Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

<snip>
As an aside, I'm surprised that I haven't seen any accounts of any involvement by the American embassy. Did they play any role in any of this? If I were traveling abroad and the local police wanted to question me about a murder of someone I knew (or wanted to take me to the station for any reason at all) I would certainly call the embassy for advice. I recognize that the embassy can't do a lot, but they can at least tell you about local laws and practices, they can recommend an experienced local lawyer who speaks English, and they can visit a person in jail to be sure he's not being mistreated. Did Knox ever call the embassy? Did her parents? Did the embassy do anything for Knox, either before she was arrested or afterward?

Some posters have claimed that the American consulate observed the trial proceedings and found no fault with them. Others have objected by saying the employee-observers of the consulate were all Italians. I think it is probably a general rule for consulates to assume all is well in their host country and to let justice take its course. In other words, they probably didn't pay much attention to the trial at first.

I posted an article here several days ago about how the U.S. Dept. of Justice likes its cozy relationship with the Italian police, especially the liberal use of wiretapping in Italy, because they share information about organized crime with the U.S. This would be another reason, no doubt among many, to let sleeping dogs lie, as far as court cases are concerned.

Amanda was too young and inexperienced to know to call the Embassy. It probably never occurred to her in a million years that she would be arrested, owing to the fact that she was, of course, innocent.

Unfortunately, the U.S. State Dept. is not all-wise, all-knowing and all-discussing. I have a friend at a very high level there and as of earlier this year, her knowledge of the case was from the news media.

I have seen no evidence that the U.S. Embassy in Italy did anything helpful for Amanda.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>

Quote:From Bob001
Not having a record of criminal convictions doesn't quite mean than Guede, Knox and Sollecito shared similar histories. And their backgrounds are so different that it's hard to believe Knox, Sollecito and Guede would have trusted one another enough to participate in a deadly crime together, when any one of them could have saved himself by turning on the other two.

Irrelevant even if true

Not irrelevant at all to criminal profilers, who can detect from the crime scene the type of person who committed the crime and what their likely history is.

 

[LondonJohn]

This argument implies we must abandon all standards of morality and decency when it comes to judging the systems of other cultures. If this were true, there would no civilization and no historical progress when it comes to human rights.

If your unmarried daughter were traveling in a Muslim country and was found to be sexually active, would it be all right with you if the police there stoned her to death, because she should have been living by the rules of the country she was traveling in? Even if the majority of women in that country had made it known they were against so stringent a penalty? Even if you and your countrymen believe that stoning to death is too severe relative to the behavior it is punishing? Would it be all right with you that the ruling class of that country had so much power they could ignore the complaints of their citizens and foreign observers?

Cultures and legal systems are relative, human rights and morality are not, or at least they shouldn't be. The Perugians are big boys; we don't have to hold them to standards lower than our own. If their laws and/or behaviors are unethical, we have every right to disapprove of them.

As part of a wider philosophical discussion, I'd agree with you. But actually, I do think that in the shorter term there's a large responsibility of "caveat emptor" when travelling/working/studying in foreign countries. In other words, it's incumbent upon the visitor to understand - and abide by - local laws, local penalties and local punishments. There is a debate to be had as to whether some countries' justice systems are wrong or immoral, but it's a very difficult debate with few "black" or "white" answers. What for some societies is a just law or a just punishment may be seen by other societies as either too lenient or too strict - we often (but not always) have no "absolute" against which to judge what is right/fair or wrong/unfair.

Having said all that, I believe that in this particular case one must operate within the constraints of Italian state justice as it currently stands. Whether there are arguably faults with that system (as there arguably also are with the UK system, the US system, the Saudi system...) is a debate for another time. But I think this is moot: I argue that the convictions of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito may well be unsafe by the current standards of Italian justice. It doesn't require (and shouldn't require) measuring the safety of their convictions against US (or any other) standards.

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

This argument implies we must abandon all standards of morality and decency when it comes to judging the systems of other cultures. If this were true, there would no civilization and no historical progress when it comes to human rights.

If your unmarried daughter were traveling in a Muslim country and was found to be sexually active, would it be all right with you if the police there stoned her to death, because she should have been living by the rules of the country she was traveling in? Even if the majority of women in that country had made it known they were against so stringent a penalty? Even if you and your countrymen believe that stoning to death is too severe relative to the behavior it is punishing? Would it be all right with you that the ruling class of that country had so much power they could ignore the complaints of their citizens and foreign observers?

Cultures and legal systems are relative, human rights and morality are not, or at least they shouldn't be. The Perugians are big boys; we don't have to hold them to standards lower than our own. If their laws and/or behaviors are unethical, we have every right to disapprove of them.

You can have your legal system, your opinion of human rights and morality -inside US. But please admit that other countries have their sovereignty and therefore right of their own legal systems.

We can live with the complaints of the foreign observers (as vice-versa the US also does) - but would you kindly give a specific link about the complaints of the citizens?

 

[capealadin]

Mary, you have highlighted the words * a trap of your own making*. That means Raffaele fell into the trap he made himself. And, are you saying Raffaele is a liar? That when he told the police that's what Amanda said, is not actuallywhat Amanda said? I'm referring here to your answers as to the *c--p* and saying *something stupid*.

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

As for the glass, the witnesses seemed to suggest it was all over the room even before Filomena disturbed it, though I'm not too sure so maybe Charlie/Bruce have a bit more information about that. Wouldn't have thought she could've disturbed it enough to spread glass all over the room if there wasn't quite a lot of it there already, though. At the very least, that would mean we'd have to hypothesize about yet another thing happening which coincidentally makes the scenario where the rock was thrown from outside look more convincing.

I've read several times about Filomena going into her room, but can you tell me when exactly that occurred, and under what circumstances?

 

[capealadin]

The word ignorant: lacking knowledge, or unaware, not informed. Many people are awaiting the translation, so yes, many are ignorant at the moment, as to the results. No rush, though, as the appeal will only be heard in November. As to the people who are doing the translation, they have a better understanding than the rest of us at the moment. Fair enough, as it is done on their time, and their expense. Anyone here who wants to share that advantage, start putting up the money. Oh, and dig deep.

 

[christianahannah]

Well, not being a rock throwing expert either, obviously (do they actually exist?!) but I think the inner shutters would have burst fully open as the rock hit them. They did lock, but Filomena seems to suggest she left them open (this from Micheli's report, I haven't checked Massei's yet):





I think 'persiane' must refer specifically to the outer shutters, so I guess it's the inner shutters that were probably open/unlocked. I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding how they work though, as Rose's post had me a bit puzzled too - what do you mean when you say they're closed in the photos? If you look at the photo Rose posted, I think the marks on top and bottom of the window frame are for the lock on the shutters, or so I remember from a Powerpoint on TJMK anyway.

As for the glass, the witnesses seemed to suggest it was all over the room even before Filomena disturbed it, though I'm not too sure so maybe Charlie/Bruce have a bit more information about that. Wouldn't have thought she could've disturbed it enough to spread glass all over the room if there wasn't quite a lot of it there already, though. At the very least, that would mean we'd have to hypothesize about yet another thing happening which coincidentally makes the scenario where the rock was thrown from outside look more convincing.

The post from Rose shows the inner (white) shutters closed. I found this photo from PMF which shows (I assume video on 2/11/07 at 15:12:40) of the inner (white) shutters open. The PMF photo is probably truer to how the scene was when Filomena came upon the room but I don't know.

Rose's photo (inner shutters closed):
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/105.JPG

PMF photo (inner shutters open):
http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=21&image_id=74

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

Innocent Raffaele

There is one thing, which is beyond my understanding:

Raffaele Sollecito, at the time of the crime 23 years old, well educated, with well educated and wealthy background, nearly completed computer-ingineer,
is not able stand up in court and declare his innocence and fight for it as a man!!

Instead of doing so he was hiding himself behind his (first-class) lawyers.
And beeing Italian he cannot even claim to be a victim of bias.

Any plausible comments for this?

 

[Fiona]

Not irrelevant at all to criminal profilers, who can detect from the crime scene the type of person who committed the crime and what their likely history is.

Well I am not a big fan of criminal profiling really. But as you will remember I posted a link to a study which showed that petty criminals are less likely to commit murder than others. It is only one study but so far as I remember it is all we have on this issue in either of the threads

 

[Chris_Halkides]

it looks like a chef's knife

I'll just ask questions this time:
1) Why did Guede break into the apartment?
2) What type of knife was the alleged Meredith DNA found on?
3) Did Raffaele frequently carry a knife?
4) Did Filomena say anything in her testimony in regards to the break-in being suspicious?
5) When was the autopsy report completed?

2. It was an ordinary kitchen knife. It is not compatible with two of the three major wounds.

 

[LondonJohn]

There is one thing, which is beyond my understanding:

Raffaele Sollecito, at the time of the crime 23 years old, well educated, with well educated and wealthy background, nearly completed computer-ingineer,
is not able stand up in court and declare his innocence and fight for it as a man!!

Instead of doing so he was hiding himself behind his (first-class) lawyers.
And beeing Italian he cannot even claim to be a victim of bias.

Any plausible comments for this?

I believe there are some very plausible possible explanations for this. The overriding one is that Sollecito was obeying the advice of his lawyers. And I believe that in this instance the advice from his lawyers would have been proper and correct. Bear in mind that Sollecito had already tied himself up in knots at the interview stage, through (I believe) a combination of his own naivety and an easy willingness to help the police. This - I believe - led to him saying things that could be interpreted as signs of culpability, when I believe that they didn't necessarily indicate actual culpability. However, he did say these things, and he also ill-advisedly wrote down lots of musings in his diary which could be adversely interpreted.

In other words, even by the time he sought an attorney, he'd said far too much and been far too "loose" in his communications. And his lawyers would know full well that to put him on the stand would leave him open to having to defend his "confused" (and often contradictory) statements and writings under cross examination. I would imagine that his lawyers correctly deduced that he did not have the mental agility to present a convincing enough case in court, and that therefore his best option was to remain silent and allow his lawyers to attack the evidence. This by no means implies that his lawyers thought he was culpable, by the way. It most likely implies that his lawyers thought he'd dug too deep a hole for himself in the first weeks after the murder.

In addition to all the above, many criminal defence attorneys subscribe to the belief that it's folly to put their clients on the stand in an situation. The rationale for this is mainly that it's not the defence's job to "prove" innocence, and that the jury (judicial panel) already knows that the defendant is denying the offence since he/she has pleaded not guilty (otherwise there would be no trial). So, to many defence attorneys, putting their client on the stand only carries downside risk: juries would expect defendants on the stand to state their innocence, so they would (according to the theory) already have discounted this and would add no "credit" upon hearing it. Whereas any doubts, discrepancies or character defects brought out under cross examination would go straight into the "debit" column against the defendant.

So, even if Sollecito had said nothing that could be construed as contradictory, implicating or self-implicating in the days and weeks following the murder, it's perfectly possible that his lawyers would still have advised him to remain silent in the trial. I believe that his father would also defer to this advice, since he's an establishment figure and would have (I believe) faith in the expertise of the (expensive) lawyers. Incidentally, I wonder if Knox was advised to remain silent on the stand. If she was so advised, then clearly she (or her family) overruled this advice. And if she wasn't so advised, then in my opinion she should have been.

 

[Mary_H]

As part of a wider philosophical discussion, I'd agree with you. But actually, I do think that in the shorter term there's a large responsibility of "caveat emptor" when travelling/working/studying in foreign countries. In other words, it's incumbent upon the visitor to understand - and abide by - local laws, local penalties and local punishments. There is a debate to be had as to whether some countries' justice systems are wrong or immoral, but it's a very difficult debate with few "black" or "white" answers. What for some societies is a just law or a just punishment may be seen by other societies as either too lenient or too strict - we often (but not always) have no "absolute" against which to judge what is right/fair or wrong/unfair.

I agree with you in principle, John, but in this case the argument is irrelevant because Amanda didn't break any laws.

Having said all that, I believe that in this particular case one must operate within the constraints of Italian state justice as it currently stands. Whether there are arguably faults with that system (as there arguably also are with the UK system, the US system, the Saudi system...) is a debate for another time. But I think this is moot: I argue that the convictions of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito may well be unsafe by the current standards of Italian justice. It doesn't require (and shouldn't require) measuring the safety of their convictions against US (or any other) standards.

It should be moot, as you argue, because the convictions should be unsafe. However, the suspects were convicted once already on the basis of complete nonsense, and there is no guarantee it won't happen again.

My intent in bringing up the subject of ethics and morality is to show there are bigger issues to debate here than Italian state justice; in other words, this is not a debate for another time. If Amanda and Raffaele are convicted again on the basis of cronyism, corruption, planted evidence, sleeping judges and the tabloid press, then we will, as a result, be debating the "bigger issues" afterward. Why not debate them now in an attempt to prevent another travesty of justice and a third trial?

 

[Mary_H]

You can have your legal system, your opinion of human rights and morality -inside US. But please admit that other countries have their sovereignty and therefore right of their own legal systems.

My point is that systems can be immoral regardless of whether they are sovereign.

We can live with the complaints of the foreign observers (as vice-versa the US also does) - but would you kindly give a specific link about the complaints of the citizens?

I didn't mean to make a connection between my hypothetical example of complaining citizens and any citizens of Italy. I used the example to show that a country's leaders could ignore even its own citizens if it has the power to do so. You can take that line out of my argument and my point remains.

 

[Mary_H]

Mary, you have highlighted the words * a trap of your own making*. That means Raffaele fell into the trap he made himself. And, are you saying Raffaele is a liar? That when he told the police that's what Amanda said, is not actuallywhat Amanda said? I'm referring here to your answers as to the *c--p* and saying *something stupid*.

Actually, I didn't highlight it, Fine did. She quoted Raffaele as saying: "...they suspect everything, even yourself, and you, not giving it much importance, one day you fall in a trap of your own making (cadi in trappola con le tue stesse mani)...."

When Raffaele says he was caught in a trap of his own making, he doesn't mean he did something wrong. He means something he unwittingly did was used against him.

This comment and the feelings behind it are similar to when Amanda and Raffaele blamed themselves for their troubles by regretting smoking marijuana and regretting caving in to police pressure -- for Raffaele, to accuse Amanda, and for Amanda, to accuse Patrick. They found themselves in a world of hurt and, reluctant or unable to see the roles the cops played in it, they believed they could have avoided it by acting differently. Of course, they could not, because they were powerless and the police were powerful.

We don't know whether Raffaele lied, because we have no transcripts of the interrogations. There is more evidence that Raffaele was confused, agreed with the cops, and then later tried to make sense of what they had told him.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

2. It was an ordinary kitchen knife. It is not compatible with two of the three major wounds.

Does that mean that it is possible, maybe even likely, that more than one weapon was used?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

2. It was an ordinary kitchen knife. It is not compatible with two of the three major wounds.

It only needed to be compatible with one of the major wounds - which it was.

In fact, there was a whole kitchen full of knives at the cottage - none of which were compatible with the wounds.


Damn those little details...

 

[Mary_H]

There is one thing, which is beyond my understanding:

Raffaele Sollecito, at the time of the crime 23 years old, well educated, with well educated and wealthy background, nearly completed computer-ingineer,
is not able stand up in court and declare his innocence and fight for it as a man!!

Instead of doing so he was hiding himself behind his (first-class) lawyers.
And beeing Italian he cannot even claim to be a victim of bias.

Any plausible comments for this?

Raffaele did speak out in court at times to deny what he was being accused of. His lawyers must have some reason for advising him against taking the stand; we just don't know what it is.

Bias doesn't have to be just about one's nationality. Many people on the blogs have shown they are biased against Raffaele because he is well educated, with a wealthy background. Perhaps Mignini was biased against him because he didn't think Raffaele should be dating a non-Italian.

The meaning of being a "man" is different from culture to culture. Statistics show that Italian young men live at home with their parents longer than young men in other First World countries, partly because they are encouraged to do so by their parents, who honor and pamper them. (I am not making this up.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4227675.stm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5761647/
http://www.digitaljournal.com/artic...by_government_to_move_out_of_their_mom_s_home

Also, you may have noticed there is quite a bit of difference between how men in Italy are allowed to express their attraction to women than in most other countries -- wolf whistling and bottom-pinching in public are traditional.

Has the prosecution said anything about Raffaele's silence being "unmanly?"

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

Some posters have claimed that the American consulate observed the trial proceedings and found no fault with them. Others have objected by saying the employee-observers of the consulate were all Italians. I think it is probably a general rule for consulates to assume all is well in their host country and to let justice take its course. In other words, they probably didn't pay much attention to the trial at first.

I posted an article here several days ago about how the U.S. Dept. of Justice likes its cozy relationship with the Italian police, especially the liberal use of wiretapping in Italy, because they share information about organized crime with the U.S. This would be another reason, no doubt among many, to let sleeping dogs lie, as far as court cases are concerned.

Amanda was too young and inexperienced to know to call the Embassy. It probably never occurred to her in a million years that she would be arrested, owing to the fact that she was, of course, innocent.

Unfortunately, the U.S. State Dept. is not all-wise, all-knowing and all-discussing. I have a friend at a very high level there and as of earlier this year, her knowledge of the case was from the news media.

I have seen no evidence that the U.S. Embassy in Italy did anything helpful for Amanda.

When the US.consulate observed the trial proceedings (probably with their Italian staff-members) was this in order of regarding strictly on the legal procedure.

What I would have done as a mother, when recieving an alarming telephone-call from my daughter, a) immediately contact the US embassy or b) order my daughter to do so immediately.
Normally I should given her the adress and telephone-number handy prepared with her passport. (That's what I did, when my daughter traveled to Egypt).

But I seem to remember, that Ms. Mellas declared in an interview not to have involved the US.embassy in order not to worsen the situation of Amanda (?!?)

And the embassy on itself cannot start any actions.

 

[Bob001]

You can have your legal system, your opinion of human rights and morality -inside US. But please admit that other countries have their sovereignty and therefore right of their own legal systems.

We can live with the complaints of the foreign observers (as vice-versa the US also does) - but would you kindly give a specific link about the complaints of the citizens?

This is an incomprehensible post. Do you think any system must be okay if their citizens are living with it? The large majority of governments around the world are authoritarian dictatorships to a greater or lesser degree. When citizens express their displeasure with the government, they go to jail or get killed (for example, the Iranians who protested their government's rigged election). The practices of some Muslim countries are too notorious to recount. Do you think anybody freely voted for these atrocities? If citizens aren't protesting government corruption and tyranny, it's because they value their lives.

http://www.amnesty.org/en

Italy is certainly no dictatorship. In fact, some aspects of its government might create the impression that nobody is in charge. But according to a document posted on this thread, Italy didn't adopt the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" until quite recently. I suspect that the previous guiding principle, "what the government says must be true," still pervades the criminal justice system, particularly when a state prosecutor directs police investigations and calls himself a "judge." When Americans are imprisoned by such a system, it is reasonable for Americans to ask whether the system reached the correct conclusion. Saying "that's just the way they do things" doesn't resolve the question.