Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
katy_did said:
Didn't Quintavalle himself state that he first recognized the girl in the shop when he saw Amanda's picture in the paper (presumably before he was questioned by the police)? I did a quick search and came up with this, just a newspaper report I'm afraid, though I'm sure I've seen it elsewhere:



If that's the case, Thoughtful's scenario doesn't work, since Quintavalle says he had already recognized the girl as Amanda before he was questioned. It's also striking that in order to make Quintavalle's testimony appear remotely credible, all these explanations have to be found for it which don't actually have any basis other than speculation - all Quintavalle himself said is that he wasn't asked about Amanda, he makes no claims about not having realized it was her until later. As Rose said, it's certainly in line with Massei's general approach, anyway...
Click to expand...


as though she would have been buying bleach when Raffaele, IIRC, had 2 full bottles at his apartment. I mean that's just what you want to do when about to clean up a crime scene, buy some bleach at the only shop in town that's open.
 
The name of the person on the train never made it onto the list Amanda wrote of her sexual partners.
Click to expand...

Maybe she didnt know his name? Maybe she was embarrased to put "some strange guy on a train"? Also, how do you know one of the names wasn't his?

I seem to recall that her sister referred to the train remark as a joke, and I see no reason to assume otherwise.
Click to expand...

I remember her sister did say that, but it made no sense. She claimed it was a joke because Italian men stared at you a lot more than American men. I don't get the joke, and apparently whomever she wrote it to didn't take it as a joke. I don't know if she slept with him or not, but it seems more of a stretch to assume that she was "joking" than to assume she meant exactly what she said, which was that she slept with a stranger on a train.

I spoke with a female colleague of mine, whose students confide in her about their personal lives. She did not think that the number of Amanda's lifetime sexual partners, seven, was remarkable, relative to her peer group.
Click to expand...

I agree with this 100 percent, I don't think it's any different or worse than any other girl her age.
 
Withnail1969 said:
as though she would have been buying bleach when Raffaele, IIRC, had 2 full bottles at his apartment. I mean that's just what you want to do when about to clean up a crime scene, buy some bleach at the only shop in town that's open.
Click to expand...

Or in this case, go to the only shop that's open, linger in the cleaning products aisle for a while, then leave without buying anything. What, was she looking for a particular brand? ("For all your crime scene cleaning needs, only buy...")
 
Last edited:
katy_did said:
Or in this case, go to the only shop that's open, linger in the cleaning products aisle for a while, then leave without buying anything. What, was she looking for a particular brand?
Click to expand...

Not only that, but by this point they were running perilously short of time for any alleged cleanup, assuming they hadn't even started it yet.
 
Solange305 said:
Ok, Ill admit, I don't get this one either LondonJohn. Is this from another Shakespeare-quality show that aired before I was born?
Click to expand...

Ah yeah sorry, it's a reference to a judge's remark about the wife of the well-known British ex-politician and author Jeffrey Archer, which is now used extensively in the British satirical magazine "Private Eye". It's used as shorthand for describing middle-aged women, and is endearing as much as it is insulting. It was an adjective which sprung to mind, but I hadn't stopped to think how many people might have got it. Although, in this case, it's probably because I didn't think it would matter either way.......
 
Withnail1969 said:
Tennessee, Kentucky, places like that.

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Click to expand...


Do you think that hearing a scream somewhere outside where you live satisfies this requirement?

Can you offer an example of a prosecution based on such a circumstance?

There's much more to it than that, but the impression you seemed to be trying to give by your post is still very misleading.

Here's a short discussion on the topic. A couple of relevant excerpts.

Under the federal statute, the prosecution must prove the following elements to obtain a misprision of felony conviction: (1) another person actually committed a felony; (2) the defendant knew that the felony was committed; (3) the defendant did not notify any law enforcement or judicial officer; and (4) the defendant took affirmative steps to conceal the felony. Precisely what constitutes active concealment is a Question of Fact that depends on the circumstances of the case. Lying to a police officer satisfies the requirement, but beyond that generally accepted rule, little is certain about the definition of active concealment.
Click to expand...

Almost every state has rejected the crime of misprision of felony. Thus, persons are under no duty to report a crime. One policy reason for rejecting misprision is that the crime is vague and difficult to apply to real situations. Another reason is that the crime is seen as an unacceptable encroachment on civil freedom.
Click to expand...

The federal misprision of felony statute remains on the books, but the crime rarely has been prosecuted. On the state level, most states have either abolished or refused to enact misprision of felony laws. South Carolina is the only state that has prosecuted the misprision of a felony.
Click to expand...

Now tell me again. Which states would someone be facing jail time in for not reporting that they heard a scream?

Please offer some cites.
 
Under the federal statute, the prosecution must prove the following elements to obtain a misprision of felony conviction: (1) another person actually committed a felony; (2) the defendant knew that the felony was committed; (3) the defendant did not notify any law enforcement or judicial officer; and (4) the defendant took affirmative steps to conceal the felony. Precisely what constitutes active concealment is a Question of Fact that depends on the circumstances of the case. Lying to a police officer satisfies the requirement, but beyond that generally accepted rule, little is certain about the definition of active concealment.

In my view Nara hits positive on numbers 1 to 4, your view may differ.
 
Withnail1969 said:
Not only that, but by this point they were running perilously short of time for any alleged cleanup, assuming they hadn't even started it yet.
Click to expand...
She was reported to have been waiting outside the store at 7:45 when the owner opened; I believe they knew they had several hours at least until either roommate returned. It was a holiday weekend and they were aware of that.
 
quadraginta said:
Do you think that hearing a scream somewhere outside where you live satisfies this requirement?

Can you offer an example of a prosecution based on such a circumstance?

There's much more to it than that, but the impression you seemed to be trying to give by your post is still very misleading.

Here's a short discussion on the topic. A couple of relevant excerpts.

Now tell me again. Which states would someone be facing jail time in for not reporting that they heard a scream?

Please offer some cites.
Click to expand...

I happen to agree with you that it would be unlikely that anyone would be prosecuted for hearing a scream - even a "scream of death" - anywhere in the US or Europe. But since this is merely a discussion on a hypothetical point which actually has practically no relevance to the case, I'm surprised you've chosen this to focus in on.

Instead, why do you think that Nara Capezzali didn't report this "scream of death" to the police at ANY point, preferring instead to recount her story in an Italian TV interview?
 
Withnail1969 said:
Under the federal statute, the prosecution must prove the following elements to obtain a misprision of felony conviction: (1) another person actually committed a felony; (2) the defendant knew that the felony was committed; (3) the defendant did not notify any law enforcement or judicial officer; and (4) the defendant took affirmative steps to conceal the felony. Precisely what constitutes active concealment is a Question of Fact that depends on the circumstances of the case. Lying to a police officer satisfies the requirement, but beyond that generally accepted rule, little is certain about the definition of active concealment.

In my view Nara hits positive on numbers 1 to 4, your view may differ.
Click to expand...


You're right. They do.

I'm guessing you have no examples to offer of a prosecution based on similar circumstances.

Even one would be a good start.
 
false confessions citation

Rose,

I have just started to read, "The Substance of False Confessions" by
Brandon L. Garrett, which was published in the Stanford Law Review. Thank you for this citation. There is much food for sober thought in this article, particularly beginning around page 48.
 
loverofzion said:
She was reported to have been waiting outside the store at 7:45 when the owner opened; I believe they knew they had several hours at least until either roommate returned. It was a holiday weekend and they were aware of that.
Click to expand...

Yes, because waiting for a store to open to buy bleach very early in the morning is a great way to avoid attracting any attention when cleaning up a crime scene, especially when you already have 2 bottles of bleach.
 
loverofzion said:
She was reported to have been waiting outside the store at 7:45 when the owner opened; I believe they knew they had several hours at least until either roommate returned. It was a holiday weekend and they were aware of that.
Click to expand...

Knox may have known that Laura was well out of town, but did she know what Filomena's planned movements were for the morning of the 2nd November? I don't think so. Why might Knox not have thought that Filomena could return to the house at any time that morning?
 
Originally Posted by RoseMontague
It seems that Amanda, Laura, and Meredith all had male company stay over at some point. I am not sure what is the issue here unless the bed squeaks were keeping Nara up at night.
Click to expand...

katy_did said:
:D:D:D

Last edited by katy_did; Today at 12:30 PM. Reason: Decided it was so funny it needed an extra laughing emoticon.
Click to expand...


I agree. :D
 
quadraginta said:
You're right. They do.

I'm guessing you have no examples to offer of a prosecution based on similar circumstances.

Even one would be a good start.
Click to expand...

i don't need to. we're not discussing American law. i simply said that in some jurisdictions Nara's actions could be interpreted as criminal, which in the US they arguably were, given the federal law you quoted, regardless of whether it is currently enforced or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom