Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

Well guys, it's almost 3 a.m. here and I have to work in about 9 hours. I can't wait all night for Fiona and Fulcanelli to frantically compare notes about how they're going to weasel their way out of the corners they've backed themselves into here. Hopefully someone will pick up where I left off, just as Fulcanelli did for Fiona. Fu, please tell Fi I am anxious to follow up on the chauvinism remark, since I have absolutely no clue what she meant by that.

 

[Fiona]

If it is not reasnable to expect CCTV cameras to be present in the homeland of the Mafia and in an area where drug dealing is rampant, then are we to conclude Italy is a backwater, as many people have claimed all along?

Present in the country does not mean present in the police station. I imagine Italy does have some level of CCTV surveillance just as most countries do. Whether the absence of them would make a "backwater" is moot: I tend to think it would make the country a little more civilised, and many Americans are suspicious of them too, so I am not alone. It is not reasonable to expect them to be in police stations however.We know that they are not there in police stations in a country which has the greatest amount of CCTV surveillance in the world ( the uk). I know you are xenophobic and arrogant but that does not an argument make. Ignoring the facts that we do have is not helping either

At the end of the interrogation, Amanda had signed a document saying she was present at the scene when a murder was committed, and she was then made a suspect. At that point, they had as much (if not more) evidence against her as they had against Patrick. It was inconsistent, if not odd, that they continued to use so-called standard procedure with her and extraordinary measures with Patrick.

At the end of that interview they has made her a suspect and they followed standard procedure before and after that point. Yes. Why not? At the end of that interview they had evidence sufficient to make Patrick a suspect too. There was this crucial difference. Knox was not out in the community nor was she considered to have committed murder directly at that point. Patrick, whom there was reason to believe had directly committted murder, was not in custody and there was a clear risk that he could kill again, or flee. I do not think they did anything which any police force in the world would not have done: if you cannot see a difference that makes a difference then we must leave it there.

Once again, you've lost me. What does chauvinism have to do with it?

If you do not know (and I am inclined to believe that you don't) then I cannot help you.

It has already shown that what is not usually done in Italy, the UK and parts of America WAS done when Patrick was arrested.

No, it hasn't. Or I have missed it. Can you point me to the post where it is demonstrated that police officers do not normally arrest those they have evidence to believe to be cold blooded sexual killers?

All of my original arguments stand -- this was an important enough occasion for the police to have wanted records of it, unless they specifically DIDN't want records of it, as LashL stated. At the very least, CCTV without audio was probably present and could be used to show whether or not Amanda was hit during the interrogation.

No. If you do not understand the importance of standard procedures: if you do not understand that there is no reason to treat this witness differently: if you do not understand why departure from standard procedures is to be criticised: if you do not understand that there is nothing extraordinary about this interview (and importance is not the same thing) then again we must leave it there. By the way you do not seem to have answered my question about what is done in those parts of america where witness statements are not electronically recorded. Can you do that please

Do you think police are allowed to interrogate witnesses or suspects without being watched? What if the witness is like Raffaele and carries a knife, but is unlike Raffaele and decides to use it?

lolwut?

I don't know what the complaint says either. I believe your argument was that it was only slander if the names of the accused were known?

Nope. I was unsure if the police could bring a group action in this country. I think now that they probably can. In any case they can apparently bring a group action in Italy. I do not know Italian law but I am presuming it is similar to uk law in this respect. If that is the case then the requirement is that the group defamed is sufficiently small to render the individual who brings the complaint identifiable as a member of that group; and to damage that individual through that identification. In this case, because they gave evidence at trial the members of that group are identifiable: and none of them can be presumed not to have been involved in the abuse Knox alleged: precisely because she did not name or identify an individual. If follows that all who were there that night are tarred with that brush and that would enable a case in this country as in Italy. What is the situation in your part of america?

 

[s_pepys]

mary.

thanks for the link. Much appreciated.

lxxx

 

[s_pepys]

hey fulcanelli

thanks for the info.

lxxx

 

[Fiona]

Oh give us a break! To say 'all' the Italian media was against her simply isn't true. While the police, judges and prosecutors were against her (is that different in ANY trial) she had a defence team and experts working FOR her. The judges weren't sequestered, but hardly anybody is sequestered nowadays, not even in the US and UK. The judges are under oath not to read the media on the case. As for the sleeping part, you should listen to the trial lawyer (UK) we have on PMF...according to him it's quite common for jurors to nod off during trials. In any case, it doesn't matter since everything's recorded and the judges would have gone over it all again later. 'Some say' the investigators tampered with evidence, unless you have actual evidence to show it, is not an argument for the 'poor Amanda' meme.

And the final point...the judges wearing national colours??? Did you REALLY just say that?????? You do realise their tricolor sashes are a part of their court regalia and ALL judges in Italy wear them in ALL trials?

Odd. I had assumed Sherlock's post was sarcastic (or maybe I mean ironic)

 

[Fulcanelli]

phew! Finished reading last thread and this one. Would like to say hello to you all and congratulate you on a lively and interesting debate. coming from a totally neutral standpoint as to the guilt or innocence of ms Knox, i have learnt a great deal about the case from both threads. im a criminology student and work in forensic mental health and this has been a valuable insight into public opinion on a high profile, difficult case. Nothing is ever black and white i think. Keep up the good work. Thanks everyone

lxxx

Welcome

Although, I would recommend that you don't limit your reading on the case to the discussion on this site....there's a great deal of information out there on the web, some of it's good, some of it not so. However, this is the one place where both sides come together under regular screen names and debate the case in a fully moderated environment.

 

[Fiona]

Well guys, it's almost 3 a.m. here and I have to work in about 9 hours. I can't wait all night for Fiona and Fulcanelli to frantically compare notes about how they're going to weasel their way out of the corners they've backed themselves into here. Hopefully someone will pick up where I left off, just as Fulcanelli did for Fiona. Fu, please tell Fi I am anxious to follow up on the chauvinism remark, since I have absolutely no clue what she meant by that.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It wasn't a run of the mill interview if it started after Raffaele's was talked into dropping Amanda's alibi; it was an interview on the basis of suspicion.

But it didn't start 'after' Raffaele had dropped her alibi. Amanda's questioning had been under way for some time when news filtered through.

The presiding judge shouldn't become a member of the jury panel.

There is NO jury, only judges and they are all judge and jury. You still do not understand the Italian system. And I know for sure, if I was on trial and I was innocent, I'd far prefer my case to be heard by a panel of judges in the Italian civil law system, then an amateur jury in the common law system.

Oh really? I thought you guys were always saying they started interviewing Amanda that night because of what Raffaele had told them.

Who ever said that? NO. They had been interviewing Raffaele for some time and at some point decided that since Amanda was there, they may as well ask her some questions. So, they casually questioned her in the waiting room. It was some time into that, that news came through via a runner that Raffaele had dropped Amanda's alibi.

 

[s_pepys]

fulcanelli

thanks for the welcome. Yes, this is a great place to hear contrasting views on the case. Im a little concerned with the moderator though. LASHL seems, IMO, to be slightly biased in a certain direction. Is it normal for a mod on jref to add personal views as input into the discussion? or are they supposed to stay impartial?

lxxx

 

[Fiona]

fulcanelli

thanks for the welcome. Yes, this is a great place to hear contrasting views on the case. Im a little concerned with the moderator though. LASHL seems, IMO, to be slightly biased in a certain direction. Is it normal for a mod on jref to add personal views as input into the discussion? or are they supposed to stay impartial?

lxxx

Mods are also members and they can participate like the rest of us. I think it is considered helpful if they do not mod those threads where they are active and I have asked LashL to refrain from acting as mod in this thread now that she is doing so.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Odd. I had assumed Sherlock's post was sarcastic (or maybe I mean ironic)

Maybe it was and I missed the irony

But whether or no, it gave me the opportunity to tackle in one post some of the silly arguments I regularly see in the comments sections on other sites.

 

[s_pepys]

fiona

probably a wise move. well done. I think the idea that anyone on this thread (no offence) has information that could harm the upcoming appeals is quite ridiculous.

lxxx

 

[Fulcanelli]

Oh dear. It seems that the upcoming 'criminal slander' hearings against Amanda are not for defamation (Diffamazione) of the police officers, but actually for calumny (Calunnia):

False accusations made against various public officials with Knox "knowing them to be innocent", according to public prosecutors Giuliano Mignini and Manuela Comodi, who asked that she stand trial for calumny. (n10) In particular, the charges arise from when Knox affirmed it was the interpreter who suggested to her to remember being in the murder house with Patrick Lumumba, and the accusation that officers struck her during the interviews at the Questura. (n11)

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=47116#p47116

 

[LondonJohn]

fiona

probably a wise move. well done. I think the idea that anyone on this thread (no offence) has information that could harm the upcoming appeals is quite ridiculous.

lxxx

Hi s_pepys. How's the next volume of your diary coming along?

From a personal perspective, I think that LashL originally injected herself into the thread through sheer incredulity at the "arguing" positions of certain posters, and the amount of personal insulting that was going on. I'd agree that she probably didn't do herself any favours by getting drawn into an argument, but I don't think that in itself should cause her recusal as a mod*.

On the subject of information pertaining to appeals etc, I think you're absolutely right. Unfortunately, some posters on here (from both "sides", it has to be said, but usually from just the one "side") seem to use hints of higher knowledge as some form of currency. The simple truth is that we are all just interested amateurs discussing this case from a step-removed perspective. Some people seem have invested an awful lot of time, energy and personal credibility in this case. And once they have "planted their flag in the ground", it becomes - as in war - a flag that must be defended at all costs.

I myself believe that there may have been a miscarriage of justice in this case, and I argue from that position. I don't say that there definitely has been a miscarriage, but rather that certain elements don't look right to me, and that they therefore bear further examination. If all these elements are brought up in the various appeals, and they are tested properly and professionally** and found to be strong, then I'll have no problem agreeing with the verdict of the court of first instance. But, as of right now, I think there might be significant problems with the safety of AK's and RS's convictions.

* And, (to Fiona in particular, but to everyone in general), if this sort of posting is sufficient to disbar a mod, then I wonder why a certain Michael (aka Fulcanelli) is still doing that job on the esteemed PMF site..................)

** Yes, I am suggesting that AK's/RS's defence teams didn't properly or professionally challenge some of the evidence in the original trial. I'm also suggesting that certain improper rulings were made - chiefly the decision to allow the criminal slander trial to run concurrently. I also believe that AK's/RS's defence teams weren't probably willing to present (in the original trial) any challenges which might have implied malpractice or corruption at any level within Italian law enforcement agencies. I think that might change in the appeal.

 

[LondonJohn]

Mods are also members and they can participate like the rest of us. I think it is considered helpful if they do not mod those threads where they are active and I have asked LashL to refrain from acting as mod in this thread now that she is doing so.

Have you asked Michael and Skeptical Bystander to step down as mods on PMF then...?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Have you asked Michael and Skeptical Bystander to step down as mods on PMF then...?

There is no comparison. The discussions on PMF are not between two opposing camps, as they are here. While in contrast, on the JREF both camps meet and argue the case. It is therefore for that reason, justifiable to argue that a Moderator who has entered the debate openly in support of one camp to the detriment of the other should not at the same time be moderating the thread.

Suppose I were to become a JREF Moderator tomorrow and I were to start moderating this thread? A lot of people would have a problem with that and I wouldn't blame them. Indeed, I would moderate other discussions on the site but would without hesitation, bar myself from administering this one.

 

[LondonJohn]

There is no comparison. The discussions on PMF are not between two opposing camps, as they are here. While in contrast, on the JREF both camps meet and argue the case. It is therefore for that reason, justifiable to argue that a Moderator who has entered the debate openly in support of one camp to the detriment of the other should not at the same time be moderating the thread.

Suppose I were to become a JREF Moderator tomorrow and I were to start moderating this thread? A lot of people would have a problem with that and I wouldn't blame them. Indeed, I would moderate other discussions on the site but would without hesitation, bar myself from administering this one.

Hahahaha no, they're not between two opposing camps, are they? And why is that? Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that is PMF only a forum for people who share your view?

 

[LondonJohn]

PS That prompted me go and have a gander at PMF. In an interesting development, it appears that Stilicho is coaching/advising another poster on how she should argue on JREF against Halides ("You should say this" etc). Does Stilicho not have a voice of his own on JREF - or does he prefer to argue by proxy these days?

 

[RoseMontague]

PS That prompted me go and have a gander at PMF. In an interesting development, it appears that Stilicho is coaching/advising another poster on how she should argue on JREF against Halides ("You should say this" etc). Does Stilicho not have a voice of his own on JREF - or does he prefer to argue by proxy these days?

In Stilicho's defense, there is more to it than that. There are several ways to approach a debate. My position is to treat a poster as if he is arguing honestly. If I believe they are wrong, it is because they are not correct, not because they are being deceitful.

 

[LondonJohn]

In Stilicho's defense, there is more to it than that. There are several ways to approach a debate. My position is to treat a poster as if he is arguing honestly. If I believe they are wrong, it is because they are not correct, not because they are being deceitful.

Oh I agree, and I can see where you're coming from. What I find strange is why Stilicho is even discussing your JREF interactions with halides on PMF, let alone why he appears to be advising you what your next moves in your JREF argument should be.

In fact, why are people discussing JREF-based arguments on PMF at all? If people want to contribute to arguments that are being made on JREF, why don't they just come on JREF and make their contributions here? Or is it that some people might feel that PMF offers them a "safe haven" from which to criticise arguments or slag off individual posters? Cos that what it looks like to me........