Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[lonepinealex]

So, if Rudy says he wasn't wearing a coat, then he wasn't wearing a coat, but if he says that Amanda was there, then she wasn't there, I fully understand PIP logic.

O rly? What about when Rudy said Amanda wasn't there? You know, like he did - clearly and unambiguously - in his very first comments about the murder on Skype.

 

[acbytesla]

So, if Rudy says he wasn't wearing a coat, then he wasn't wearing a coat, but if he says that Amanda was there, then she wasn't there, I fully understand PIP logic.

But don't you see Sherlock that this is the point. You can't really believe anything Rudy has ever said so why believe Amanda was involved when there is no evidence of her being there. Also no credible motive.

 

[codyjuneau]

The police led her to believe something false. Her mistake was to trust them.

• They had Patrick's name
• They knew she'd seen him in the plaza
• They were bugging his bar
• They saw the famous See You Later, Have a Good Night message
• They thought it meant she'd been there
• The translator encouraged her to imagine what had happened
• The translator told her it was normal to block the memory of a traumatic event

Even without the smack to the back of her head or the threats that she'd never see her family again, they clearly thought they'd gotten her to tell them what they already believed had happened. She didn't objectively know. It wasn't a false accusation, much less a confession. It was just a young woman getting rolled.

These are all sound points. From an ECHR view, the failure to warn her of her right to remain silent, the police compelling her to speak under threat and acts of violence (slaps) as she has alleged, and the failure of the police to provide her with a lawyer are all significant reasons why her statements may not be used to convict her of a crime related to those statements.

Anglo and I are looking at whether there are some other, possibly more technical or more difficult to define, reasons why her conviction for calunnia was unfair as judged under the ECHR.

.
It seems to me it is just one more thing that someone else did, the interrogators in this instance, that Amanda got blamed for.

The police lied and told her they knew and had proof she was at the cottage, they bullied her and convinced her she had temporary amnesia in order to get her to accept their version, they wrote the statement for her, they get her to sign it, and then later they blamed her, in fact charged her with calunnia for making an incorrect statement.

The statement was the interrogator's, not Amanda's. Had they simply accepted what she said in the first place, there never would have been a false statement made that accused Lumumba.

Cody
.

 

[acbytesla]

And I'd forgotten all about your poop theories, I'd love to know how you are so knowledgeable on poo smells? Have you been experimenting at home and leaving your poo for 14 hours, or do you live someone that does regular floaters?

I'm now picturing you as Gillian McKeith - and she is definitely a doctor in the Stefanoni style

There is a real truth about poop. Sometimes it stinks very bad and sometimes it can hardly be smelled at all. This depends on what we eat and our health . Sherlock 's insistence that the smell must of been overwhelming is really not based in reality .

 

[Planigale]

Mignini did not sue her family.

Mignini investigated her - and her alone - for calunnia, as a suspect of falsely blaming police officers before a court, as his duty, since calunnia has a mandatory investigation.

Sometimes I love Italian legal logic; the legal system must have been derived from Lewis Carrol. Calunnia is the crime of falsely denouncing someone, but the denouncing is not sufficiently bureaucratic to initiate an investigation into whether the denunciation is true. So Mignini will just argue we this is an untrue claim because Knox failed to complete the police abuse form in triplicate. Is a claim of truth a defence against calunnia? Presumably the prosecution will have to prove it is untrue? Or is this another case where the burden of proof is put on the defendant?

 

[Diocletus]

Mignini did not sue her family.

Mignini investigated her - and her alone - for calunnia, as a suspect of falsely blaming police officers before a court, as his duty, since calunnia has a mandatory investigation.

Italy should get written up for that, too, just like it got written up by the Committee on Torture, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment for 1) not providing suspects with lawyers, and 2) not investigating police assaults on people who only suffer injuries healable within 20 days.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

And I'd forgotten all about your poop theories, I'd love to know how you are so knowledgeable on poo smells? Have you been experimenting at home and leaving your poo for 14 hours, or do you live someone that does regular floaters?

I'm now picturing you as Gillian McKeith - and she is definitely a doctor in the Stefanoni style

I have a dog.

 

[NancyS]

I have a dog.

Then use a pooper scooper, don't leave it around your house for 14-hours

I think this song may be the musical equivalent of your poop theories https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2JUssu_x5E

 

[RWVBWL]

Mignini did not sue her family.

Mignini investigated her - and her alone - for calunnia, as a suspect of falsely blaming police officers before a court, as his duty, since calunnia has a mandatory investigation.

Hi Machiavelli,
Nice tweeting today, thanks!


From what I recall, Amanda's parents were sued for libel.
Here's a quick link to an old article:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/15/amanda-knox-parents-italian-police

Was not Mignini a part of this lawsuit
or was it only the cops who interrogated Amanda Knox that night?
RW

 

[Planigale]

Sometimes I love Italian legal logic; the legal system must have been derived from Lewis Carrol. Calunnia is the crime of falsely denouncing someone, but the denouncing is not sufficiently bureaucratic to initiate an investigation into whether the denunciation is true. So Mignini will just argue we this is an untrue claim because Knox failed to complete the police abuse form in triplicate. Is a claim of truth a defence against calunnia? Presumably the prosecution will have to prove it is untrue? Or is this another case where the burden of proof is put on the defendant?

Thinking about it, someone should remind him that Italy is in a financial crisis and not to waste money on pursuing a victimless crime. It is not as if they wasted anytime on investigating the allegation, suspended any police officers etc. They just ignored it until Mignini decides to waste money on it. What is the public interest here? All it does it make Mignini look petty and corrupt to the rest of the world. How good is it when the police present then are asked if they ever abused their position of authority? Dubious officers as your witnesses that they 'never touched a hair of her head m'lud'.

 

[Bill Williams]

CNN's Chris Cuomo is the one US journalist who really put it to Amanda Knox, I'll give him that. His assessment after browbeating her on national TV was that she was probably innocent.

But listen to what he says to Steve Moore in this CNN piece. Cuomo believes that Knox is probably innocent, but could be held accountable for inexplicably telegraphing to (apparently hapless) seasoned invesitgators that she was guilty....

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/03/25/newday-panel-amanda-knox-italy-supreme-court.cnn

The thesis of Chris Cuomo's question about Amanda's behaviour is that she, while innocent, actually set out to confuse seasoned investigators. Does Cuomo really believe that is a criticism of Knox?, or of the investigators who could be duped by an innocent who telegraphed guilt, but while actually innocent? The thesis makes no sense, and thank you Steve Moore, for pointing that out to Cuomo!

Out of all the bizarre things that happened today, Chris Cuomo provided the bizarriest.

 

[lonepinealex]

CNN's Chris Cuomo is the one US journalist who really put it to Amanda Knox, I'll give him that. His assessment after browbeating her on national TV was that she was probably innocent.

But listen to what he says to Steve Moore in this CNN piece. Cuomo believes that Knox is probably innocent, but could be held accountable for inexplicably telegraphing to (apparently hapless) seasoned invesitgators that she was guilty....

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/03/25/newday-panel-amanda-knox-italy-supreme-court.cnn

The thesis of Chris Cuomo's question about Amanda's behaviour is that she, while innocent, actually set out to confuse seasoned investigators. Does Cuomo really believe that is a criticism of Knox?, or of the investigators who could be duped by an innocent who telegraphed guilt, but while actually innocent? The thesis makes no sense, and thank you Steve Moore, for pointing that out to Cuomo!

Out of all the bizarre things that happened today, Chris Cuomo provided the bizarriest.

Burleigh called him out too, between the two of them they put Cuomo in his place. He looked like an idiot.

 

[Bill Williams]

Burleigh called him out too, between the two of them they put Cuomo in his place. He looked like an idiot.

I agree. And he's on OUR SIDE! He just believes that Amanda perhaps consciously set out to confuse the cops that she might be guilty with her.......

........ are you ready for it?

Behaviour.

I now like Machiavelli better than Cuomo! And that's saying something.

 

[lonepinealex]

I agree. And he's on OUR SIDE! He just believes that Amanda perhaps consciously set out to confuse the cops that she might be guilty with her.......

........ are you ready for it?

Behaviour.

I now like Machiavelli better than Cuomo! And that's saying something.

Actually I think Cuomo was lamely playing devil's advocate in an attempt to make the show look less one-sided, and uphold his reputation as a hard-case interviewer. You could tell by the way he brought up his tough interview of Amanda when he tried to defend himself against Moore and Burleigh's scorn. Cuomo knows Amanda is innocent, he just doesn't want to sacrifice his notion of journalistic impartiality.

 

[Kaosium]

I agree. And he's on OUR SIDE! He just believes that Amanda perhaps consciously set out to confuse the cops that she might be guilty with her.......

........ are you ready for it?

Behaviour.

I don't think that's what he meant at all. I think he was saying that Amanda acting in a way some found weird and then her and Raffaele signing those statements made things worse. The real onus ought to be on the police and prosecutor for having them there signing statements in the middle of the night without lawyers but being a former prosecutor himself he likely would prefer to believe they must have had a good reason.

Oddly enough there were reasons to be suspicious of Amanda, they just weren't any of the stupid reasons they gave in court or the myths flying about early in the case. However being as they were things like Amanda forgetting about Patrick's text shortly before the murder, Patrick calling the Questura for Amanda the day of the discovery and then Patrick meeting with her on the fifth (before they went to the police station) the police and prosecution don't want to remind people that they had 'evidence' against Patrick too as they've been so successful convincing people that it was all Amanda's fault Patrick was arrested.

 

[carbonjam72]

Actually I think Cuomo was lamely playing devil's advocate in an attempt to make the show look less one-sided, and uphold his reputation as a hard-case interviewer. You could tell by the way he brought up his tough interview of Amanda when he tried to defend himself against Moore and Burleigh's scorn. Cuomo knows Amanda is innocent, he just doesn't want to sacrifice his notion of journalistic impartiality.

Yes, Cuomo is a special kind of stupid. Thank god his father was governor, lord knows what that imbecile would be doing otherwise.

 

[Kaosium]

Actually I think Cuomo was lamely playing devil's advocate in an attempt to make the show look less one-sided, and uphold his reputation as a hard-case interviewer. You could tell by the way he brought up his tough interview of Amanda when he tried to defend himself against Moore and Burleigh's scorn. Cuomo knows Amanda is innocent, he just doesn't want to sacrifice his notion of journalistic impartiality.

I think this is probably it, though I suspect Cuomo has spent some time at PMF and despite his protestations to the contrary it was obvious he doesn't know the case all that well.

As soon as he claimed how well he knew the case I would have asked him this question: 'We know why Amanda and Raffaele were arrested, they went before Matteini on November 8th and the police presented their case. That Report has been available online for five years at least, can you name one piece of evidence from it that hasn't been proven mistaken or irrelevant in court?'

That would reveal his ignorance and pound home the fact that not even the prosecution believes much of anything they arrested them for is valid now, the only real exception being Nencini resurrecting the claim regarding the 112 call that even Massei dismissed in a parenthetical aside.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Then use a pooper scooper, don't leave it around your house for 14-hours

I think this song may be the musical equivalent of your poop theories https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2JUssu_x5E

What you don't seem to understand, I don't have any poop theories, it's the PIP's that seem to. Amanda didn't smell it, she has never said she did, she does say she saw it though, and from where she pointed out that she saw it, it is not possible, now if any PIP's want to explain that, then it is their theory. This is exactly why trying to reason with almost anyone on here is not possible, they can only see thing through Amanda's innocent eyes.

 

[Numbers]

No, you are right, Hellman does not cite the specific evidential basis for his findings but it cannot be inferred that those findings are not grounded in evidence. Where else, aside from the defence expert, can he have got all that stuff about her mental state? After setting it all out, he says:

However, this Court does not find that there is any significant objective evidence that, when she made her spontaneous statements and wrote her note, Amanda Knox was in not only a situation of considerable psychological pressure and stress but also even in a condition of not intending or wishing; so that, having accused of such a serious crime a person whom she knew to be innocent, she must in any case be held responsible for the crime of calumny, the constitution of which does not require any specific purpose from a psychological point of view, such as shifting the blame off of oneself [conseguire la propria impunità] (an aggravating circumstance alleged [here]). Generic criminal intent [il dolo generico] is sufficient, thus including the aim of escaping from a particularly oppressive personal situation.

I am guessing questions about her mental capacity were put to her expert and that he was not able to go so far as to say she lacked the ability to form criminal intent. We need a transcript of his evidence.

Another take on your highlighted clause. Hellmann is subtly referring to any violation of CPP Articles 188 and 64 para. 2. He's saying that even if the police violated these laws, Amanda Knox must be responsible for her speech under their interrogation (and immediately afterwards). These procedural laws prohibit altering the "moral freedom" of self-determination of a person. IMO, the highlighted statement by Hellmann is a clear reference to this alteration of a person's self-determination, in which the person is made to say something against his or her own wishes or intent. Also to be noted, in CPP Art. 64, para. 3, the warnings not given to Amanda during her questioning. In CPP Art. 64, para. 3-bis, it is disclosed that statements made under questioning may not be used if the witness is not warned. Thus, if the Italians obeyed their own laws, but acknowledged that they had failed to give these warnings, since Amanda was not warned, the statement she allegedly gave naming Lumumba could not itself be used against Lumumba!

CPP Article 188 Moral freedom of the person during evidence gathering

1. Methods or techniques which may influence the freedom of self-determination or alter the capacity to recall and evaluate facts shall not be used, not even with the consent of the person concerned.

CPP Article 64 General rules for questioning

2. {Same text as Article 188}

3. Prior to the questioning, the person must be warned that:
a) his statements can always be used against him;
b) {except for identification information} he has the right to silence, but the proceedings will in any case continue their course;
c) if he makes any statement on facts concerning the liability of others, he will become a witness in relation to those facts {unless the other is a co-accused}.

3-bis. If the provisions of para. 3 (a) and (b) are not fulfilled, the statements made by the person questioned shall be excluded. If the person questioned is not warned according to para. 3 (c), the statements that he may have made on the facts regarding the liability of others shall not be used against them, and he shall not become a witness in relation to those specific facts.

 

[katy_did]

Guests on Porta a Porta currently savaging the bra clasp evidence...