Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32
- Thread starter LondonJohn
- Start date
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
There are no words to adequately describe just how ridiculous that comment is without violating site rules.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
This is the second time you are claiming what I said is the exact opposite of what I said.
What part of "It made perfect sense for them to return to find more evidence 46 days later. Crime scenes are often revisited to obtain more evidence. They knew there were objects left behind that could provide more evidence; Meredith's bloody jacket, her purse, socks, Knox's pillowcase, and the bra clasp," implies in any way that they should not collect evidence or that Knox and Sollecito should have been exempt?
Honestly, Vixen, I'm starting to worry about you.
AmyStrange
Philosopher
And here I thought the fat clown and his maga weirdoes were the only ones that were this willfully stupid and ignorant.
It looks to me like they've got some serious competition in that department.
Fortunately, there's a cure it. All anyone has to do is stop being stupid.
-
It looks to me like they've got some serious competition in that department.
Fortunately, there's a cure it. All anyone has to do is stop being stupid.
-
Last edited:
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
AmyStrange
Philosopher
Hmm... I wonder why you automatically ASSume I'm talking about you. Is it a guilty conscience, paranoia, or just a big ego?
-
Last edited:
AmyStrange
Philosopher
I'm going to go with all three, especially the guilty conscience part, because after all, their post insult folks left and right, proving they're in the wrong every time they do it.
-
Last edited:
I was curious about interest in Amanda Knox's new memoir, Free: My Search for Meaning. Among the three independent library systems in one metropolitan area, there were 70 holds (requests) for the hard-bound edition. The libraries don't show e-book or audio-book editions as available yet.
Last edited:
AmyStrange
Philosopher
I don't know about your libraries, but the ones here in Seattle do have the audio and e-book version with 24 total holds for the latter.
Amazon even has the Kindle version for $14.99.
I admire her greatly, but I've decided not to read it.
ETA: Personally, I have nothing against Amanda or her retelling of what actually happened, but after being roped back into this discussion (against my better judgement), I find the insane rantings of the guilters depressing enough. At least I believe she'll tell the truth, unlike the lying guilters who trash Meredith's memory every chance they get.
-
Last edited:
Stacyhs, I'm still confused by the question of your need to identify the police and prosecution motive in the framing of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.
If it's clear that someone has committed a crime - and "framing" may not itself be a crime as listed in a criminal code, although elements of a particular "framing" may be so listed - I suggest that the finding of the "true" "motive" does not matter.
Consider, for example, the case of the murder of Laquan McDonald by Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke* in 2014. Van Dyke shot McDonald, who was armed with a 3-inch knife but was walking away from the police, according to police video evidence. Originally, the police had alleged that McDonald had lunged at police (apparently in an attempt to justify the shooting); there was no evidence that McDonald had threatened anyone, although he had damaged property. Van Dyke's first shot hit McDonald and he fell to the ground, and Van Dyke then shot McDonald - while he was still on the ground - Van Dyke shot him 15 more times. During all this, other police were present; they had approachede McDonald and were waiting for taser backup when Van Dyke had arrived. Van Dyke's first shot at McDonald occurred seconds after Van Dyke had exited his police car.
Van Dyke's history prior to this incident had included, since 2001, 20 citizen complaints, including 10 of excessive force. One complaint was of Van Dyke using a racial slur during a traffic stop. A jury had awarded one person $350,000 due to Van Dyke's use of excessive force during a traffic stop.
Van Dyke was convicted of 2nd degree murder and 16 counts of aggravated battery for the fatal shooting of McDonald, and served 3 years in prison.
Here are my points:
Does one need to know Van Dyke's motive for shooting McDonald 16 times to decide that Van Dyke was guilty of 1 count of 2nd-degree murder and 16 counts of aggravated battery? If one did not have a motive identified with certainty, was Van Dyke's conviction wrongful?
Similarly, when there is clear evidence that unlawful procedural measures (failure by police or prosecutor to provide legally required warnings, denial of a lawyer, unfair actions by an interpreter), and even one or more alleged criminal acts (not recorded by the police) such as hitting or threatening someone during an interrogation to obtain a false statement - known to be false because it is the police and/or prosecution's version of events, not the free-will statement of the person interrogated (a violation of procedural law), does one need to know the "motive" of the police or prosecutor to decide that the interrogation was an effort to frame the interrogated person and others?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Laquan_McDonald
Another thought about "framing". Some posters/readers may have the opinion that "framing" someone requires some vast conspiracy. But it does not. When a group of police "frame" someone, they may not need to plan the details of the "framing" acts ahead of time. The group may act like, for example, a basketball or hockey team - there is a goal, and the exact moves - passes and shots - are determined by events such as the opposing team's defense - as the team with the ball or puck moves towards the goal. The team members do not need to plot out their moves by verbal communication. (In contrast, in gridiron football, the team with the ball plans each play from the line of scrimmage, although the opposing team works to disrupt the execution of that plan after the ball is put into play, which may then require unplanned activity by the offense.)
In Italy, accusing a person of a crime - even in substance*, in an oral or written communication to a police officer, a prosecutor, or a judge - requires an investigation of the person accused. If the accusation is false, and the accuser knows it to be false, that accusation is a crime - calunnia - in Italy. The crime of calunnia is therefore one of "framing" someone. No conspiracy is required.
To prosecute a person for calunnia, the prosecutor must, however, make clear to the court what article of the criminal code would have been violated if the substance o af the accusation had been true.
After Knox had testified before the Massei court, giving her account of her interrogation, she was charged with calunnia against the police and Mignini. Mignini had initiated this charge; his name was added to the list of those allegedly falsely accused after the case was moved to the Florence court district and a Florence prosecutor took over the case. The prosecutor, to conduct the case, needed to specify what criminal code provisions specifically were violated according to the substance of Knox's testimony about the interrogation.
The Boninsegna MR in its initial section listed the various alleged crimes and aggravating factors that the prosecutor assigned to the police and prosecutor as implicit in Knox's testimony. IIRC, there were three crimes listed: false accusation of an innocent person (calunnia), entering false information in an official document, and use of violence and/or threats to obtain testimony or official statements. The Boninsegna verdict was that Knox was not guilty (acquitted) of calunnia against the police and prosecutor because the conditions and official documentation of the interrogation were so unlawful and defective that a court could not decide that Knox's accusations were untrue. The Florence prosecutor did not appeal the Boninsegna judgment; we don't know the motive of the prosecutor in not appealing - perhaps the prosecutor believed that there was no way that the evidence could overcome the acquittal. Thus, Knox was finally acquitted of calunnia against the police and prosecutor.
So, if one were to believe that Knox's testimony was truthful, one must logically accept that the police and prosecutor at the minimum committed calunnia against her. And, as pointed out previously, calunnia is the equivalent of "framing". QED (If you believe that Knox's testimony was truthful.)
* That is, by describing the acts; there is no need to specify the article of the criminal code allegedly violated.
In Italy, accusing a person of a crime - even in substance*, in an oral or written communication to a police officer, a prosecutor, or a judge - requires an investigation of the person accused. If the accusation is false, and the accuser knows it to be false, that accusation is a crime - calunnia - in Italy. The crime of calunnia is therefore one of "framing" someone. No conspiracy is required.
To prosecute a person for calunnia, the prosecutor must, however, make clear to the court what article of the criminal code would have been violated if the substance o af the accusation had been true.
After Knox had testified before the Massei court, giving her account of her interrogation, she was charged with calunnia against the police and Mignini. Mignini had initiated this charge; his name was added to the list of those allegedly falsely accused after the case was moved to the Florence court district and a Florence prosecutor took over the case. The prosecutor, to conduct the case, needed to specify what criminal code provisions specifically were violated according to the substance of Knox's testimony about the interrogation.
The Boninsegna MR in its initial section listed the various alleged crimes and aggravating factors that the prosecutor assigned to the police and prosecutor as implicit in Knox's testimony. IIRC, there were three crimes listed: false accusation of an innocent person (calunnia), entering false information in an official document, and use of violence and/or threats to obtain testimony or official statements. The Boninsegna verdict was that Knox was not guilty (acquitted) of calunnia against the police and prosecutor because the conditions and official documentation of the interrogation were so unlawful and defective that a court could not decide that Knox's accusations were untrue. The Florence prosecutor did not appeal the Boninsegna judgment; we don't know the motive of the prosecutor in not appealing - perhaps the prosecutor believed that there was no way that the evidence could overcome the acquittal. Thus, Knox was finally acquitted of calunnia against the police and prosecutor.
So, if one were to believe that Knox's testimony was truthful, one must logically accept that the police and prosecutor at the minimum committed calunnia against her. And, as pointed out previously, calunnia is the equivalent of "framing". QED (If you believe that Knox's testimony was truthful.)
* That is, by describing the acts; there is no need to specify the article of the criminal code allegedly violated.
Last edited:
The book is both depressing and hopeful. But life can be like that.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Everything a person does has a motive...or reason...for doing it. Something as serious as framing someone for a murder most certainly will have a motive. Do we have to know what it is for us to know it was a crime? No. Legally, a motive doesn't even have to be established to convict someone, but people, including judges and juries, want to know what the motive for the crime is. That is why the prosecution will always try to establish a motive. In the Kercher murder, the prosecution went from motive to motive because they knew how important it was.
Look, I'm done discussing this topic. You can believe they framed Knox and Sollecito. I don't.
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2011
- Messages
- 1,960
My mistake to suggest framing.. let me clarify.
Going back to collect more evidence is fine, but not spraying Luminol. That's typically used in situations where no blood has been found, but where it's thought some may exist. It's also not typically used when there's been non-stop traffic throughout a cottage, including walking through blood as seen in the investigation videos.
So it begs the question - why do you think they sprayed Luminol? It surely wasn't because they didn't have enough evidence against Guede. The case against him was already rock solid, with all the evidence they needed. It can only be because they knew they didn't have any evidence linking Amanda and Raffaele to the crime, despite having already arresting them for the crime. Investigations should allow evidence to lead to a conclusion, not the other way around.
I don't call this framing. Hell, they may very well have truly believed they were guilty. Call it what you want, but IMO, at some point the investigation went from trying to figure out who murdered Meredith to proving Amanda and Raffaele did it.
Sorry to belabor the point. I disagree with you on this point - that every action a person takes has a motive or reason. I think that even for "mentally normal" people, this isn't 100% true. It may be even less true for those with certain mental or behavioral differences from "normal".
I believe that the prosecutor and police very likely believed Knox and even Sollecito were guilty, perhaps of some association with the crime, even before the impugned interrogation. The prosecutor and police recognized that their beliefs did not constitute "probable cause" - called "reasonable suspicion" in European (CoE) law - and decided to call in Sollecito to break his alibi for Knox. The police, and probably the prosecutor, decided to ignore the Italian laws regarding the defense rights of suspects before beginning the interrogation of Sollecito. (I base this on Sollecito's account of his interrogation in his book Honor Bound. The reason this led to framing is that as the suspects should have been treated lawfully and given their defense rights - they were legally innocent (presumption of innocence, it's in the Italian Constitution).
As the suspects resisted by telling the truth, the police became increasingly frustrated, since they believed they needed to have a resolution of the case through an arrest quickly due to public and political pressure (Giobbi et al. had been forwarded to Perugia to help solve the case) and possibly because they wanted to pressure Knox before her mother arrived; the mother might have gotten Knox a lawyer (making her less vulnerable). The increasing frustration of the police led to their increased threats, yelling, and hitting Knox. The interpreter Donnino, who admitted to the Boninsegna court that she was aware during the interrogation that Knox's phone message to Lumumba was or could be an attempt to render the English casual farewell of "see you later" but did not inform the police of that fact. Instead, she moderated the conflict in favor of the police theory by mentioning her own (alleged) traumatic amnesia. Note that none of these actions or exchanges were documented, as would be required by Italian law. So by teamwork by the police and their interpreter, using unlawful methods, Knox, a person presumed innocent under law, was coerced into signing a false declaration that was obtained through coercion. I'm going to call that "framing". You're entitled to call it what you will, but I think my position is correct, and yours is inconsistent, assuming that Knox is telling the truth. I believe that Knox is telling the truth about the interrogation because the interpreter, in her testimony, verified part of Knox's account. The remainder of the events of the interrogation (with the exception of, for example, Knox crying and otherwise demonstrating extreme emotional distress) has not been verified by any independent testimoy. In fact, that is a clue that the police and prosecutor were behaving unlawfully and possibly in violation of criminal laws, because they did not document the interrogation as required by Italian law.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
It is not surprising that Vixen has failed to acknowledge that she twice claimed I said the opposite of what I actually said.
"why do you think they sprayed Luminol?"
Obviously because, as you said, they wanted more evidence, especially against Sollecito. They did have Knox's blood on the faucet. the mixed DNA in the bathroom, and Kercher's (claimed) and Amanda's DNA on the knife but didn't collect the bra clasp until the same day. They hoped the luminol would reveal some blood evidence of them. To wait until Dec. 18 to use the luminol shows they were inexperienced and lousy investigators but does not show any malfeasance.
"Investigations should allow evidence to lead to a conclusion, not the other way around."
I agree 100%, but in actual practice, we know that's often not the case.
"at some point the investigation went from trying to figure out who murdered Meredith to proving Amanda and Raffaele did it."
Absolutely, but that's true in all prosecutions. The prosecution's objective is always to prove their case.
I agree that luminol is usually applied at the time of the initial examination of the crime scene...not weeks later.
"why do you think they sprayed Luminol?"
Obviously because, as you said, they wanted more evidence, especially against Sollecito. They did have Knox's blood on the faucet. the mixed DNA in the bathroom, and Kercher's (claimed) and Amanda's DNA on the knife but didn't collect the bra clasp until the same day. They hoped the luminol would reveal some blood evidence of them. To wait until Dec. 18 to use the luminol shows they were inexperienced and lousy investigators but does not show any malfeasance.
"Investigations should allow evidence to lead to a conclusion, not the other way around."
I agree 100%, but in actual practice, we know that's often not the case.
"at some point the investigation went from trying to figure out who murdered Meredith to proving Amanda and Raffaele did it."
Absolutely, but that's true in all prosecutions. The prosecution's objective is always to prove their case.
This was, I believe, the start of an interesting discussion on the topic of "framing" by certain of the Italian authorities in the Knox - Sollecito case.Thank you for so patiently pointing out again (and again and again) that nobody here claims the Italians wanted to "frame" Knox.What I find so hilarious is that a certain someone has clung to this silliness for years & years, all the while not seeing the absurdity in "Knox will always be guilty" slammed up against the inconvenience that she's been free for nearly 15 years. And the only justification for this last 10 years is the big bad USA exerting its "influence" over poor little Italy. Never attempting to explain how or why any of the key players in this fiasco are so important to USA's, um, interests.
Perhaps those who believe that those particular authorities were not seeking to frame Knox and Sollecito would agree that the interrogation was conducted by those authorities unlawfully under Italian procedural laws and even violated Italian criminal law (if one accepts Knox's claims that she was threatened and hit during the interrogation to "encourage" her to make statements against her will). So this position would be that the authorities committed "official misconduct".
Of course, then the question is, what was the goal of the official misconduct, especially, if, as some may state, every (conscious) action must have a motive or reason?
To provide some more information for the above post, I call attention to the following:
The source for the Wikipedia article quote appears to be Burleigh, 2011, p. 165 and perhaps others.
The assumption that the break-in was fake, that there was no burglar, helped lead the police to the most conveniently possible suspect, Amanda Knox, who had remained in Perugia during the All-Saints holiday. The need for any further detective work would be almost entirely eliminated by this opinion, which was not supported by any valid forensic evidence.
What was the basis for this assumption? Was it simply a hunch by Mignini* and/or others? Was it adopted to protect Rudy Guede, who Steve Moore had suggested was a police informant, because the Perugia police had requested/ordered his return from the Milan police after Guede's arrest for breaking into a nursery school, where Guede had taken a large knife from the kitchen? Was it adopted so that the case, which was likely to gather wide public concern as well as the pressure from the Ministry of Justice (which very quickly assigned Giobbi and other investigators from Rome to Perugia to assist the local police), could be solved quickly?
Does it matter which of the above scenarios, or some other variation of defective police and prosecutor intent, was responsible for the actions of the police and prosecutor in their violations of Knox's - and Sollecito's - defense rights in the impugned interrogations? Those interrogations, in my view, began with the intent of framing Knox and Sollecito - recall that Sollecito was not informed he was a suspect, and the questioning, according to his account, immediately was directed to compel him to abandon his earlier statement that Knox had been with him at his apartment at the relevant time. If the police and prosecutor had in fact legitimately identified - in their own opinions prior to that interrogation, there was a procedure that Italian law required them to follow in their further interrogations of the suspects, including but not limited to those of CPP Articles 350, 369, and 369 bis. These notification laws were not followed; instead, the police and prosecutor violated Italian law by interviewing the suspects as though they were witnesses and then by illegal coercion and trickery forcing them to make incriminating statements. A CSC panel early in the case ruled that Knox's statements from the interrogation could not be used against her in the murder/rape case because of the violations of law. However, based only upon CSC rulings, and not in accordance with the actual language in the written law, the CSC ruled that the statements could be used against Knox in the calunnia against Lumumba case.
* In the Monster of Florence case, Mignini had made a number of bizarre assumptions or claims. For example, Mignini had claimed that a body recovered from a lake, which at the time was identified as the physician Francesco Narducci, was actually not Narducci, but another man substituted for Narducci by the participants of a satanic cult (who were responsible for the MoF crimes). When the body was exhumed, and found to be that of Narducci, Mignini claimed that there had been another substitution, in which the real Narducci's body had been substituted for the fake Narducci's body. Possibly, Mignini's approach to his prosecutorial work routinely included such bizarre "hunches"; in the Netflix documentary, he identifies himself with the fictional detective, Sherlock Holmes**.
See, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_of_Florence
Section: Narducci and Secret Society
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes
Souce: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher
The source for the Wikipedia article quote appears to be Burleigh, 2011, p. 165 and perhaps others.
The assumption that the break-in was fake, that there was no burglar, helped lead the police to the most conveniently possible suspect, Amanda Knox, who had remained in Perugia during the All-Saints holiday. The need for any further detective work would be almost entirely eliminated by this opinion, which was not supported by any valid forensic evidence.
What was the basis for this assumption? Was it simply a hunch by Mignini* and/or others? Was it adopted to protect Rudy Guede, who Steve Moore had suggested was a police informant, because the Perugia police had requested/ordered his return from the Milan police after Guede's arrest for breaking into a nursery school, where Guede had taken a large knife from the kitchen? Was it adopted so that the case, which was likely to gather wide public concern as well as the pressure from the Ministry of Justice (which very quickly assigned Giobbi and other investigators from Rome to Perugia to assist the local police), could be solved quickly?
Does it matter which of the above scenarios, or some other variation of defective police and prosecutor intent, was responsible for the actions of the police and prosecutor in their violations of Knox's - and Sollecito's - defense rights in the impugned interrogations? Those interrogations, in my view, began with the intent of framing Knox and Sollecito - recall that Sollecito was not informed he was a suspect, and the questioning, according to his account, immediately was directed to compel him to abandon his earlier statement that Knox had been with him at his apartment at the relevant time. If the police and prosecutor had in fact legitimately identified - in their own opinions prior to that interrogation, there was a procedure that Italian law required them to follow in their further interrogations of the suspects, including but not limited to those of CPP Articles 350, 369, and 369 bis. These notification laws were not followed; instead, the police and prosecutor violated Italian law by interviewing the suspects as though they were witnesses and then by illegal coercion and trickery forcing them to make incriminating statements. A CSC panel early in the case ruled that Knox's statements from the interrogation could not be used against her in the murder/rape case because of the violations of law. However, based only upon CSC rulings, and not in accordance with the actual language in the written law, the CSC ruled that the statements could be used against Knox in the calunnia against Lumumba case.
* In the Monster of Florence case, Mignini had made a number of bizarre assumptions or claims. For example, Mignini had claimed that a body recovered from a lake, which at the time was identified as the physician Francesco Narducci, was actually not Narducci, but another man substituted for Narducci by the participants of a satanic cult (who were responsible for the MoF crimes). When the body was exhumed, and found to be that of Narducci, Mignini claimed that there had been another substitution, in which the real Narducci's body had been substituted for the fake Narducci's body. Possibly, Mignini's approach to his prosecutorial work routinely included such bizarre "hunches"; in the Netflix documentary, he identifies himself with the fictional detective, Sherlock Holmes**.
See, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_of_Florence
Section: Narducci and Secret Society
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
I haven't always agreed with everything Numbers has written, but one cannot complain about his thoroughness.
This is EXACTLY the problem with the assumption that 'the break in was fake'. That assumption became hard-baked into Mignini's/the Police's way of thinking and their early theories - SIMPLY BECAUSE AT THAT TIME RUDY GUEDE WAS UNKNOWN TO THEM. Of the three people that they'd originally suspected/arrested, none of the three were deemed capable of breaking in through Filomena's second story bedroom window - as well as, their early theory was that Knox had let the three of them in, so no need for a break-in.
Ergo, it must have been faked, because none of the original three could manage a real one, so the cops thought.
I remember reading the papers as the days went on.... soon there was reported the possibility of a **fourth** assailant - of course, that was Guede once he'd become known, once the police had heard him say on a Skype call back to Perugia from Germany, that Amanda Knox - that she had not been involved. Repeat, Guede's earliest confession was that she'd not been involved - and he did not know that police were eavesdropping on the call.
Point being, once Guede was known to have done this, suddenly the evidence surrounding the break-in made sense. Instead of hitting reset - allowing the new available evidence to guide the investigation - the cops/Mignini simply substituted Guede for Lumumba. Yet, they stuck with the faked break-in, even though the simplest explanation was that Guede had done the deed through Filomena's window, as a subsequent TV demonstration showed.
Numbers post should be read and reread. Me, I don't really go with Steve Moore's 'police informant' theory.... as to why 'investigative amnesia' took hold. 'Investigative amnesia' was the way that the final acquitting court put it, as to why the investigation had been flawed.
Last edited:
Another thought .... Bill Williams has, more than once, kindly posted a photo of Mignini at a conference on Satanic crimes, where Mignini is shown seated, apparently at a head table, before a projection of alleged satanic criminals. Amanda Knox's picture is prominent on that projection.
Some posters/readers here may not be familiar with that image and the significance of Mignini, at least at that time, apparently believing that Knox was involved in a satanic crime, presumably the murder/rape of Kercher. It could be informative for Bill to post that image again.
Some posters/readers here may not be familiar with that image and the significance of Mignini, at least at that time, apparently believing that Knox was involved in a satanic crime, presumably the murder/rape of Kercher. It could be informative for Bill to post that image again.