Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

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.)

Absolutely not. The person would be accused of calunnia oly if gives a false information that would accuse or incriminate somebody. If you just lie you would not commit a calunnia, but if you plead guilty of something you may do. If you affirm somebody else is guilty of something you may as well.

 

[Kaosium]

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 sounds something like 'obstruction of justice' as defined in US law from my understanding. In other words something that impairs the authorities in the course of their investigation.

However I don't understand how it applies here, it was my understanding that the charge was made due to her saying in court in response to a question that she was whupped upside the head a few times during the interrogation. It was repeating that which got her mother slapped with the other kind of suit.

Now it would seem that her 'accusation' of Patrick may apply by what you wrote, but wasn't that a separate trial run concurrently which garnered him a small settlement?

 

[Mary_H]

Absolutely not. The person would be accused of calunnia oly if gives a false information that would accuse or incriminate somebody. If you just lie you would not commit a calunnia, but if you plead guilty of something you may do. If you affirm somebody else is guilty of something you may as well.

Would Amanda have a chance of not being found guilty in her calunnia trial, even if what she said were true? How can they prove she knowingly made a false accusation?

 

[Kaosium]

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.

What was it about Amanda's statement that would make it automatically prosecutable and wouldn't her lawyers have warned her if it was so prevalent? It seems to me you are suggesting this is a matter of course in an Italian court, wouldn't her lawyers have known this?

 

[Mary_H]

What was it about Amanda's statement that would make it automatically prosecutable and wouldn't her lawyers have warned her if it was so prevalent? It seems to me you are suggesting this is a matter of course in an Italian court, wouldn't her lawyers have known this?

Good question, Kaosium, especially since she was specifically questioned in court (by lawyers from all sides) about whether she had said the cops had hit her -- they brought it up.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Rudy and calunnia

Could Rudy be charged with calunnia?

 

[christianahannah]

Good question, Kaosium, especially since she was specifically questioned in court (by lawyers from all sides) about whether she had said the cops had hit her -- they brought it up.

I am not positive but I believe Amanda's first statement of her treatment by the police was at her preliminary hearing in October 2008 (her November 6, 2007 written memorial included the same information).

I believe her attorneys asked for an investigation (of the police) after her October 2008 preliminary hearing. I have read varying accounts from both sides of what transpired from then until charges were brought against her. I am unsure of exactly what took place.

 

[Machiavelli]

However I don't understand how it applies here, it was my understanding that the charge was made due to her saying in court in response to a question that she was whupped upside the head a few times during the interrogation. It was repeating that which got her mother slapped with the other kind of suit.

Now it would seem that her 'accusation' of Patrick may apply by what you wrote, but wasn't that a separate trial run concurrently which garnered him a small settlement?

There is no separate trial running concurrently, there is only one trial with multiple charges and more than one defendant. The charges are linked by continuation as being the same criminal episode and they include calunnia.

Would Amanda have a chance of not being found guilty in her calunnia trial, even if what she said were true? How can they prove she knowingly made a false accusation?

Yes she has a chance of not being found guilty in her second calunnia trial, if the judge thinks there is a problem in proving the calunnia and thinks Amanda's accusation could be true. But this second trial is something totally irrelevant and even if found guilty won’t lead to any actual prison time. Moreover not all kinds of calunnia are equal, because false accusations are not all the same.

What was it about Amanda's statement that would make it automatically prosecutable and wouldn't her lawyers have warned her if it was so prevalent? It seems to me you are suggesting this is a matter of course in an Italian court, wouldn't her lawyers have known this?

Well they obviously knew but they looked at the real stake. They were desperately trying to have Amanda acquitted and didn’t care much of taking secondary risks.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Charlie, I thank you for your willingness to share what information you have concerning this case. I apologize for not being more clear concerning my question. I was more interested in the eye-hooks (?) on the other piece of the bra rather than the whole bra itself (wondering if they were deformed in any way).

It is quite disconcerting to view some of the photos of Meredith's belongings, person, room, etc. I don't blame you for this, but it is not a pleasant situation all the same.

It is deeply unpleasant, but it helps people understand the situation. The prosecutor and the court have tried to suggest that the crime scene is murky, and could be interpreted according to a variety of different scenarios. In fact, the photos tell a single, coherent narrative, and the bra is an important element of that narrative. The fine spattering of blood drops shows that it was exposed at the time when Meredith was gasping for breath. It was not removed later, as part of some staging activity.

Here is an Italian magazine article that shows where Guede's DNA was found:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/panorama_04_03_08.pdf

 

[Machiavelli]

Could Rudy be charged with calunnia?

Anyone could. But in his case, for what? Amanda and Raffaele are currently convict killers on their appeal trial. Rudy's potentially incriminating words are, at the present moment, backed by several judges who consider them guilty and who think Rudy actually knows it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

hypothetically speaking

Anyone could. But in his case, for what? Amanda and Raffaele are currently convict killers on their appeal trial. Rudy's potentially incriminating words are, at the present moment, backed by several judges who consider them guilty and who think Rudy actually knows it.

Suppose they were acquitted. Then could Guede be charged?

 

[Machiavelli]

It is deeply unpleasant, but it helps people understand the situation. The prosecutor and the court have tried to suggest that the crime scene is murky, and could be interpreted according to a variety of different scenarios. In fact, the photos tell a single, coherent narrative, and the bra is an important element of that narrative. The fine spattering of blood drops shows that it was exposed at the time when Meredith was gasping for breath. It was not removed later, as part of some staging activity.

Actually what the blood spattering shows is the bra was worn when she was stabbed, and this means it was removed later.
There is a strange dichotomy in your post, between the word exposed as opposed to the late removal, just like if these two things were opposites. They aren't. The fact it was exposed for a time long ehough to collect the fine blood drops from her breath, doesn't automatically imply it was removed immediately and not later. I can't see this implication. It seems quite the contrary.

 

[christianahannah]

It is deeply unpleasant, but it helps people understand the situation. The prosecutor and the court have tried to suggest that the crime scene is murky, and could be interpreted according to a variety of different scenarios. In fact, the photos tell a single, coherent narrative, and the bra is an important element of that narrative. The fine spattering of blood drops shows that it was exposed at the time when Meredith was gasping for breath. It was not removed later, as part of some staging activity.

Here is an Italian magazine article that shows where Guede's DNA was found:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/panorama_04_03_08.pdf

Thank you. I will read this article. Do you find it conflicts with what Massei wrote?

There is a photo that RWBVWL linked a few posts back which showed Meredith's wardrobe. It appears this photo was taken later than November 2 but I am not sure. Do you know when the photo was taken and what is on the shelf in her wardrobe? It is difficult to make out what type of clothing/material is on the shelf from the photo linked. I thought it looked like towels but I am not sure.

 

[Machiavelli]

Suppose they were acquitted. Then could Guede be charged?

They have to be acquitted definitively by the Supreme Court first. Then, it depends on what the judge wrote in the sentence on Rudy Guede. And also depends on what they write on the Knox/Sollecito verdict. If Rudy's judges think he didn't act alone but rather with Amanda and Raffaele, or if the Knox/Sollecito judges acquit on the sole ground of insufficient proof, Rudy won't be convicted for calunnia.

 

[Kaosium]

There is no separate trial running concurrently, there is only one trial with multiple charges and more than one defendant. The charges are linked by continuation as being the same criminal episode and they include calunnia.

Does that include these other 'slander' charges filed?

Yes she has a chance of not being found guilty in her second calunnia trial, if the judge thinks there is a problem in proving the calunnia and thinks Amanda's accusation could be true. But this second trial is something totally irrelevant and even if found guilty won’t lead to any actual prison time. Moreover not all kinds of calunnia are equal, because false accusations are not all the same.

Ah, this is interesting. It was a news report last summer telling me that even if acquitted of the murder charge she might still have to serve six years in prison for the calunnia that first interested me in finding out what happened here. At any rate, the trial was last winter, wasn't it? Why did it take until circa July first for this news to get here?

Well they obviously knew but they looked at the real stake. They were desperately trying to have Amanda acquitted and didn’t care much of taking secondary risks.

I get it, 'all-in.'

Thank you for your answers.

 

[Machiavelli]

Does that include these other 'slander' charges filed?

...

Ah, this is interesting. It was a news report last summer telling me that even if acquitted of the murder charge she might still have to serve six years in prison for the calunnia that first interested me in finding out what happened here. At any rate, the trial was last winter, wasn't it? Why did it take until circa July first for this news to get here?

I am quite surprised that people who are so convinced for innocence appear to know nothing of what is going on. Now, the trial I was talking about in the first lines was the calunnia about Patrick Lumumba. This charge belongs to the same trial for the Murder of Meredith Kercher and is linked by continuation. This charge is "serious" because it belongs to the same criminal episode, it is in continuation with a murder and it is a false accusation of rape and murder.
Then Amanda got charged with a second calunnia, this time about the police officers. This second calunnia is not serious, even if theoretically the law article is always the same and allows a six year prison term. But the actual penalty if found guilty would be below three years, thus it would mean "suspended" and would be cancelled after a number of years, so it cannot be "added" to the other conviction.

 

[christianahannah]

I am quite surprised that people who are so convinced for innocence appear to know nothing of what is going on. Now, the trial I was talking about in the first lines was the calunnia about Patrick Lumumba. This charge belongs to the same trial for the Murder of Meredith Kercher and is linked by continuation. This charge is "serious" because it belongs to the same criminal episode, it is in continuation with a murder and it is a false accusation of rape and murder.
Then Amanda got charged with a second calunnia, this time about the police officers. This second calunnia is not serious, even if theoretically the law article is always the same and allows a six year prison term. But the actual penalty if found guilty would be below three years, thus it would mean "suspended" and would be cancelled after a number of years, so it cannot be "added" to the other conviction.

Thank you Machiavelli. This is all very interesting. How is it you know the intricacies of the legal system in Italy?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Actually what the blood spattering shows is the bra was worn when she was stabbed, and this means it was removed later.
There is a strange dichotomy in your post, between the word exposed as opposed to the late removal, just like if these two things were opposites. They aren't. The fact it was exposed for a time long ehough to collect the fine blood drops from her breath, doesn't automatically imply it was removed immediately and not later. I can't see this implication. It seems quite the contrary.

It was removed during the attack, because a similar spray of fine blood drops was found on her breasts. He rolled her onto her back and started to disrobe her while she was still alive and gasping for breath. And I apologize for this graphic description. If it wasn't correct, if it was just my own speculation, I would not belabor the point. But it's not speculation. It is what the photos show.

 

[Justinian2]

Coincidentally I was just reading something about that:

http://askville.amazon.com/describing-hygiene-Amanda-Knox/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=53668629

"She was a very strong person and when she was 17 she studied karate for a year," recalled her father, John Kercher, 68. "I think she could put up quite a fight."

I wouldn't put too much stock in one year of karate training personally.

I know. I wouldn't put much stock in her ability either. When my son was a 135 pound hockey player with 5% body fat and tremendous strength, he would charge me in mock battle and I would put my arms around his waist and lift him upside down. The he would cry 'uncle'. When he became 190 pound college hockey player he could wear me out even though I had been a college wrestler.

Most of the Ultimate fighters are a combination of college wrestler and kick-boxer. I wouldn't want to fight those guys.

A 120 pound woman isn't going to beat a guy Guede's size even if he didn't have a knife. The concept that multiple aggressors with knives are needed to subdue her is fantasy beyond belief!

I used to wrestle my sister's 120 pound girlfriends when I weighed 80 pounds. I let them win a few times because I thought they felt nice on top of me.

However, out on the street her tactics would have bought her some time and gotten some attention.

[QUOTEThe description of his daughter as an athletic and passionate woman who would have tried to defend herself came on the heels of expert testimony Friday that many of the wounds on her badly beaten body were likely defensive ones, inflicted as threats during a frantic struggle with multiple aggressors, possibly wielding two knives.[/QUOTE]

An expert would have dispelled the notion that multiple knife weilding assailants were necessary to subdue her.

 

[Machiavelli]

It was removed during the attack, because a similar spray of fine blood drops was found on her breasts. He rolled her onto her back and started to disrobe her while she was still alive and gasping for breath. And I apologize for this graphic description. If it wasn't correct, if it was just my own speculation, I would not belabor the point. But it's not speculation. It is what the photos show.

Well, my information - and also in statements by judge Paolo Micheli - says the same pattern of spray was not found on her breasts. Actually her breasts were clean in most topical areas, while there were peripheral stains not consistent with her breath. There is a pattern of tiny spots on the sternal area, not covered by a bra.

On her back we notice - as reported even by the Panorama piece you linked - the stricking lack of injury, even less of cut injuries, this is not exactly suggesting the bra was cut during a struggle. The bra seems to be cut neatly while the victim is immobile or immobilized. This doesn't have much information but it is not consistent with a frantic movement, not consistent with an impetus. The complete removal of her bra could be subsequent to the cutting of the clasp, since a bra can remain in place without the back strap. But all this doesn't lead to conclude it was removed while she was alive. I see no reason for this conclusion.