentioned cases in which police officers were in good working relationships with people evading justice, or with people who were in the process of being arrested or investigated. ‘These officers, therefore, informed members of the criminal world that something was going to happen to them, giving them time to hide, destroy documents or find an alibi’. In such cases, J1 added, sub-cultural factors play an important role, as ‘the police officers may share a background of bullying, violence and criminality with the ones they are supposed to police’."

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affair...between_organised_crime_and_corruption_en.pdf
Page 169

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli,

Three of the luminol-positive stains contained Ms. Kercher's DNA. Is it your position that they were negative to TMB because DNA profiling has a lower limit of detection than TMB does?

I assume that the type of TMB test performed on the luminol stains (whatever that was) had a higher detection limit. I point out that TMB detection limit is based on an absolute amount in the sample, not on a concentration.
However, I also bear in mind that detection thresholds are not the only factor.

 

[Samson]

Welcome back, Machiavelli. You have been sorely missed!

What would be helpful in the claims you make.... as well as the demands for evidence "in Italian", would be if you would put together a timeline of events - a timeline which explains the evidence.

The constant refrain that, "well the defence never brought this up, so it must be an innocentisti hoax," wears a little thin.

You are under no obligation to do so - but it sure would be helpful in understanding your point of view if you simply drew things out onto a timeline.

If it's any help, Machiavelli has stated here recently that Amanda and Rudy were together in the cottage before Meredith arrived home (at 9pm).

 

[Wattson]

Maybe because she is directly involved herself in the crime?
Besides this, jurisprudence of calunnia is about malice, rather than about knowledge. What matters is that you think or you assume the person is innocent, not that you have a proof in front of you.



No. First, must be said there is absolutely zero evidence the police pressured Knox to name Lumumba, despite the innocentisti wild assertions of the contrary, and btw there is also an admission onf the part of Knox that she made the name first.
Second, even in the event the police pressured Knox to name Lumumba, that wouldn't be a sufficient justification; Knox would need to give some evidence that for some reason she was completely mentally incapable in that moment therefore she had no faculty to know or will and could not whithstand external pressure.
Third, actually Knox repeated the action of giving false testimony against Lumumba several times and over a long period; the police interrogation had ended at 01:45. But she made a new accusation without being interrogated, with no police questions, in a statement that was put on record at 05:45 before a Magistrate. Then she wrote down further two hand written memoirs in which she presents again a false testimony that places evidence against Lumumba. And finally, she chose to keep her position and to not answer any question before the Investigating judge on Nov 8. and she kept silence about Lumumba's innocence (or wrote further ambiguous statements) for weeks.

Well, the police have provided zero proof that this did not happen.

 

[Kauffer]

Maybe because she is directly involved herself in the crime?
Besides this, jurisprudence of calunnia is about malice, rather than about knowledge. What matters is that you think or you assume the person is innocent, not that you have a proof in front of you.



No. First, must be said there is absolutely zero evidence the police pressured Knox to name Lumumba, despite the innocentisti wild assertions of the contrary, and btw there is also an admission onf the part of Knox that she made the name first.
Second, even in the event the police pressured Knox to name Lumumba, that wouldn't be a sufficient justification; Knox would need to give some evidence that for some reason she was completely mentally incapable in that moment therefore she had no faculty to know or will and could not whithstand external pressure.
Third, actually Knox repeated the action of giving false testimony against Lumumba several times and over a long period; the police interrogation had ended at 01:45. But she made a new accusation without being interrogated, with no police questions, in a statement that was put on record at 05:45 before a Magistrate. Then she wrote down further two hand written memoirs in which she presents again a false testimony that places evidence against Lumumba. And finally, she chose to keep her position and to not answer any question before the Investigating judge on Nov 8. and she kept silence about Lumumba's innocence (or wrote further ambiguous statements) for weeks.

Well, we will have an opportunity to discuss your claims shortly. But tell me this. According to the records, when did the forensic examination of Ms Kercher's body reveal that Patrick Lumumba was NOT the person who sexually assaulted Ms Kercher? What date was this information known? And when was Mr Lumumba released from custody?

 

[Machiavelli]

You have evidence that Hellmann took bribes? In connection with the Kercher murder trial?

How can anyone have confidence in Italian justice when even you admit that corruption is rife?(...)

Nobody demands you to have confidence in something. But nobody compels you to be under the Italian jurisdiction either. If if you decide to become a resident of Italy, this means you have accepted the legitimacy of the judiciary system.
Italy is a sovereign human community, as you decide to be part of a community you also need to accept it.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, we will have an opportunity to discuss your claims shortly. But tell me this. According to the records, when did the forensic examination of Ms Kercher's body reveal that Patrick Lumumba was NOT the person who sexually assaulted Ms Kercher? What date was this information known? And when was Mr Lumumba released from custody?

The forensic examination actually did not reveal that Lumumba was not the person who sexually assaulted Meredith. It was a Swiss professor who presented a proof for his alibi.