Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Supernaut]

"Calunnia"

"New Yorker" at Perugia Shock crystallised something rather well yesterday;

"In the United States of America no person can be imprisoned for defamation. Defamation is considered a civil wrong, not a criminal wrong, so no person can lose his or her liberty for defamation. In the United States, a person testifying in court has complete immunity from any claim of defamation. This policy of immunity is intended to ensure that a witness or defendant feels free to tell the judge and jury his or her side of the story without fear of repercussions. The wisdom of such laws can be seen in the Knox case, where poor Amanda was damned if she testified and damned if she didn't.

Such circumstances in Italy can seriously interfere with the willingness of witnesses to come forward. No one wants to risk prison time simply to be a witness to help the police with something that does not necessarily involve them. Italy needs to change its laws so that witnesses will feel free to come forward to provide testimony about crimes and other wrongs they might know about. "

The statutes of "calunnia" amount to a lock-down on dissent from both outside and within the judiciary and police in Italy.

The more one thinks about it, the more anachronistic and bizarre it becomes.

 

[RoseMontague]

Thanks for the heads up, RoseMontague!

I like how strong and straightforward Waterbury is in his conclusions.
We're often delving in details quite peripheral to the case. Stepping back and looking on the entirety is very needed. It restores proportions and brings back reason and common sense.

While catching up I noticed that the first part you posted got by very quietly and without discussion.
So was the Quintavalle post of yours, in my opinion another strong blow to his (long nonexistent) credibility. It's interesting that the colpevolisti apparently dropped Quintavalle and are not willing to defend him anymore. Looks like they are gradually stepping away from the Massei narrative, as it dawns on them how indefensible it is.

As for the fake break-in both Waterbury and Hendry noticed how central it is to the whole prosecution case. It truly is a cornerstone, a foundation without which it all falls apart. It's astonishing how speculative the arguments backing the fake break-in are, and how much mental gymnastics Massei needed to go through to stabilize that flimsy basis for his verdict.

Thank you Katody, I was starting to think a lot of folks have me on ignore either because of my disagreeable nature or the fact I suspended myself for 3 days. LOL.

The "shutter opening tool" in Part I is pretty funny, in my opinion, Dr. Waterbury nails it down with an iron nail. I would like to bring up again just a few quotes from the various reports regarding the shutters, just to point out that believing the shutters were tightly closed takes a real leap of imagination.

RS appeal:

The sentence, in fact, started from a false certainty that that the
Romanelli, 1 November, when leaving his home, while not
closed the shutters, but had put together.
In this connection, the same Romanelli hearing on February 7, 2009, has
confirmed the statements made to investigators on December 3, 2007 (p. 115
transcripts) that would leave open one of the two shutters.

Massei report:

Filomena Romanelli stated (cf. declarations at the hearing of February 7, 2009) that when she left the house in via della Pergola 7 on the afternoon of November 1, 2007 she had closed the shutters of her window (p. 68); she had pulled them in (p. 95); "the wood was slightly swelled, so they rubbed against the windowsill" (p. 26), adding that "it was an old window...the wood rubbed". And on the day she went away, she recalled "having closed them because I knew that I would be away for a couple of days" (p. 96). She later added, when noting what she had declared on December 3, 2007, that "I had pulled the shutters together, but I don't think I closed them tight" (p. 115).

Micheli report:

R. argued that there were certainly valuable items, including a laptop, a pair of sunglasses and some gold jewelry, stored in a drawer: a look surface, it seemed that nothing was missing, except perhaps some article makeup.As for the window, remember to have certainly closed the windows, but probably leaving the shutters open: the shutters, but can not be hundred percent sure, without thought of them still closed both since left the tax met resistance on the sill due to a swelling of the wood. His memory was no longer accurate, since it considered to have certainly opened the shutters in the morning needing light to change (while not having stayed home, but with your boyfriend, had moved from there and reached the A. who was celebrating his birthday), but was then removed in a hurry because he was already late.

 

[Machiavelli]

If you are accusing me of choosing not to search for or read relevant literature, then I think you owe it to us all and to yourself to back that accusation up or retract it and apologise.

I think you owe an apology to Meredith and to yourself for having denied an offence to her name by denying the obvious Raffaele's lie. In regard to literature search I am not accusing you of being disingenuous, I am accusing you of a lack of intellectual humilty. I think you are in good faith in your choice among what to research, I don't think there is a conscious aim to deceive in your assessmnt on what topic to research among the pertaining scientific literature, nonetheless your choice on what to read and search and what to consider pertinent, is a choice. Not all scientists would agree with your choice.

 

[RoseMontague]

"New Yorker" at Perugia Shock crystallised something rather well yesterday;

"In the United States of America no person can be imprisoned for defamation. Defamation is considered a civil wrong, not a criminal wrong, so no person can lose his or her liberty for defamation. In the United States, a person testifying in court has complete immunity from any claim of defamation. This policy of immunity is intended to ensure that a witness or defendant feels free to tell the judge and jury his or her side of the story without fear of repercussions. The wisdom of such laws can be seen in the Knox case, where poor Amanda was damned if she testified and damned if she didn't.

Such circumstances in Italy can seriously interfere with the willingness of witnesses to come forward. No one wants to risk prison time simply to be a witness to help the police with something that does not necessarily involve them. Italy needs to change its laws so that witnesses will feel free to come forward to provide testimony about crimes and other wrongs they might know about. "

The statutes of "calunia" amount to a lock-down on dissent from both outside and within the judiciary and police in Italy.

The more one thinks about it, the more anachronistic and bizarre it becomes.

It does seem to me very strange that Amanda can be prosecuted and have 2 more years added to her jail time because of this. I see something like this and I would have to ask of the people in Italy if they really think this law is a good one or a bad one to have. Are the police immune from even being accused of wrong doing in this regard simply because there are no impartial witnesses or audio/video evidence? This would seem to me to give the police a free pass to pretty much do anything they want on any interrogation they don't record because the alleged victim of any questionable police action during the interrogation will be afraid to speak out for fear of what Amanda is going through now.

 

[Machiavelli]

Bacci got it wrong, as we demonstrated by citing the statements of the relevant witnesses and verifying the length of time it takes to watch The Notebook. That is schoolchild-level maths, not a matter of opinion.

Well, I think it's not schoolchild-level maths, I think you need some medical culture or assessment to make equivalences and state definition, and I think you don't have the statements of the relevant witnsses. Moreover, for sure you don't have all statements of relevant witnesses.

P.S. I recall, as a reminder, that my opinion is that the murder more likely took place at 22:00 and not at 23:30, thus I am not exaclty a supporter of the court's reconstruction. But I don't have definitive arguments to place the time of death anywhere with a 30-minutes error based on the state of digestion in this case.

 

[RoseMontague]

I think you owe an apology to Meredith and to yourself for having denied an offence to her name by denying the obvious Raffaele's lie. In regard to literature search I am not accusing you of being disingenuous, I am accusing you of a lack of intellectual humilty. I think you are in good faith in your choice among what to research, I don't think there is a conscious aim to deceive in your assessmnt on what topic to research among the pertaining scientific literature, nonetheless your choice on what to read and search and what to consider pertinent, is a choice. Not all scientists would agree with your choice.

My opinion on who the prickee is on this issue is different than Kevin's. I don't think he needs to apologize for having a different opinion or interpretation of what Raffaele said. I understand you respect Meredith and defend her reputation and I agree with that, but asking Kevin to apologize seems silly to me.

 

[christianahannah]

"New Yorker" at Perugia Shock crystallised something rather well yesterday;

"In the United States of America no person can be imprisoned for defamation. Defamation is considered a civil wrong, not a criminal wrong, so no person can lose his or her liberty for defamation. In the United States, a person testifying in court has complete immunity from any claim of defamation. This policy of immunity is intended to ensure that a witness or defendant feels free to tell the judge and jury his or her side of the story without fear of repercussions. The wisdom of such laws can be seen in the Knox case, where poor Amanda was damned if she testified and damned if she didn't.

Such circumstances in Italy can seriously interfere with the willingness of witnesses to come forward. No one wants to risk prison time simply to be a witness to help the police with something that does not necessarily involve them. Italy needs to change its laws so that witnesses will feel free to come forward to provide testimony about crimes and other wrongs they might know about. "

The statutes of "calunia" amount to a lock-down on dissent from both outside and within the judiciary and police in Italy.

The more one thinks about it, the more anachronistic and bizarre it becomes.

I don't think the statutes of calunia have kept witnesses away from Amanda's side. Many are speaking out in favor for her (both in and out of Italy), especially recently.

 

[Machiavelli]

This seems to me the 'they have information we don't' argument again. We do know that both Sophie and Amy said they ate around 6PM. We also know that it is the start of the meal that is important in starting the measurement on the stomach contents.

For example, Robin and Sophie rendered three accounts each to the police in the previous days of investigation, containing variations on timings, corrections and caveats on their memories. You may research that the starting of meal is important to start the measurement of fime in stomach content, but may well do a research and find out that the subsequent assuption of food, or subsequent assumption of alcohol, is also important in its ability to influence the timings of stomach emptying.
But the main aspect in the they have more information argument, is that the information on the case doesn't consist in an assessment on the time of death and does not onsist in stomach emptying. They have more information because they have more information on the case.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

LinkedIn

Malkmus, the statement by Candace is crazy, it's lunar. It's a strange thing to lie about, but the whole Candace's book and blog and career are strange things, I've never said Candace is not strange. I wonder why she falsified her bio to cut 20 years off her age, and when she was discovered she claimed it was a typo, repeating in two diffeent texts. There is no reason to lie on this, but she gave false information on this unrelated detail. Giacomo is native from Marche and speaks Itlian with an unmistakable Marche accent that you may not confuse with a Calabrian accent, he has this cute pattern of speech that resembles more Spanish than Calabrian, and I also told Candace about his. I am talking of people whom I listened to, I recognize his voice. Giulia Bongiorno has a definite southern accent, and sometimes she used some peculiarities of language use that determined very intresting situations in cross-questioning witnesses.

Machiavelli,

Candace mistyped the years that she attended the University of Oregon on her LinkedIn page. IIRC, she typed 1995-1997 when she meant to type 1975-1977. Peggy Ganong pointed this out. Could this be the genesis of the false claim that Candace shaved 20 years off her age? Frank Sfarzo asked Candace what Giacomo said when he testified, so it seems as if some people did have problems comprehending him.

 

[Machiavelli]

I understand you respect Meredith and defend her reputation and I agree with that, but asking Kevin to apologize seems silly to me.

What about Kevin's request to apologize?

 

[Machiavelli]

Candace mistyped the years that she attended the University of Oregon on her LinkedIn page. IIRC, she typed 1995-1997 when she meant to type 1975-1977. Peggy Ganong pointed this out. Could this be the genesis of the false claim that Candace shaved 20 years off her age? Frank Sfarzo asked Candace what Giacomo said when he testified, so it seems as if some people did have problems comprehending him.

What is the meaning of this comment? Are you bringing arguments in favour of Candace Dempsey's reliability and ethics? And do you really think Candace said anything truthful about her understanding of Giacomo Silenzi? Somebody had problems in understanding some of his expressions indeed, but nobody could ever ask for a help in this from Candace. Do you think I am telling lies to you? I have no reason to make up anything. If you want to believe Candace in her claims (or Frank), my advice will be the same: it's your buiseness, it's up to you.

 

[Supernaut]

It does seem to me very strange that Amanda can be prosecuted and have 2 more years added to her jail time because of this. I see something like this and I would have to ask of the people in Italy if they really think this law is a good one or a bad one to have. Are the police immune from even being accused of wrong doing in this regard simply because there are no impartial witnesses or audio/video evidence? This would seem to me to give the police a free pass to pretty much do anything they want on any interrogation they don't record because the alleged victim of any questionable police action during the interrogation will be afraid to speak out for fear of what Amanda is going through now.

Given the circumstances of Amanda's prosecution for "calunnia" - which amounts to a case of her word against theirs - then the answer would seem to be yes.

I wonder if jail terms are handed down in civil defamation cases? That would be extraordinary, but nothing much would surprise me about Italian law these days (I once commented about the peculiar lack of disctinction betweem criminal and civil law there)

Assuming jail terms are only handed down in cases of "calunnia" against state authority or representitives, then it is indeed something straight out of the middle-ages, and ripe for abuse at any time by individuals like Miginini and Commodi.

 

[RoseMontague]

What about Kevin's request to apologize?

In my opinion, silly as well. I think you are both sincere in your opinions on this.

 

[Supernaut]

I wonder if jail terms are handed down in civil defamation cases?

I can't get over how strange it feels just typing that!

 

[Mary_H]

It has already been proved that your belief on in "information leaked in order to shape puiblic opinion" is false. I showed how your ideas for example on HIV test had no basis in reality. You don't acknowledge the truth, that nothing indicates that anything was done by the prosecution "to shape public opinion", you use this as an argument in order to support other false arguments, and the seme other fale argument in order to support this one, in a circular system.

Say what? You showed how my ideas on the HIV test had no basis in reality? Where was I when this was going on?

You might believe you are correct, Machiavelli, but I don't think you are ever going to get anyone, even the most fervent colpevolisto, to agree with you when you something like this: "The publication of that diary is quite the consequence she wrote that one and not a different text."

Or this: "No, she leaked it herself, by writing it in her prison diary."

Your peculiar perceptions about personal responsibility often remind me of certain prosecutors and police officers I have heard about. It's frightening that both you and they seem to believe that authorities should have unlimited rights and are never at fault.

Question: What is missing in the following statements of yours?

"Anything a person in cautional custody does or keeps in their cell is not private."

"That the list found its way into Italian media because it was part of a text in a diary speaking about her case, and everything like a diary written by a person in custody and under investigation in Italy always would find the way to the media. This is the rule, it is structural, with guilty, with innocents, this is just a factual media priviledge in investigations, this is no prosecution’s decision and has nothing to do with prosecution's nor investigators strategies."

Answer: If Amanda was not informed of these rules, then she had no reason to expect her diary to become public. She is not responsible for its release in any way, shape or form. If you can't understand this, then I can see why the prosecution's case appeals to you so much.

Interestingly, you also wrote this: "If you know the rules you can better serve your interests, regardless who you are. Not knowing of rules, praxis and cultures always creates a disadvantage."

Maybe we can at least agree that it would have been nice if someone had told Amanda the rules, so that she could better serve her interests.

 

[Supernaut]

BTW Rose, and totally OT - I reckon I might have used your avatar by mistake.

You know, orange/red theme and that?

(I actually have the pic for it saved as "orange kitty", but a slightly more risque name crossed my mind which also had "kitty" in it, if you get my drift.)

 

[Machiavelli]

Such circumstances in Italy can seriously interfere with the willingness of witnesses to come forward. No one wants to risk prison time simply to be a witness to help the police with something that does not necessarily involve them. Italy needs to change its laws so that witnesses will feel free to come forward to provide testimony about crimes and other wrongs they might know about. "

The statutes of "calunia" amount to a lock-down on dissent from both outside and within the judiciary and police in Italy.

Actually the statute of calunnia is part of a cultural pattern much more harmful to police than to the possible accused "victim" of the calunnia. The statute of calunnia protects the main suspect, which in this case at the time was Patrick Lumumba. It is more a problem for justice and police when nobody comes forward as a witness, which is the typical Italian tendence.
In Italy, nobody is obliged to become a witness, as long as he/she is not questioned by the police. If you have information on a crime and you remain silent in order to avoid becoming a witness, you are in the right by the Italian law, and probably this is most people's choice. Many people won't come to testify as long as they are not sought out by somebody and dragged to the magistrate.
On the other hand, once a person is questioned as a witness, there is no 5th emendament to appeal, and you don't have great means to protect your privacy. Citizens have great rights that protect them from becoming witnesses, but witnesses don't have many rights, and they are often perceived in a negative light by the common culture.

 

[Mary_H]

Machiavelli,

Candace mistyped the years that she attended the University of Oregon on her LinkedIn page. IIRC, she typed 1995-1997 when she meant to type 1975-1977. Peggy Ganong pointed this out. Could this be the genesis of the false claim that Candace shaved 20 years off her age? Frank Sfarzo asked Candace what Giacomo said when he testified, so it seems as if some people did have problems comprehending him.

What I got from Candace's comments about Giacomo's accent was that she could understand his Italian, that is, that she could recognize the words, not that she could understand it to the point of translating it into English.

 

[RoseMontague]

For example, Robin and Sophie rendered three accounts each to the police in the previous days of investigation, containing variations on timings, corrections and caveats on their memories. You may research that the starting of meal is important to start the measurement of fime in stomach content, but may well do a research and find out that the subsequent assuption of food, or subsequent assumption of alcohol, is also important in its ability to influence the timings of stomach emptying.
But the main aspect in the they have more information argument, is that the information on the case doesn't consist in an assessment on the time of death and does not onsist in stomach emptying. They have more information because they have more information on the case.

I recall that the meal times changed very little from the initial statements and actually were clarified as being slightly earlier than originally stated. If you have something that shows a lack of a consensus of around 6PM to 6:30PM, I would be interested in seeing it, not because I am asking you for a cite, but I am interested in having that information.

If I still believed in guilt, I would also be looking at a TOD of around 10PM as being more realistic than 11:30. I doubted Curatolo's testimony from the beginning even when I was leaning towards guilt and as you have stated Nara has shown confusion regarding dates and times. Meredith's cell phone activity could still raise some doubt but is certainly not conclusive, in my opinion. The tow truck folk's testimonies could also be better explained. Rudy's statements about the time he was there would also fit better with the earlier TOD. I guess that what I am saying here is that your opinion on this makes more sense to me than the party line. I still believe your argument about the court having more information and that the court's opinion is therefore better than one of ours is not necessarily the case.

 

[Machiavelli]

Apparently a member at PMF was able to make the walk from the cottage to the basketball courts in "5 seconds". I don't care what you say, the photo below clearly shows that it would take a few minutes. I think between the two statements "5 minutes" is a lot better generalization of the time it would take to walk than "5 seconds".

I know you won't care, if you decided you entrust Candace's work.
Anyway, from the cottage’s gate to the centre of the basketball court in Piazza Grimana, also considering the stairs and the turn at the entrance of the basketball court, the walk is 56 metres.

There are 29 meters between the gate and the house door.
So, from the cottage’s door to the same spot, the overall walk is 85 metres.

A person walks normally at a speed between 4 and 7 kilometres per hour. This is the speed you will have walking around slowly, like walking the dog. It means that, in a tranquil walk, 5 minutes correspond to 420-450 metres in a fairly slow mode.

In one minute, walking at 5 kilometres per hour, you walk for 84 metres.
So there is only one minute from the very entrance of the house to the centre of the basketball court in Piazza Grimana.
Thus it takes 40 seconds to walk from the centre of Piazza Grimana’s basketball to the cottage gate. Walking slowly.