Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[pilot padron]

Sure sorry if myself, who although a new member, is much more than 'superficially familiar' with much of what has transpired about the case here and elsewhere has in any way propagated the much mentioned here and understandably despised mole.

Strongly agree dilution of meaningful discourse to 'whack moles' is counter productive, and as you allude and another poster actually characterizes is indeed 'circle like'.

Again I am grateful to be able to participate in this "evidence based community" and am sincerely trying to be as meaningful as well as respectful as it deserves

Although I am familiar with the rather lengthy contemplations of as well as comparisons of foot and toe sizes that consumed so much space here, as I know you know, I took no part in it and certainly did not generate any moles about it

 

[pilot padron]

Look, here's another one. Nineteen judges never did any such thing. The guilters pride themselves on an above-average knowledge of the Italian legal system, and will rapidly correct any misstatements by others about details of how the system works, yet strangely enough they keep getting this one vital detail wrong over and over again.

Two judges unanimously formed the opinion that Amanda and Raffaele were guilty. (One of them was Massei who is manifestly not a very clear thinker). Seventeen judges formed the opinion that there was a prima facie case to answer, which is not even remotely the same thing.

Now why do you think that guilters keep getting this wrong? I put it down to the echo chamber effect - they hear this talking point so often from so many "authoritative" sources that they never stop to think that it could be complete piffle.

Seems we are discussing two different events.
My reference was to the *pre-trial* examination of evidence that concluded trial justified.
Your reference is to the trial itself, which as you say had two judges, and as you correctly *now* state had SIX lay jurors

Your echo chamber and piffle remarks sent me back as a humble newbie to the Forum rules section

PS:
I had never seen a poster here with name 'Michael/Fulcanelli that you allude to.
Guess I must have missed that member name, and might as well also scan the rules for that while I am there

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Seems we are discussing two different events.
My reference was to the *pre-trial* examination of evidence that concluded trial justified.

Let's call it a miscommunication: Your statement that "all 19 judges completed their long investigation of the evidence, and *unanimously* conclude evidence of Amanda's guilt is *overwhelming*" looked very much like a very common guilter mole which we have whacked several times now.

As long as we agree that two judges thought Amanda was guilty and seventeen thought there were grounds for a trial, we are all on the same page.

 

[pilot padron]

Thank you all for the enjoyable exchange of information today.

Gonna sign off for tonight, but fully intend to reply to anything directed specifically to me as soon as I get back.

In regard to earlier 'citation' requested, I have taken time to re-read and study the entire two day testimony of Amanda.
Particular emphasis given to the very lengthy, often rambling/off question and much argumentative exchanges between Amanda, Mignini, Ghirga, and even the Judge about the 'cuffs'

Although I have not yet found the definitive site that confirmed Police Officer's present, I intend to continue searching, and definitely did read it somewhere (other than above slurred 'echo chambers')
If necessary I will certainly humbly have a hearty meal of crow, and express regrets for breach of this 'evidence based community' customs, but we are not *there* (yet).

I might add as an addendum, I am amazed that the poster requesting citation was able to so quickly report back he had searched the entire testimony.
Guess my college speed reading has really deteriorated over the years.

Thanks again, and regards to all

 

[Machiavelli]

Look, here's another one. Nineteen judges never did any such thing. The guilters pride themselves on an above-average knowledge of the Italian legal system, and will rapidly correct any misstatements by others about details of how the system works, yet strangely enough they keep getting this one vital detail wrong over and over again.

Two judges unanimously formed the opinion that Amanda and Raffaele were guilty. (One of them was Massei who is manifestly not a very clear thinker). Seventeen judges formed the opinion that there was a prima facie case to answer, which is not even remotely the same thing.

This is not correct on more than one level.
First, a court of Assise is made of eight judges, not two judges and six assistants. You may not consider them judges, but legally they are.
Second, some previous judges who ruled against Amanda and Raffaele not only did address their case prima facie: albeit their judgement was only provisional to the trial, and they could have done theoretically just a judgment on the case, they also added in their written explanations their opinion that they were certain about Amanda and Raffaele being implicated. They could have sent them to trial on the written statement that they still had doubts, instead they expressed themselves in certain terms.
Third, the previous judges did not just rule only on the fact there was a good case against them, they also ruled to keep them in prison while awaiting trial. The rulings include second - instance judges and a nine judges panel of the supreme court. It is not correct to say that all those judges already declared them guilty, but is is not that common to have all the chain of pre-trial judges in agreement in the Italian system. If all judges rule to keep one in prison - not just to send him to trial - the evidence is serious, cannot be seen as a prima facie assessment to say there is a case.

 

[Malkmus]

A team of people who could blog 24 hours, spreading the fabrications that sow the seeds of doubt in people's minds.

Could you please post links to these blogs you speak of?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

This is a very delicate point and a very probative point of Amanda and Raffaele's guilt in my opinion. In these pages my understanding is the report is talking of the floor in the bathroom. The place where there should be steps and tracks is not referred to as the corridoor, nor the areas where Rudy Guede's tracks are (in fact those are not exactly and not necessarily on the areas that are supposed to have been cleaned). But anyway the bathroom shows the obvious evidence of having been cleaned.

Why would someone clean the bathroom to remove evidence of a murder, but leave blood in the sink, blood in the bidet, blood on the lightswitch, and a bloody mat on the floor? Your conclusion is untenable. The evidence shows that the bathroom was not cleaned. Rather, the murderer used the bathroom to clean himself.

I want to be clear that my understanding is not that the tracs of the murderers were made made "stepping on the pools of blood visible in Meredith's room", or not necessarily.

That is Massei's conclusion, however. Here again is what he wrote:

P. 279 [300]:
Furthermore, the sky-blue bathmat with the print of a bare foot in blood, blood which also was shown to be from the victim, indicates that whoever went into this bathroom was barefoot, and must therefore also have been barefoot in Meredith’s room where she had been repeatedly struck, a room which had great blotches of blood, and in one of these whoever transferred the blood to the bathroom and the sky-blue bathmat must have placed his or her foot, and thus must have been moving about that room with bare feet.

A stepping on blood happened for sure, but could have happened on the soaked towels, that maybe were used to shuffle on the floor towards the bathroom as well as the bathmat, which could have served the same purpose maybe the way back.
The fact is that the evidence shows that an area was necessarily cleaned, and the luminol prints are probably not present yet at the moment of this first cleaning. The phenophtalene test indeed shows an area of smearing of a positive substence in the samll bathroom and luminol shows areas equally positive to a smeared substence, compatible with a cleaning prior to the footprints.
The evidence id probative of a cleanup mainly because the bathroom floor is clean and the carpet is full of stains, including a print with a missing heel. This is probative because shows a cleanup, but doesn't imply a trail of prints.
This conclusion of the report doesn't equate to say the blood was picked up in a pool in Meredith's room and then tracked by trail of steps to the bathroom, and later cleaned.

Once more:

P. 279 [300]:
Furthermore, the sky-blue bathmat with the print of a bare foot in blood, blood which also was shown to be from the victim, indicates that whoever went into this bathroom was barefoot, and must therefore also have been barefoot in Meredith’s room where she had been repeatedly struck, a room which had great blotches of blood, and in one of these whoever transferred the blood to the bathroom and the sky-blue bathmat must have placed his or her foot, and thus must have been moving about that room with bare feet.

I fully agree with you that Massei is an idiot, spewing page after page of desperate conjecture that defies all common sense. But those are his words, unless they have been mis-translated, which I doubt very much given the immense effort that went into the translation.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a tasteless joke is not an antisemitic slur

Mary, as often, you are absolutely correct.

Forgive me if I did not attach the importance to the date Halides cited that you now understandably consider significant.

As I know you are well familiar with, the long and thorough investigation of evidence that takes place under the Italian system *before formal charges are filed* was why I downplay the importance of that date.

I mean, Matthew's fellow employee is under sufficient suspicion of criminal actions that, ....*she is in jail*

Why should 'Matthew' have to wait until all 19 judges completed their long investigation of the evidence, and *unanimously* conclude evidence of Amanda's guilt is *overwhelming* and formal charges with subsequent trial is warranted before 'Matthew' can relate his personal witness of Amanda's anti semitic slur to a reporter interviewing him about her ??

Pilot Padron,

Let us assume that Amanda did say, "My people killed your people," for the sake of argument. This is not an antisemitic slur. I would use that term for a comment that traded in stereotypes, perhaps, but not this remark. It would be a thoughtless remark or a tasteless joke. Sophomoric, yes, but Amanda might have been a sophomore at the time. Always a pleasure to chat with you.

 

[christianahannah]

My guess would be that it had to do with having their perspective impaired as a result of being deeply humiliated. They would not have incurred the wrath of the public, but they may have believed they would incur the ridicule of the public. As we have seen from some of his retaliatory reactions against critics, Mignini is a man with a fragile ego.

Can you give more details on this statement?

By perspective, I mean the ability to see the consequences of certain courses of action. Sometimes when people get scared, they can see only immediate consequences rather than long range results. Mignini did exactly what various churches have done in response to complaints of clergy sex abuse. He denied what happened, then blamed the victims and used extreme methods to cover it up, mistakenly believing he could keep it covered up forever.

Are you speaking of Amanda and Raffaele's case? Can you be more specific?

In answer to your question, I think the profit or reward for authorities was simply avoiding admitting they were wrong.

I honestly don't believe avoidance of responsibility (admitting one is wrong) or fear of humiliation pushed the decision to continue a case against Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Pilot Padron,

Let us assume that Amanda did say, "My people killed your people," for the sake of argument. This is not an antisemitic slur. I would use that term for a comment that traded in stereotypes, perhaps, but not this remark. It would be a thoughtless remark or a tasteless joke. Sophomoric, yes, but Amanda might have been a sophomore at the time. Always a pleasure to chat with you.

It would have been a crass and offensive comment, if she really said it.

Amanda grew up in a world where Jews are not perceived as different from anyone else. The result is that young people make flippant comments without understanding how profoundly offensive they are. I had a discussion of the youtube drinking video where someone (not Amanda) refers to one of his friends as a "dirty Jew." It's not ok to talk like that, in any context. These kids don't necessarily understand the power of words. But the target of the comment in the video testified as a character witness for Amanda at the trial, so I don't think he regards her as antisemitic.

 

[Mary_H]

Mary, as often, you are absolutely correct.

"Often?"

Forgive me if I did not attach the importance to the date Halides cited that you now understandably consider significant.

As I know you are well familiar with, the long and thorough investigation of evidence that takes place under the Italian system *before formal charges are filed* was why I downplay the importance of that date.

I mean, Matthew's fellow employee is under sufficient suspicion of criminal actions that, ....*she is in jail*

Why should 'Matthew' have to wait until all 19 judges completed their long investigation of the evidence, and *unanimously* conclude evidence of Amanda's guilt is *overwhelming* and formal charges with subsequent trial is warranted before 'Matthew' can relate his personal witness of Amanda's anti semitic slur to a reporter interviewing him about her ??

You have a point, although I'm not sure it's the one we were discussing. halides1 commented that, "It is enlightening when all of a reporters errors fall in one direction..." I didn't make my point explicit, but I intended to convey that it's one thing to represent a limited point of view, but it's another to do it with fiction as opposed to facts.

You're right, it's fair for Matthew to have told his little story, and it's fair for Mudede to have supposedly quoted him, because Mudede also included a few positive comments about Amanda, for example, "'Her world,' said one of Amanda's friends, Andrew, to the TV, 'revolves around making people feel good and making people feel happy.'" Apart from his anonymity, however, there are a few other details that could raise questions about Matthew's words, if we wanted, or needed, to go there.

For one thing, Mudede perhaps falsely lends Matthew increased credibility by telling us he has known him for years, whereas all the positive remarks he quoted from Amanda's friends and family were only heard on TV. He hastens to mention, of course, that, "[Matthew] remembered me before I remembered him," the author thus setting himself apart from all the predatory reporters who had gone before him at the same bar -- as if he weren't there looking for an inside story. Mudede then heightens our interest with the phrase, "...Matthew said, leaning toward me," because it suggests intimacy, like we're in on a secret, which to some people's minds might make what he says seem "more true."

On the other hand, Matthew says he has been on the wagon for a while. Does that mean he was drinking during the period he worked with Amanda? How reliable is his memory about those days? How reliable is Mudede's memory, for that matter, given that he has shared, "It's a wonder I'm not serving (have never served) time for one of those bad nights that spun way out of control—Who are these people? What is in my hands? What did I just smoke? Did I have sex with her? Why is that policeman looking at me? Will this high ever end?"

Oh, but wait. Maybe he wrote that to let us know he "gets" what can happen when you're stoned out of your mind -- maybe even murder. Hey, Mudede isn't judging, he relating!

But anyway. We don't need to go there, do we? The "anti-Semitic remark" is just one morsel from the tiny little cache of cherry-picked character assassinations the colpevolisti keep in their back pockets in place of evidence.

 

[christianahannah]

It would have been a crass and offensive comment, if she really said it.

Amanda grew up in a world where Jews are not perceived as different from anyone else. The result is that young people make flippant comments without understanding how profoundly offensive they are. I had a discussion of the youtube drinking video where someone (not Amanda) refers to one of his friends as a "dirty Jew." It's not ok to talk like that, in any context. These kids don't necessarily understand the power of words. But the target of the comment in the video testified as a character witness for Amanda at the trial, so I don't think he regards her as antisemitic.

Charlie I agree. When people make stupid comments it is usually because there is not much thought (or no thought) of how that comment sounds or the implication of what that comment means. We've all made inappropriate or stupid comments, the exception is we haven't had the scrutiny applied to our every word or action as Amanda has.

 

[pilot padron]

Pilot Padron,

Let us assume that Amanda did say, "My people killed your people," for the sake of argument. This is not an antisemitic slur. I would use that term for a comment that traded in stereotypes, perhaps, but not this remark. It would be a thoughtless remark or a tasteless joke. Sophomoric, yes, but Amanda might have been a sophomore at the time. Always a pleasure to chat with you.

Again, I accept your well supported conclusion that indeed it probably much more accurately does qualify as a tasteless remark, understandably uttered by any young 'un (sp).

With due humility I also admit that yes, I did fall into the trap of just swallowing an oft repeated, but not nearly as supported as yours, conclusion 'of others' about the anti semitic content of that particular phraseology.
(but may I also add, not just from an 'echo chamber').

"Matthew" however, seemed to be definitely enamored with the opinion that I now abandon, based on his subsequent 'less than flattering' evaluation of Amanda's personality as a fellow employee based on hearing her say that.

Additionally, may I reference the video that is widely available showing Amanda certainly 'a bit under the weather' (another young 'un understandable tendency) that unmistakably shows another party person uttering an unequivocally anti semitic slur. **

This, IMHO, seemingly, and regrettably despicable remark, is fully accepted, in my *opinion* evidenced by the silent acquiescent attitude and audible laughter from all those in close proximity, including Amanda.
This again *could* easily be interpreted as agreement, or at least lack of any suitable and expected offense that all of us would hope be immediately forthcoming.

**(Very minor consideration that I include in our discussion here only because it seems to also get undue emphasis and completes our 'touching of all the bases' on this particular point)

PS
I followed and appreciated Austrian War Museum discussion here recently that also touched on and clarified parts of this peripheral. probably inconsequential, but much noted topic

Edited to add after seeing Mary's thoughts; that I hasten to agree with her also, and do not consider anything said above in conflict with her well chosen words.
Heartily agree that 'character assassinations' alone do not murderers make, nor based on the additional facts you cite does previous addictive behavior a witness disqualify.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

This is not correct on more than one level.
First, a court of Assise is made of eight judges, not two judges and six assistants. You may not consider them judges, but legally they are.

Indeed, however referring to them as "judges" is potentially misleading in an English-speaking forum where most people's idea of what a judge is comes exclusively from the English adversarial system where judges are the senior lawyers in charge of a courtroom.

If you referred to the lay judges as "jurors" there would be no potential for confusion.

Second, some previous judges who ruled against Amanda and Raffaele not only did address their case prima facie: albeit their judgement was only provisional to the trial, and they could have done theoretically just a judgment on the case, they also added in their written explanations their opinion that they were certain about Amanda and Raffaele being implicated.

There is a vast gulf between being certain someone is implicated and certain someone is guilty, especially when that certainty is based in part on police claims which turned out to be false.

Third, the previous judges did not just rule only on the fact there was a good case against them, they also ruled to keep them in prison while awaiting trial.

Yet again there is a vast gulf between deciding for whatever reason that a person should await trial in jail and deciding that they are guilty.

The guilter refrain that nineteen judges found them guilty is factually incorrect and could be construed as deliberately misleading, and I think we all agree on that.

 

[Mary_H]

Mary: As we have seen from some of his retaliatory reactions against critics, Mignini is a man with a fragile ego.

christianahannah: Can you give more details on this statement?

This page from Injustice in Perugia gives details of the many people Mignini has sued, taken action against or illegally investigated, most only for disagreeing with him.

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

Moreover, Mignini's case is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, yet he pursues a longer sentence and solitary confinement for Amanda. It is done out of spite and misplaced resentment, because he feels affronted.

Mary: He denied what happened, then blamed the victims and used extreme methods to cover it up, mistakenly believing he could keep it covered

christianahannah: Are you speaking of Amanda and Raffaele's case? Can you be more specific?

Yes, I am speaking of Amanda and Raffaele's case. When I say he denied what happened, I mean he denied he had made a mistake by not admitting his mistake and accepting responsibility for it. When I say extreme methods to cover up his mistake, I mean he carried through with prosecuting Amanda and Raffaele, gratuitously assassinated their character in the international media, and fabricated evidence against them.

christianahannah:I honestly don't believe avoidance of responsibility (admitting one is wrong) or fear of humiliation pushed the decision to continue a case against Amanda and Raffaele.

That's fine with me. What do you think was the cause?

Personally, I see many examples of irresponsibility, blame and buck-passing. Allowing observers to believe Amanda is liable for the accusation, arrest and imprisonment of Patrick Lumumba is among the most egregious and offensive. Allowing Amanda and Raffaele to work in good faith with the police during the investigation and then turning on them without warning or access to counsel was a hideous betrayal. "We were just following orders," is written all over this debacle.

 

[Trigood]

Trigood, I said that Massei distorted what Ronchi said. Therefore, quoting Massei as evidence that Massei didn't distort what Ronchi said doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Point taken, however, that I didn't quote from a source in my post. It's mentioned in Raffaele's appeal:



It then goes on to quote Ronchi ("taking into account that ligatures were not put in place"/"tenuto conto che non sono state messe le legature") and then points out that the autopsy film showed that ligatures were made correctly:




After you've finished with the Massei report, I'd recommend reading the appeals as well; parts are quite eye-opening.

Katy.

Thanks for the quotes, I assume they are all from Raffaele's appeal.

Can you provide a link to the appeals texts, both Raffaele's and Amanda's, please? In English if possible but in Italian if that is all that's available.

More later.

 

[pilot padron]

The guilter refrain that nineteen judges found them guilty is factually incorrect and could be construed as deliberately misleading, and I think we all agree on that.

OK; would this be more accurate:

"All the pre trial judges based on their rather lengthy *independent analysis* stated that the evidence of guilt was 'overwhelming' enough to bring formal charges and subsequent trial."

At the trial, then again after lengthy deliberations, all 8 persons 'qualified and authorize to vote' (or whatever semantics please you), *unanimously* found them guilty.

Not really understanding how that carefully parsed seemingly nit picking distinction as I have constructed adds much to your case or even the discussion in general.

With required respect........
All maybe except one humble rule abiding, grateful 'newbee' might construe the '19' refrain as '*deliberately* misleading

 

[HumanityBlues]

OK; would this be more accurate:

"All the pre trial judges based on their rather lengthy *independent analysis* stated that the evidence of guilt was 'overwhelming' enough to bring formal charges and subsequent trial."

At the trial, then again after lengthy deliberations, all 8 persons 'qualified and authorize to vote' (or whatever semantics please you), *unanimously* found them guilty.

Not really understanding how that carefully parsed seemingly nit picking distinction as I have constructed adds much to your case or even the discussion in general.

With required respect........
All maybe except one humble rule abiding, grateful 'newbee' might construe the '19' refrain as '*deliberately* misleading

I think what Machiavelli is saying is that the judges who weighed the earlier evidence made declarative statements about the initial evidence put forth and made judgments on the strength of that evidence to proclaim actual guilt or innocence rather than judgments simply based on the need for a trial.

This is probably a lot different than how it works in the United States where a judge or grand jury must determine whether there is probable cause to go forward to a trial. Incidentally, that same judge in the US will preside over the trial as well, but is not a fact finder like in the Italian system.

Regardless I think Kevin Lowe's statement is valid about the strength of the earlier judges' rulings as not being strong indictment to pointing out guilt. The simple fact of the matter is that in the preliminary stages there had not yet been a trial even if there were other formal proceedings.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>
Amanda grew up in a world where Jews are not perceived as different from anyone else. The result is that young people make flippant comments without understanding how profoundly offensive they are. I had a discussion of the youtube drinking video where someone (not Amanda) refers to one of his friends as a "dirty Jew." It's not ok to talk like that, in any context. These kids don't necessarily understand the power of words. But the target of the comment in the video testified as a character witness for Amanda at the trial, so I don't think he regards her as antisemitic.

pilot padron wrote: This, IMHO, seemingly, and regrettably despicable remark, is fully accepted, in my *opinion* evidenced by the silent acquiescent attitude and audible laughter from all those in close proximity, including Amanda.
This again *could* easily be interpreted as agreement, or at least lack of any suitable and expected offense that all of us would hope be immediately forthcoming.

It is true that Amanda most likely does not think of Jewish people as a downtrodden minority. Once a minority group is secure in a position of power in society, facetious references to former prejudices are not intended to hurt, they are intended to show that the person speaking them understands they are prejudicial and discriminatory -- the message is, "Isn't it shocking, what people used to get away with saying?" It's parody, and as halides1 pointed out, it is common among college kids.

Some lines from The Godfather:

Jack Woltz: "Johnny Fontane will never get that movie. I don't care how many dago, wop, guinea, greaseball goombahs come out of the woodwork."
Tom Hagen: "I'm German-Irish."
Woltz: "Well, let me tell you something, my kraut mick friend. I'm gonna make so much trouble for you you won't know what hit you."

This scene is very funny to mimic, because the epithets are so "out there" in terms of modern American society, where Italians, Germans and Irish no longer have to fear oppression because of their ethnicity. I'm pretty sure Amanda feels the same way about Jews.

 

[pilot padron]

"Often?"

But anyway. We don't need to go there, do we? The "anti-Semitic remark" is just one morsel from the tiny little cache of cherry-picked character assassinations the colpevolisti keep in their back pockets in place of evidence.

Mary, your concluding paragraph really ever so concisely summarizes the whole debate between colpevolsti and innocence believers
(my speed reading Instructor said always read last paragraph)

The colpevolsti actually believe that when a person becomes familiar with *all* facets of the case, i.e alibis, evidence both forensic and circumstantial, Judges Motivations for their verdict, as well as propensity to commit, based on past actions of defendants, theories, re-creations, and on and on, ad infinitum, the need for 'character assassination' becomes unnecessary, and actually more suited as tabloid fodder than anything valuable in determination of guilt.

Those believing innocence have widely divergent views (often well supported, presented, and researched) about any and all of the above factors.