Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

I wish I could find that statement I'm sure I saw. It was just a day ago or so too. :-/

Ah, here's what I read:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/429327_knox01.html

'"Meredith is missed more than ever, and even three years later it is equally difficult to understand why what happened to her did," the Kercher family said in a rare public statement released over the weekend.'

That didn't sound quite as final as the "satisfied" statement I saw earlier from after the trial.

Reading the rest of the article I did find this amusing:

'"This epic poem of Amanda's produced a young victim, landed an innocent man in prison and damaged the image of Perugia and its university, perhaps permanently," Ronconi said.'

Oh, they're in an epic poem alright, but it's not one of Amanda's design. Their's starts more along the lines of "Now is the winter of our discontent..." which also includes two young people imprisoned by a villain...

 

[katy_did]

The wounds could have very easily been made by a pocket knife. There have been some very good arguments presented about the knife. The assault/rape could have very easily happened before Rudy ever wielded the knife. First he beats her up, then he starts undressing her. He is having a hard time getting the bra off while she is still struggling. Pulls out knife. Cuts bra. Things get out of hand and thats when he stabs her.

That's an interesting point, Chris; I hadn't considered that possibility before. That actually sounds pretty plausible, if, say, he were carrying the knife in his pocket. As you say, he could've taken the knife out to cut the bra strap (leaving his DNA on the back of the bra), struggled to remove her clothing, and somewhere in the midst of the struggle he made the knife wounds. It explains the bruising, but also the lack of knife defence wounds before that point. Seems to me like a definite possibility.

 

[katy_did]

1. Why is there no mention in the Massei Report---or any other Court Document I'm familiar with---of this predicament in exiting the locked front door, unless, of course, one were one of the girls residing at the cottage, and so in possession of a key?

///

Massei mentions that they locked the door with the key from the inside, which of course would mean you'd also need to use the key in order to open the door, though he doesn't take the logic to its next step by noting that a stranger to the house would therefore have a strong reason to take the front door keys:

All four girls had the keys to the front door of the house, which was a little faulty: it was in fact necessary to use the key to close it.

IIRC Micheli also mentions a couple of times that the door was locked with a key from the inside, and speculates that Guede could have been locked in the house (he concludes he'd just have jumped out the window anyway). Raffaele's appeal does go to the logical next step, arguing that while Amanda would've had no need to take Meredith's keys (having her own), a thief would've needed to take them to exit the house, since the front door was always kept locked with a key.

As indicated by the Court, Meredith Kercher’s house keys were never found (p. 96 sentenza), a clear sign that they were taken by the person who entered the apartment.

Seeing that Amanda Knox had her own keys, what reason would she have to take Meredith’s?

In contrast, a thief could have had such an interest, entering the house secretly and then, having been surprised, would have had no option but to use the front door in order to escape which – as has been shown in the course of the trial and confirmed in the sentenza – had a damaged latch, and thus would have been locked, even from the inside, by a turn of the key.

At any rate, there's certainly no mention of a 'convenience key' anywhere, and you'd think the defence would've checked that out before making their argument. Given the broken latch on the front door and the people coming and going in the apartment downstairs, leaving a key near the exit would be quite a risky idea.

 

[Mary_H]

Ah, here's what I read:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/429327_knox01.html

'"Meredith is missed more than ever, and even three years later it is equally difficult to understand why what happened to her did," the Kercher family said in a rare public statement released over the weekend.'

That didn't sound quite as final as the "satisfied" statement I saw earlier from after the trial.
<snip>

I agree, Kaosium. Another part of their statement suggests a growing awareness that the case is a rat's nest of confusion:

"We only hope to rise above the various circumstances to go forward concentrating solely on Meredith's memory...."

 

[Mary_H]

I believe the Kerchers did what they could to make sure they had as much information as they could possibly get about Meredith's murder. From reading and seeing the misfortunes of victim's families as they seek and rarely receive information in US cases, I think anyone would do the same if at all possible. Fortunately for them, Italy allows a civil trial to proceed at the same time as the criminal trial. By hiring a lawyer they had a dog in the fight and would, I assume, receive the same consideration and information as the other lawyers. What Maresca told them or showed them we have no idea.

However, it seems in Italy that many considered Maresca's inclusion in the trial as possibly seeking "revenge" and a hostile act against the defendants. Again, don't know if the Kerchers realized this or not.
<snip>

Good points, el buscador; thanks.

 

[Kaosium]

I do not read Italian. I've been reading an Italian blogger recently at another site. I haven't read everything the blogger has written so don't know about an explanation. I do know that the blogger isn't an attorney, however.

Ah, you mean Perugia Shock? I should have read closer, the mention of 'Frank' would have given it away.

Oh, well. I'm starting to suspect I'll never get to the bottom of the facet of this case that first drew my interest: the charging of Amanda, her parents and others with 'slander.'

Another idea that occurred to me, or more exactly I believe I recall reading elsewhere months ago, is that this is a legal trick to get her parents and others to STFU. As I understand it, Italian courts frown on the concept of 'putting the prosecution on trial' thus one of the only ways for the Knox's to get the truth out is through the media, in hopes someone in Italy will pick up the story of how the interrogation was conducted, etc.

Then he can drop the 'slander' suits and look magnanimous in victory.

 

[el buscador]

Ah, you mean Perugia Shock? I should have read closer, the mention of 'Frank' would have given it away.

Oh, well. I'm starting to suspect I'll never get to the bottom of the facet of this case that first drew my interest: the charging of Amanda, her parents and others with 'slander.'

Another idea that occurred to me, or more exactly I believe I recall reading elsewhere months ago, is that this is a legal trick to get her parents and others to STFU. As I understand it, Italian courts frown on the concept of 'putting the prosecution on trial' thus one of the only ways for the Knox's to get the truth out is through the media, in hopes someone in Italy will pick up the story of how the interrogation was conducted, etc.

Then he can drop the 'slander' suits and look magnanimous in victory.

No, the Italian blogger is at injustice and is fairly new to the case. He (or she?) blogs on the member's forum. Our friend billyryan had asked a list of questions and the reply by the blogger was most interesting and deals with many issues of the case and the Italian people.

But I think Frank is one of the best sources for this case.

 

[Mary_H]

Do you read Italian? If so could you tell me what 'culunnia'--or however you spell the word that is translated as 'slander'--means? I can't find a damn thing about it in English, though it appears there's some pages out there on it in Italian.

This is how the translators of the Massei report defined it:

2
The charge of calunnia (art. 368) has been commonly translated as “slander” in the English/US media. This translation is incorrect, however, as calunnia is a crime with no direct equivalent in the respective legal systems. The equivalent of “criminal slander” is diffamazione, which is an attack on someone‟s reputation. Calunnia is the crime of making false criminal accusations against someone whom the accuser knows to be innocent, or to simulate/fabricate false evidence, independently of the credibility/admissibility of the accusation or evidence. The charges of calunnia and diffamazione are subject to very different jurisprudence. Diffamazione is public and explicit, and is a minor offence, usually resulting in a fine and only prosecuted if the victim files a complaint, while calunnia can be secret or known only to the authorities. It may consist only of the simulation of clues, and is automatically prosecuted by the judiciary. The crimes of calunnia and diffamazione are located in different sections of the criminal code: while diffamazione is in the chapter entitled “crimes against honour” in the section of the Code protecting personal liberties, calunnia is discussed in the chapter entitled “crimes against the administration of justice”, in a section that protects public powers.

I highlighted the part I have always found problematic, obviously because Amanda does not believe her "accusations" were false, so I don't see how they can get the charges to stick. Also, it's never a good sign for a law to specify that a crime "can be secret or known only to the authorities."

There are additional mentions of calunnia in the motivations. Also, Amanda's parents are charged with a different crime, not calunnia.

 

[Mary_H]

No, the Italian blogger is at injustice and is fairly new to the case. He (or she?) blogs on the member's forum. Our friend billyryan had asked a list of questions and the reply by the blogger was most interesting and deals with many issues of the case and the Italian people.

But I think Frank is one of the best sources for this case.

Would you mind providing a link to that section of the blog? Thanks!

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Do you read Italian? If so could you tell me what 'culunnia'--or however you spell the word that is translated as 'slander'--means? I can't find a damn thing about it in English, though it appears there's some pages out there on it in Italian.

Synonyms (Italian) for "calunnia":

diffamazione falsa accusa falsità insinuazione

defamation false accusations untruth/lies insinuation/innuendo

 

[RoseMontague]

Would you mind providing a link to that section of the blog? Thanks!

If el buscador is referring to BrokenEnglish at the members forum of IIP, I agree. You will have to join to view, and his latest post on his background and how he heard about the case and the early impressions he had is absolutely fantastic.
He is also the one that has helped me on occasion (finding that TV interview with Quintavale for example).

 

[Kaosium]

This is how the translators of the Massei report defined it:




I highlighted the part I have always found problematic, obviously because Amanda does not believe her "accusations" were false, so I don't see how they can get the charges to stick. Also, it's never a good sign for a law to specify that a crime "can be secret or known only to the authorities."

There are additional mentions of calunnia in the motivations. Also, Amanda's parents are charged with a different crime, not calunnia.

Hmmm....thanks for that. I wonder why that didn't come up on google when I did spell it correctly, copied and pasted it from one of Machiavelli's posts actually.

The way I read it, with my non-lawyer mind, it sounds like a penalty for trying to frame someone. That would explain the "secret or known only to the authorities," and the bit about clues and the administration of justice.

If that's the case I don't see how it could apply at all.

 

[Mary_H]

Ah, you mean Perugia Shock? I should have read closer, the mention of 'Frank' would have given it away.

Oh, well. I'm starting to suspect I'll never get to the bottom of the facet of this case that first drew my interest: the charging of Amanda, her parents and others with 'slander.'

Another idea that occurred to me, or more exactly I believe I recall reading elsewhere months ago, is that this is a legal trick to get her parents and others to STFU. As I understand it, Italian courts frown on the concept of 'putting the prosecution on trial' thus one of the only ways for the Knox's to get the truth out is through the media, in hopes someone in Italy will pick up the story of how the interrogation was conducted, etc.

Then he can drop the 'slander' suits and look magnanimous in victory.

Ray Turner wrote, "You can easily see why most common law jurisdictions give absolute immunity for allegedly defamatory statements if made during a legal proceeding. Look what happens when someone falls in love with these kind of law suits/charges."

http://knoxarchives.blogspot.com/2010/02/another-giuliano-mignini-defamation.html

Mignini is currently suing 12 people for defamation. Notice, too, he announced the suit against Amanda conveniently 2 days before the announcement of his own conviction for abuse of office.

 

[Kaosium]

Synonyms (Italian) for "calunnia":

diffamazione falsa accusa falsità insinuazione

defamation false accusations untruth/lies insinuation/innuendo

Thank you.

I can see why it gets translated as 'slander' but according to that bit from the Massei report it's not quite the same thing. This one carries a hefty prison sentence.

 

[Kaosium]

Ray Turner wrote, "You can easily see why most common law jurisdictions give absolute immunity for allegedly defamatory statements if made during a legal proceeding. Look what happens when someone falls in love with these kind of law suits/charges."

http://knoxarchives.blogspot.com/2010/02/another-giuliano-mignini-defamation.html

Mignini is currently suing 12 people for defamation. Notice, too, he announced the suit against Amanda conveniently 2 days before the announcement of his own conviction for abuse of office.

So are all these except for Amanda's the lesser sort, the one without the prison sentence? Why would hers be special, because it was said in court maybe?

Reading the rest and what else I've seen I can't help but wonder at the hubris of someone who thinks he can stifle criticism from overseas.

 

[Mary_H]

So are all these except for Amanda's the lesser sort, the one without the prison sentence? Why would hers be special, because it was said in court maybe?

Reading the rest and what else I've seen I can't help but wonder at the hubris of someone who thinks he can stifle criticism from overseas.

Maybe it's because Amanda said something specifically about the cops or something. Guilters will tell you that the law REQUIRES Mignini to file these suits; he has no choice.

Hubris is one word for it. Megalomania is another.

 

[Machiavelli]

The crime of calunnia is a multi-offensive crime, in which the prevalent victim is the "administration of justice", which means the people's right to fair justice. It can be defined as a specific kind of obstruction to justice consisting in giving false evidence or false incriminating information against someone. This crime is committed by communicating this info in some way to an authority. The false information not necessarily must be against someone else, by art. 369 the crime is committed even if a person falsely accuses himself.

The legal term must not be confused with the common Italian term calunnia, which also exsist and can be used exstensively, or metaphorically, outside from criminal contexts just to indicate any "false accusation" or "false report" in general.

 

[Kaosium]

Maybe it's because Amanda said something specifically about the cops or something. Guilters will tell you that the law REQUIRES Mignini to file these suits; he has no choice.

Do they say the law requires all of them, or just the one on Amanda for saying it in court?

Hubris is one word for it. Megalomania is another.

Eh, I'll stick with 'hubris'--I like how that one is rewarded in Greek tragedies...

 

[Machiavelli]

One thing more to be said about calunnia in law, is that in the Italian criminal law, crimes are usually prosecuted only after complain of a victim. There are relatively few crimes that can be investigated and prosecuted ex officio, automatically by the prosecutor's initiative. For example a Roman Polanski case would be impossible in Italy, where a sexual violence would require the consent of a victim for the investigation and where almost all crimes have an "expiration term".
So calunnia is on the side of the fewer always prosecutable crimes, because its prosecution is automatic and is a must for the public minister. This feature is typical of the crimes against society or law in general, and not crimes against a specific individual.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

The crime of calunnia is a multi-offensive crime, in which the prevalent victim is the "administration of justice", which means the people's right to fair justice. It can be defined as a specific kind of obstruction to justice consisting in giving false evidence or false incriminating information against someone. This crime is committed by communicating this info in some way to an authority. The false information not necessarily must be against someone else, by art. 369 the crime is committed even if a person falsely accuses himself.

The legal term must not be confused with the common Italian term calunnia, which also exsist and can be used exstensively, or metaphorically, outside from criminal contexts just to indicate any "false accusation" or "false report" in general.

This is interesting in that in the Italian justice system it is understood the accused is going to lie (this was stated previously in this thread) and it is assumed the accused will even lie in court. So if you, as the accused, lie like everyone knows you are going to do, you set yourself up for calunnia. (Unless your lies do not include pointing the finger at someone else.)