Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[christianahannah]

Is it possible that Amanda and Raffaele could release their case files to the public and clear up some of the misconceptions the public might have about evidence presented in their trial? Some of the documents that could possibly help would be transcripts of police interrogations (questions and answers), their prior witness statements, phone transcripts/recordings, etc.

I realize it is not up to defendants to have to prove their innocence, however, any documents that would corroborate what those who advocate for them state could only be helpful in the court of public opinion.

 

[Danceme]

Danceme, you are repeating the myth of "many lies." There is no evidence Amanda and Raffaele had conflicting alibis or said "I don't remember" before their interrogations on the 5th and 6th. Any confusion on their parts was voiced only after the interrogations.

To think like an Italian cop, specifically Giobbi, we would have to become suspicious when 1.) Amanda cries, 2.) she swivels her hips, and 3.) she eats pizza with Raffaele.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20000577-504083.html?tag=mncol;lst;6

Mary, how do you know it is a myth? How do you know the only confusion came after the interrogation? You can't possibly know this unless there are transcripts of all the previous questionings you may have seen which make you know for a fact this is a myth. From all I have read since the beginning of this case, contradictory alibi details have always been part of the story. This is true whether one believes they are innocent or guilty. They also contradict each other in the details of the emails and diaries.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Perjuring yourself in your own defence is impossible in Italy. It happens in the US though. I apologise for typing that too quickly for you to understand but you probably know the cases from memory.

I don't understand your nitpicking about the defamation. I was illustrating that the calumny (calunnia) charge goes beyond the 'cuffing' or 'pressuring' Amanda claimed. Why didn't Amanda identify the woman who 'cuffed' her when asked in court? If she had already tacitly identified her interpreter as part of the group of officers 'pressuring' her then what prevented her from stating the name of the one who 'cuffed' her?

Amanda will have her chance in court to defend herself. The charge and her opportunity to defend herself are factual and not simply regurgitation of opinion. It is my opinion, however, that she will not defend herself at all but claim she was too exhausted or too stoned or something and cannot remember who struck her. This has been a feature of her defense all along. To those who feel that she will 'chirp', you're almost certainly wrong. Amanda cannot suddenly have the fog of uncertainty lifted while she still has appeals left in the murder charge.

The Italian law is defensible in that it offers protections and recourse for law enforcement professionals that they don't enjoy here in Canada.

There are other less third world forms of recourse available.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

number 8

If it were only eight points that needed to be answered (and you picked one out of the eight) then there might be hope for them on appeal. I selected eight before I gave up. There are scores of similar points and they all need to be addressed by the defence.

Stilicho,

I might be more inclined to evaluate publicly all of your other points but for the fact that I rebutted number 8 months ago. If you ignored that, why should I believe that you will take note of anything else?

Fiona,

Amanda said in her testimony, “The most intense pressure was in the Questura between Nov 5 and 6.” This statement is perfectly compatible with Laura’s recollection of what Amanda said about the earlier interrogation. Amanda only says that the night of the 5 November was the most harrowing interrogation, not that the other events were without pressure.

 

[Amazer]

How do you know what Italians think of the law?

I haven't heard of any movement that wants this law repealed or amended, have you? From that it follows that Italians do not have a problem with it.

Is there a law against telling the truth in Italy?

Not as far as I'm aware of. They have laws against plenty of other things though.

There are other less third world forms of recourse available.

And? This type of recourse is the one Italy has chosen for itself. As is their right.

 

[HumanityBlues]

I haven't heard of any movement that wants this law repealed or amended, have you? From that it follows that Italians do not have a problem with it.


Not as far as I'm aware of. They have laws against plenty of other things though.


And? This type of recourse is the one Italy has chosen for itself. As is their right.

Majority opinion doesn't define just laws, but if that's the line you want to take, go ahead. Italy is not a person. If you have some special insight into how much Italian citizens love their defamation laws, please let us see it. Moreover, if there was no movement against torture, does that make torture laws justified? We have a very special circumstance where there is a very controversial immigration law in Arizona. Most people actually support this law, but does that make it a good law or fair law? By the inherent logic in your arguments, you would say "yes".

It's one thing to say a law is unfair or fair. It's another for you to hide behind fake Italian opinion which you're not even actually aware of (unless you have some sort of scientific poll) to justify it's fairness rather than what is inherently fair or unfair in the law. These simplistic justifications support nothing of the wisdom behind such laws and their rather harsh punishment.

 

[Brooktrout]

Hi. I'm new here. Question for those who, like Stilicho, feel the evidence is convincing and justice was served well. Why do you bother pursuing all this in forums? If the evidence is sound, why does it require an army of defenders and apologists? Why not just walk away and get on with life?

 

[Fiona]

What do you think is unfair about the law, HumanityBlues? I see you describe it as "third world", and from this I infer that once again you found on a variation of "not invented here", the way I see it. That is not a particularly impressive argument and I am sure you have other, better, objections.

For me, because of the shift in public attitudes to public service in this country which I perceive, I am rather of the opinion that there is much less justification for not allowing the police (and other public servants) to defend their reputations at law than there used to be. I would be tempted to support a change in the law in the Italian direction were that proposed. I certainly do not see you have made much of a case for your strong rejection of this way of doing things.

 

[Mary_H]

Mary, how do you know it is a myth? How do you know the only confusion came after the interrogation? You can't possibly know this unless there are transcripts of all the previous questionings you may have seen which make you know for a fact this is a myth. From all I have read since the beginning of this case, contradictory alibi details have always been part of the story. This is true whether one believes they are innocent or guilty. They also contradict each other in the details of the emails and diaries.

It is a myth because it has no basis in fact, in particular because we have no transcripts of all the previous questionings. There is no evidence that either of them lied, only that they changed their stories after November 5th, most likely as a result of persuasion by the police.

Everything you have read about the case that states there were contradictory alibis was written by someone who, like you, believes or wants to perpetuate the myth that Amanda and Raffaele lied. Their alibis matched until they were interrogated.

 

[Mary_H]

Perjuring yourself in your own defence is impossible in Italy. It happens in the US though. I apologise for typing that too quickly for you to understand but you probably know the cases from memory.

I don't understand your nitpicking about the defamation. I was illustrating that the calumny (calunnia) charge goes beyond the 'cuffing' or 'pressuring' Amanda claimed. Why didn't Amanda identify the woman who 'cuffed' her when asked in court? If she had already tacitly identified her interpreter as part of the group of officers 'pressuring' her then what prevented her from stating the name of the one who 'cuffed' her?

Amanda has shown that she is hesitant to find fault with other people. Her slowness to anger and tendency to empathize were part of what got her into trouble in the earliest days. She wrote in her statement, "Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received."

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheInterrogation.html

How many people do you know who would write that they can understand that stress led the police to hit her in the head?

During trial, "he told the court the police had slapped her round the head when she insisted on a version of the facts which did not match theirs. In Italian, she added: 'I'm sorry. But it's true.'

"Twice asked by the judge to identify the police officers she claimed had hit her, she was unable to do so. Police witnesses and interpreters denied her allegations."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/31/amanda-knox-italian-police-court

Amanda is the one who's sorry? Huh?

Amanda probably could have identified the woman who hit her in the courtroom (if she were present), but didn't think it was necessary and didn't want to embarrass her. How could she have known she eventually would be sued just for describing the interrogation?

Amanda will have her chance in court to defend herself. The charge and her opportunity to defend herself are factual and not simply regurgitation of opinion. It is my opinion, however, that she will not defend herself at all but claim she was too exhausted or too stoned or something and cannot remember who struck her. This has been a feature of her defense all along. To those who feel that she will 'chirp', you're almost certainly wrong. Amanda cannot suddenly have the fog of uncertainty lifted while she still has appeals left in the murder charge.

The Italian law is defensible in that it offers protections and recourse for law enforcement professionals that they don't enjoy here in Canada.

I think the "stoned" defense was her lawyers' strategy (lawyers are always telling clients just to say "I can't recall"), and in my opinion it was unfair to Amanda. She was very confused after the interrogation, and there were things she honestly forgot or couldn't keep straight because she wasn't questioned about them until four or fve days after they happened. Overall, though, I think she and Raffaele really did know what happened the night of the murder, and they should have been allowed to assert that.

 

[Amazer]

Majority opinion doesn't define just laws, but if that's the line you want to take, go ahead. Italy is not a person. If you have some special insight into how much Italian citizens love their defamation laws, please let us see it. Moreover, if there was no movement against torture, does that make torture laws justified? We have a very special circumstance where there is a very controversial immigration law in Arizona. Most people actually support this law, but does that make it a good law or fair law? By the inherent logic in your arguments, you would say "yes".

It's one thing to say a law is unfair or fair. It's another for you to hide behind fake Italian opinion which you're not even actually aware of (unless you have some sort of scientific poll) to justify it's fairness rather than what is inherently fair or unfair in the law. These simplistic justifications support nothing of the wisdom behind such laws and their rather harsh punishment.

You are correct that majority opinion doesn't define just or unjust laws. (And a good thing I never argued that). You have failed however to make the argument why these Italian slander/defamation laws are unjust. You only made your opinion known that the sentences those laws carry are too harsh.

For me, the severity of the sentence has nothing to do with the fact that a law is just or whether it is unjust. Unjust laws target a specific group of people on basis of their ethnicity, religious beliefs or sex. They are not applied equally to everyone.

The severity of a sentence to me reflects the importance that a people give to certain types of crime. Like for example the long prison sentences handed out in the USA for comparatively light crimes like being in the possession of soft-drugs as compared to the very light sentences (if any) people used to get in The Netherlands before they legalized the stuff.

In this case the Italians clearly view slander/defamation more seriously then others and as such it is reflected in the sentences their slander/defamation laws carry.

I hope that clarifies my position a little.

 

[LondonJohn]

Cite? Who has often portrayed her as a "criminal mastermind"?

Well, I suppose it's a reasonable (if possibly slightly hyperbolised) deduction that could be made from comparing observations of AK's known behaviour with a presumption that she committed the murder.

After, all, if Amanda Knox was involved in the murder, then the following chain of events would most likely have taken place:

1) She was involved in the brutal and bloody murder of her housemate between 9.30-11.30pm on the 1st November 2007.

2) She then had the wherewithal and cunning to not just clean up the murder house extensively that same night (while strangely leaving the actual murder room largely untouched), but to also deliberately leave some blood evidence in the bathroom - evidence which she must have known might be incriminating to her and/or her boyfriend.

3) In the midst of this, she had the cunning to try to misdirect police by staging a break-in - figuring that this might convince the police that the crime had been committed by a stranger-intruder.

4) Instead of disappearing back to her boyfriend's flat and lying low (easily the safest option), she deliberately placed herself back into the murder house the following morning - presumably in an act of cunning (but risky) double-bluff to make her appear innocent.

5) Whilst she initially reacted with shock and horror at the discovery of her housemate's murdered body, she then decided to pursue an elaborate double-bluff regarding her later reactions. She would have realised that most killers in her position would almost-certainly try to appear as devastated (if not more so) than everybody else, in order to deflect attention from themselves. Therefore, she decided to consciously draw attention to herself and Sollecito by avoiding the memorial service, by making curt remarks about Meredith's body, and by making suggestive remarks in an underwear shop. This, she might have reasoned, could confuse the police - after all, why would a real culprit take such deliberate actions to stand out from the crowd?

6) After she'd been questioned two or three times already by the police by around the 4th November, she consciously didn't seek the advice of a lawyer, nor did she contact the US Consulate for advice. Having committed the crime (in this scenario), she would obviously have been on the constant lookout for police suspicion of her. However, she instead chose to remain steadfastly clear of legal or Consular assistance. She must have cunningly thought that to seek such assistance might be seen by the police as evidence of culpability - regardless of the very real help that such moves might have given her.

I believe that it's points like these that would require one to consider Amanda Knox as a cunning, clever and manipulative operator - if she was involved in the murder. Perhaps the term "criminal mastermind" might be overdoing it a bit, but I don't think it's all that far wide of the mark...

 

[katy_did]

Quiet here today, isn't it

I imagine we'll see when this criminal slander trial starts whether AK is now prepared to attach a name to the policewoman who she accused of hitting her. I imagine that by now she might be prepared to do just that, but she will still have to get over the hurdle of explaining why she couldn't identify the policewoman in the trial (I assume that all the police officers who had taken part in AK's interrogation were present in court when AK was asked to make her identification.........).

It's weird, like shouting into a void!

Yes, it'll be interesting to see if she does name someone, or whether that would risk making the charges worse. I would've thought that even the description she did give (a female police officer with long, chestnut coloured hair) would have made it pretty clear to those who were there who she was talking about, unless there were an unusually high percentage of officers meeting that description there that day! I'm not sure whether all the officers present that day were in the courtroom - I'd assumed not for some reason, but you could be right (though wouldn't Mignini have made more of a big deal about identifying someone, if that were the case?). Anyone know for sure?

And again, I wonder if the whole Lumumba interrogation might be brought back into the arena. It bears repeating once again that Lumumba is quoted (directly) in the UK's Daily Mail on 25th November 2007 as saying that he was kicked and punched by the police during his interrogation, that he was forced up against a wall on his knees, and that his interrogators told him that if he confessed he'd get only half the 30-year prison sentence.

Now, it may be that the Mail completely invented these quoted remarks ("quoted" meaning that they were reported as direct speech within quotation marks) from Lumumba, but I'd currently judge that as unlikely - even by the standards of the UK press. It may also be the case that Lumumba did say these things, but that he lied in order to get more money from the newspaper. Again, I'd argue that this is unlikely, since in this scenario Lumumba would have clearly known that he was making very serious false allegations of police misconduct, with all that that entailed - both in terms of legal action by the police, but also in terms of his need for an ongoing relationship with the police vis-a-vis his bar business and personal life.

So my current belief with regard to Lumumba's quotes in the Daily Mail article are 1) that he did actually say the words ascribed to him; and 2) that he was genuinely recounting things which actually happened in the police station during his interrogations.

And, if my reasoning has any validity, I'd have thought that Lumumba could prove a very useful witness for the defence in the Knox criminal slander trial, and also in her appeal (even if he had to be forced by the defence to appear as a hostile witness!).

Interesting points about Lumumba. I'm always very sceptical about things written in the tabloid press, obviously, but in this case they would pretty much have had to fabricate the entire interview with him if he really didn't make any allegations about the police, it wouldn't just be a case of twisting a few things or taking them out of context. He certainly has a very strong motive for denying the things he's supposed to have said in his interview, given that the allegations were far more dramatic than those made by Amanda.

If the case does end up going to trial, it does seem like it could be quite a good tactic for the defence to bring up Patrick's interview, perhaps even try and get a statement from the journalist who interviewed him.

 

[katy_did]

For the last time..........there is nothing magical or new to be revealed in the Massei report.

The report deals with how the judicial panel arrived at its verdict and sentence. Nothing more or less than that. No new evidence will be revealed in the report - it never could be, since jury panels are required by law to assess the case based purely on the evidence presented in court.

So all that the Massei report will show is which parts of the prosecution's case they found to be compelling evidence of guilt (and, conversely, which parts they rejected). Since everybody already knows that the judicial panel found both defendants guilty on all charges, we can already know that they were persuaded by the bulk of the prosecution's case. No surprises to be had there, then - since we already know the prosecution's case in detail.

And anything that the report says by way of "crime narrative" is only of marginal relevance. I'd argue that the judicial panel actually has no business in law making up its own narrative of events - it should either accept the prosecution's narrative in whole or in part, or it should reject it without substituting its own.

This is exactly right. There's no new, earth-shattering piece of evidence in Massei's report - how could there be, given how public the whole trial was? As you say, since the defendants were found guilty, we know the jury accepted much of the prosecution case. If anything it's the bits they rejected that are more interesting (though frustratingly, Massei never states explicitly that something was rejected, he just doesn't mention it!).

Anyone who's read the blog over at Perugia Shock won't find anything particularly new in the report, though obviously the reasoning's interesting. I know Fulcanelli doesn't read Perugia Shock, so maybe that's why he found some of the details new.

The only remotely new information is what you call the 'crime narrative': things like Amanda carrying the knife in her purse for 'self-protection', for example. But I wouldn't exactly call that a new piece of solid evidence!

 

[stilicho]

It's one thing to say a law is unfair or fair. It's another for you to hide behind fake Italian opinion which you're not even actually aware of (unless you have some sort of scientific poll) to justify it's fairness rather than what is inherently fair or unfair in the law. These simplistic justifications support nothing of the wisdom behind such laws and their rather harsh punishment.

I'll tell you what I think is happening, HB. I have no cites but it makes a lot of sense in light of the case developments (insofar as we can believe most of what the media tells us).

The calumny charge is a bit of flexing in anticipation of the appeal and is fully within the scope of Italian law that requires the prosecution pursue it. I would guess that the requirement is sometimes pursued less vigorously and certainly less publicly.

The prosecution has to be disappointed that they didn't get a life sentence for all three murderers. This charge enables them to try to tack on the years of prison time justified by the vicious and callous nature of the crime.

Law enforcement tries things like this wherever possible and it's not confined to Italy or other 'third world' countries. The Treasury Department and the ATF are sometimes deployed in the US to get at infamous criminals they're unable to prosecute by other means. There's nothing barbaric or unique in what the Italians are doing.

------------

Incidentally, HB, are you aware that one of the FOA bigwigs is under investigation for abuse of office for sending letters to Italian authorities using State of Washington stationery?

(Source: http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/06/judge_michael_heavy_charged.php )

It looks like it's not just the Italians who go after people for improper conduct. Americans do too!

 

[stilicho]

Well, I suppose it's a reasonable (if possibly slightly hyperbolised) deduction that could be made from comparing observations of AK's known behaviour with a presumption that she committed the murder.

...

1) She was involved in the brutal and bloody murder of her housemate between 9.30-11.30pm on the 1st November 2007.

2) ...evidence which she must have known might be incriminating to her and/or her boyfriend.

3) In the midst of this, she had the cunning to try to misdirect police by staging a break-in ...

4) ...placed herself back into the murder house the following morning ...

5) ...she then decided to pursue an elaborate double-bluff regarding her later reactions...

6) After she'd been questioned two or three times already by the police by around the 4th November...

I believe that it's points like these that would require one to consider Amanda Knox as a cunning, clever and manipulative operator - if she was involved in the murder. Perhaps the term "criminal mastermind" might be overdoing it a bit, but I don't think it's all that far wide of the mark...

What you've described is, more or less, why nobody has declared Amanda to be a criminal mastermind, why she was caught so easily, why the prosecution and verdict were relatively routine, and why she's going to be in prison for a considerable length of time. You forgot that she changed her story, was incredibly detailed about scenes and events that had no bearing on her conviction, said she couldn't remember events crucial to establishing her alibi, was contradicted by her own mother's testimony, and accused a man she knew was innocent of murder. She willingly undermined her own claims by writing the 'gift' some time on 06 NOV 2007.

I'd agree with your assessment that she is manipulative but I wouldn't call her cunning or clever.

 

[Fulcanelli]

There are other less third world forms of recourse available.

Ahhh, so the United States and United Kingdom are third world are they? The last time I checked, perjury was a criminal offence, one for which you go to jail for, in both of those countries.


Let's get it understood what she's facing, here's calunnia as defined by Yummi on PMF:

Calunnia is reporting a false incriminating information about a crime.

Clander on PMF adds to it by saying:

It is best to clarify two things when defining "calunnia":
1) one does not get charged with "calunnia" when you report incriminating evidence that turns out to be false. (as long as you were "in buona fede")
2) the person you are accusing of the crime must be known to you. You must be able to identify the person (of course, it's not "calunnia" if one says "I saw someone steal the money").

As Jools pointed out:
"IMO Calunnia is not just a simple false accusation, but one that is with complete knowledge of it being false information and maliciously made by the accuser. Exactly what she did to Patrick, she knew he was not there."

The "che egli sa innocente" (the accuser knows that the accused is innocent) in art. 368 is key.
Calunnia is the crime of reporting false criminal accusations against someone that the accuser knows to be innocent.

And as further refinement from Clander:

I mean that the "offended party" needs to be identified/identifiable.

I saw "Clander" steal the money (but I know he was not even in town when the money was stolen) ---> calunnia
I saw " Clander's gardener"* steal the money (but I know the gardener was not even in town when the money was stolen) ---> calunnia
* even if I do not know the gardener's name, I know who Clander's gardener is. He can be easily identified
I saw someone in Clander's garden steal the money ---> not calunnia

Further from Yummi:

Moreover, the different nature of the crime between calunnia and slander, as in Britain or in the US, can be seen in tha fact that not only a calunnia can be considered a crime automatically, with no lawsuit and by the judge's initiative, but it may be a crime even if there is no third "victim" of the accusation: you may commit calunnia even if you accuse yourself of a criminal act or admit having committed illicit actions, while knowing this to be false.

And finally from Yummi:

As to explain the calunnia here, I als just add for the knowledge of the non-Italian posters: the crime of calunnia is also in a different chapter from diffamazione ("defamation") because it not a crime against an individual, or not only, not mainly against the honor and reputation of a person. While defamation is in the chapter "crimes against honor", calunnia (as well as autocalunnia, art . 369) is located among the "crimes against the administration of justice". The main good protected by the law articles is the public interest of having a State performing a correct administration of justice. Accusing an innocent is considered, in the firsst instance, a crime agaisnt public interest, before being an action that creates damage to an individual.

It is a complex crime. It can be seen as: Making false accusations of others of a crime, perjury, contempt, subverting a criminal investigation, wasting police/legal systems time and defamation all rolled into one.


And I see nothing 'third world' about it. Neither do I understand the whinging. Regarding her accusations against the police officers, she hasn't even been charged with Calunnia, let alone convicted of it.


And I might also add, 'IF' it were ever to happen that Amanda had her verdict overturned and she was found innocent, she could conceivably have Rudy charged with calunnia for accusing her of being at the cottage on the night of the murder and involved in the crime.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Regarding Bongiorno's 'illness', Jools on PMF has this to say in regard to LondonJohn's claims:

Bongiorno was a guess speaker at the San Marino Conference on 20-21 November and these two specific days were very important trial days for RS as it was prosecution-closing arguments weekend (Friday Mignini and Saturday Comodi). Clearly she did not attend trial because she had anoother commitment elsewhere as reported many times in the past.

Bongiorno’s absence from the trial (on the two days of prosecution summing up) was reported by local press on Saturday evening that the reason for this court absence was due to a mild illness, in later articles by Sunday it become suspected appendicitis etc., and in even later articles by about Monday, reports were that a petition was given in Court to postponed the trial because she was maybe to have an appendix operation, which BTW for that given reason, Massei demanded a doctor’s certificate. Obviously she made a full recovery and didn’t need the operation because trial was not postponed and it did continue as it had been planed before the illness episode.

In short LJ’s suggestion that Ms Bongiorno maybe was in hospital specifically on Saturday evening is nothing but another one of his inane suggestions. Whatever… the main point is that on Friday the 20th and Saturday 21st. Ms. B. was photographed not in a San Marino hospital but in a forum-conference she was previously booked to participate.

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=47298#p47298


I and I will just add to this, as a note of interest, that the doctors note was supplied by one of the coroner defence experts on Raffaele's defence team (who no, wasn't Bongiorno's doctor and hadn't seen her on the days she was supposedly sick).

 

[Fulcanelli]

This is not true. Just because Rudy's DNA may have mixed with Meredith's blood on his pinky finger doesn't mean that his DNA mixed with Meridith's blood on his thumb.

If you dip your hand in blood and make ten hand prints on a wall. You might get mixed DNA results in come of those prints and not others.

Other samples in the cottage where it is apparent that blood was left by a hand, do not show mixed DNA. This proves that blood on your hand will not always produce a mixed sample.

But his DNA mixed with Meredith's blood didn't appear 'anywhere' in the bathroom...not the switch, not the sink, not the cotton bud dispenser, not the bidet...even though we know his DNA was mixed with Meredith's blood from what was left on the outside of the handbag and even 'you' argue that he left that DNA/blood mix on the handbag 'before' he went to the bathroom.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Is there a law against telling the truth in Italy?

No, but there is a law against telling lies about others in regard to a crime.