Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fine]

Thanks RoseMontague!

So Amanda persuaded Raffaele to tell a lie that she wasn't with him? It's getting weirder and weirder! Why on Earth would she want him to say this? I admit I cannot grasp the colpevolisti's position on this.

_____________________

Katody Matrass,



And I can't grasp the innocentisti position on this either, aside from the claim (of Mary H) that Raffaele ---like Amanda a couple hours later that night---had been making one of them internalized false confessions/accusations.

I have a reasonable explanation, and an explanation which is compatible with an colpevolisti or an innocentisti perspective. Though the innocentisti may not like it. (They never do.)

First, please notice that Raffaele said not only that Amanda left him....Raffaele said also that Amanda went to Le Chic, of all places, though---as he says elsewhere in his Diary---he knew very well that Amanda was not needed at Le Chic the night of November 1st.

Both the lovebirds came to the police station the night of November 5 with the pre-arranged intent to change their stories. But they had to change their stories in such a way that their new (respective) versions of events would be compatible. And though sleep-deprived Amanda hadn't been called to the police station she showed up anyway, knowing that---once Raffaele had started singin' a different tune--- the cops would want to speak to her as-soon-as-possible. So, within just a couple hours of police interrogation, Raffaele tells the cops that on November 1st Amanda left to go to work at Le Chic. (And in going to Le Chic, of course, she would meet Patrick, of all people!) Likewise, within a couple hours of her police interrogation, Amanda, too, is singin' a similar tune, and adding the interesting detail that Patrick was the murderer. Both the lovebirds had endured several days of grueling police interrogation, without offering any confessions/accusations---and Patrick and Rudy never offered internalized false confessions/accusations--- but now abracadabra! after a couple hours both lovebirds are singin' altered but perfectly harmonious tunes.

It's an interesting disclosure by Raffaele that Amanda had persuaded him to say "Amanda went to work at Le Chic." Apparently this was the last straw, which resulted in his arrest. So in "correcting" his account later he needs to add some explanation for saying this. That's why he mentions Amanda's persuasion. And it rings true to me. How could ---and why would---the cops have internalized this into Raffaele's confession/accusation before Amanda had made her own confession/accusation, and before them cops had seen the explosive "see you later" text to Patrick on Amanda's cellphone? And if the cops, instead, were to blame, why is Raffaele---while writing his Diary, days later, in the leisure of his prison cell--- such a pansy to blame beloved Amanda instead of them stinkin' cops???

The lovebirds were working a scheme at the police station the night of November 5th, and a scheme devised by Amanda. The only issue, for me, is their intent. The innocentisti may wish to claim that their intent was a misguided effort to help the cops, in accusing someone they thought guilty, and thereby falling into a trap of their own making (as Raffaele once described their predicament). Others may see sinister intent.

///

 

[quadraginta]

I see.

quadraginta, You seem to be one of many that don't believe Raffaele claimed to have been using his computer through the time frame when the murder occurred.

I see we need an award for non sequiturs. You have a hands down winner here.

Yet earlier you made the statement:

A computer which, it seems, showed no evidence of having been in use during the time period he claimed to be using it.

Can you enlighten us on where this mass false memory came from?

Much earlier. Like about a year earlier. Your facility for quote mining may surpass your talent for disjointed dialogue.

At this juncture ... nearly a year after that comment ... which was based on information available to us at that time, I await further resolution of the subject of the computer. It is not clear to me that we can be certain of anything regarding that computer usage, including whether or not the original assertions were entirely untrue. The more recent bits and pieces which we have gleaned from our relatively distant perspective, possibly subject to much misinterpretation and distortion in passage, have not clarified anything, but instead have only muddied the water further.

ETA: Why do you place me in a group "of many that don't believe Raffaele claimed to have been using his computer", and then quote me as saying "A computer which, it seems, showed no evidence of having been in use during the time period he claimed to be using it.

When did I say he didn't make that claim?

 

[Mary_H]

_____________________

Katody Matrass,

And I can't grasp the innocentisti position on this either, aside from the claim (of Mary H) that Raffaele ---like Amanda a couple hours later---had been making one of them internalized false confessions/accusations.

I have a reasonable explanation, and an explanation which is compatible with an colpevolisti or an innocentisti perspective. Though the innocentisti may not like it. (They never do.)

First, please notice that Raffaele said not only that Amanda left him....Raffaele said also that Amanda went to Le Chic, of all places, though---as he says elsewhere in his Diary---he knew very well that Amanda was not needed at Le Chic the night of November 1st.

Both the lovebirds came to the police station the night of November 5 with the pre-arranged intent to change their stories.

Why?

But they had to change their stories in such a way that their new (respective) versions of events would be compatible. And though sleep-deprived Amanda hadn't been called to the police station she showed up anyway, knowing that---once Raffaele had started singin' a different tune--- the cops would want to speak to her as-soon-as-possible. So, within just a couple hours of police interrogation, Raffaele tells the cops that on November 1st Amanda left to go to work at Le Chic. (And in going to Le Chic, of course, she would meet Patrick, of all people!) Likewise, within a couple hours of her police interrogation, Amanda, too, is singin' a similar tune, and adding the interesting detail that Patrick was the murderer.

For what purpose?

Both the lovebirds had endured several days of grueling police interrogation, without offering any internalized confessions/accusations---and Patrick and Rudy never offered internalized confessions/accusations--- but now abracadabra! after a couple hours they're both singin' altered but perfectly harmonious tunes.

Harmonious tunes that put Amanda at the scene of the crime.

It's an interesting disclosure by Raffaele that Amanda had persuaded him to say "Amanda went to work at Le Chic." Apparently this was the last straw, which resulted in his arrest. So in "correcting" his account later he needs to add some explanation for saying this. That's why he mentions Amanda's persuasion. And it rings true to me. How could ---and why would---the cops have internalized this into Raffaele's confession/accusation before Amanda had made her own confession/accusation, and before them cops had seen the explosive "see you later" text to Patrick on Amanda's cellphone? And if the cops, instead, were to blame, why is Raffaele---while writing his Diary, days later, in the leisure of his prison cell--- such a pansy to blame beloved Amanda instead of them stinkin' cops???

He does blame the cops. He calls them stupid all through his diary. He says they know nothing and are holding him in jail for no reason.

The lovebirds were working a scheme at the police station the night of November 5th, and a scheme devised by Amanda. The only issue, for me, is their intent. The innocentisti may wish to claim that their intent was a misguided effort to help the cops, in accusing someone they thought guilty, and thereby falling into a trap of their own making (as Raffaele once described their predicament). Others may see sinister intent.

///

Their intent is an issue for me, too. What possible reason would they have for changing their stories and putting Amanda at the crime scene instead of at Raffaele's? What would Amanda have to gain by accusing Patrick?

They had already helped the cops plenty in the preceding three days. Things were going well. Why rock the boat?

 

[Scorpion NITE]

...had been making one of them internalized false confessions/accusations.


...and before them cops had seen the explosive "see you later" text to Patrick on Amanda's cellphone?


...instead of them stinkin' cops???

Mighty fine posting there, Pardner.

Them there innocentisti won't know what hits them.

Oops, sorry, I thought I had logged onto a Cowboy thread.

Having deciphered what it is (I think) you were trying to say, I have to inform you that I think your suggestion that it was a 'reasonable explanation' is a little way 'off the mark' - 'far-fetched' even.

 

[el buscador]

Is this the pillow that was under Meredith?

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/ga..._id=1332&sid=81b78f786729ddbf86174822df37766e

 

[Withnail1969]

I see we need an award for non sequiturs. You have a hands down winner here.

Much earlier. Like about a year earlier. Your facility for quote mining may surpass your talent for disjointed dialogue.

At this juncture ... nearly a year after that comment ... which was based on information available to us at that time, I await further resolution of the subject of the computer. It is not clear to me that we can be certain of anything regarding that computer usage, including whether or not the original assertions were entirely untrue.

As I understand it, the defence have announced that they have cast-iron evidence that the computer was in use all night. They've apparently managed to use other activity logs than the ones destroyed by the Postal Police. We'll have to see. They seem extremely confident about it.

Curatolo's already been blown out of the water by the absence of disco buses, and Cappezalli will be destroyed when the audiometric test which was refused in the first trial is carried out. I don't see how the court can refuse such a test for a second time. Quintavalle should never have been admitted in the first place, so I think it's a given that his testimony will be tossed.

The appeal seems to be gathering momentum, and make no mistake, if it becomes clear that a miscarriage of justice is taking place, the US State Department will get involved. Questions are already being asked about this proliferation of 'calunnia' trials. If she was a Mafia killer, Amanda would already be free.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)

You seem to be sticking very hard to the position that if it isn't written, it's not worth talking about. In that sense, you hold the suspects to much higher standards than you hold the authorities. Nothing the suspects did suggests they committed a murder that night, but that's okay, they still did it, right?

No, this is a wrong inference. I don't exactly apply different standards.
Rather I follow some principles: apply logic. I only accept to see the issues separately. When it is about assessing elements about the suspect, I am logically sticking to collect and assess the elements on the suspect. I must consider what he did based on the existing element, and the scenario must not include ufos interference.
Moreover, additional logical aspects are part of the picture, as well as responsibility/legal aspects. If he suffered torture for example, he bears anyway the responsibility to declare it to the judge and to report facts, not his feeling of regret (all guilty people feel regret for having made mistakes like leaving evidence behind).

Whether other people in position of authority are capable or incapable, honest or dishonest, is to be held as logically independent. Elements on policemen must be collected as elements regarding the policemen if there is an investigation on those people, elements on Sollecito must not be directly depending on what others did right or wrong. There is a clear separation between these two levels: a political or professional level like trust on authorities, assessment on competence and honesty of officers, behaviours of officers and assessment on procedures, etc, and the investigation level: what regards the evidence about a suspect. An assessment on authorities and on a suspect is no zero sum: you can find there is corrupt police and a guilty suspect. A relation between levels is considered only if indirect, mediated by assessment on logical implications in specific topics (in case there is the need to sort out things on specific issues, for example if on a point there is one’s word against the other’s, you have to decide who is credible), but the process of proving things on a suspect must not depend on how much you trust authorities, on if they are good or bad or corrupted or not.

No mix of these two level is admissible: to me, nothing like “assess the evidence so to incentive behaviour of authority and civil liberties” is admissible. These doctrines are not compatible with my concept of justice and not compatible with the Italian system. No political issue like civil liberties can interfere in the judicial process: the establishing of whether a person is guilty or not of a crime, must not be determined on contexts like if the police is corrupt or fascist or whether it a free society or not. Given the knowledge of context and the laws, the judges shall be able to see if there are elements to find the truth.

For example the recording of police interrogation, has a logical value based on the context and laws. I would consider: whether there is a reason to expect to find in the interrogation audio recording something different from what declared in minutes, or not. What it the relevance of the claim of this expected difference. Secondarily, if there is any issue, whether it is normal to have this recording or not in the normal praxis: how usual it is to note have recordings, how meaningful is it in practice to have it or not have it. Whether there is a legal binding to have it or not. Whether it is normally expected whether it is legal to listen to it in court, or not.
I won’t make an inference about an interrogation recording or its lack based on my ideology, my personal preferences about civil liberties. And in general, standards are not “my” standards, they are just established standards. Judges and citizens don’t “write” laws and standards by their preference on a process.

 

[Withnail1969]

No, this is a wrong inference. I don't exactly apply different standards.
Rather I follow some principles: apply logic. I only accept to see the issues separately. When it is about assessing elements about the suspect, I am logically sticking to collect and assess the elements on the suspect. I must consider what he did based on the existing element, and the scenario must not include ufos interference.
Moreover, additional logical aspects are part of the picture, as well as responsibility/legal aspects. If he suffered torture for example, he bears anyway the responsibility to declare it to the judge and to report facts, not his feeling of regret (all guilty people feel regret for having made mistakes like leaving evidence behind).

Whether other people in position of authority are capable or incapable, honest or dishonest, is to be held as logically independent. Elements on policemen must be collected as elements regarding the policemen if there is an investigation on those people, elements on Sollecito must not be directly depending on what others did right or wrong. There is a clear separation between these two levels: a political or professional level like trust on authorities, assessment on competence and honesty of officers, behaviours of officers and assessment on procedures, etc, and the investigation level: what regards the evidence about a suspect. An assessment on authorities and on a suspect is no zero sum: you can find there is corrupt police and a guilty suspect. A relation between levels is considered only if indirect, mediated by assessment on logical implications in specific topics (in case there is the need to sort out things on specific issues, for example if on a point there is one’s word against the other’s, you have to decide who is credible), but the process of proving things on a suspect must not depend on how much you trust authorities, on if they are good or bad or corrupted or not.

No mix of these two level is admissible: to me, nothing like “assess the evidence so to incentive behaviour of authority and civil liberties” is admissible. These doctrines are not compatible with my concept of justice and not compatible with the Italian system. No political issue like civil liberties can interfere in the judicial process: the establishing of whether a person is guilty or not of a crime, must not be determined on contexts like if the police is corrupt or fascist or whether it a free society or not. Given the knowledge of context and the laws, the judges shall be able to see if there are elements to find the truth.

For example the recording of police interrogation, has a logical value based on the context and laws. I would consider: whether there is a reason to expect to find in the interrogation audio recording something different from what declared in minutes, or not. What it the relevance of the claim of this expected difference. Secondarily, if there is any issue, whether it is normal to have this recording or not in the normal praxis: how usual it is to note have recordings, how meaningful is it in practice to have it or not have it. Whether there is a legal binding to have it or not. Whether it is normally expected whether it is legal to listen to it in court, or not.
I won’t make an inference about an interrogation recording or its lack based on my ideology, my personal preferences about civil liberties. And in general, standards are not “my” standards, they are just established standards. Judges and citizens don’t “write” laws and standards by their preference on a process.

How do you feel about Mafia murderers being released after serving as little as 3 years?

 

[Draca]

Is this the pillow that was under Meredith?

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/ga..._id=1332&sid=81b78f786729ddbf86174822df37766e

Yeah.
The bra clasp was originally found under that pillow also.

 

[Mary_H]

No, this is a wrong inference. I don't exactly apply different standards.
Rather I follow some principles: apply logic. I only accept to see the issues separately. When it is about assessing elements about the suspect, I am logically sticking to collect and assess the elements on the suspect. I must consider what he did based on the existing element, and the scenario must not include ufos interference.
Moreover, additional logical aspects are part of the picture, as well as responsibility/legal aspects. If he suffered torture for example, he bears anyway the responsibility to declare it to the judge and to report facts, not his feeling of regret (all guilty people feel regret for having made mistakes like leaving evidence behind).

Whether other people in position of authority are capable or incapable, honest or dishonest, is to be held as logically independent. Elements on policemen must be collected as elements regarding the policemen if there is an investigation on those people, elements on Sollecito must not be directly depending on what others did right or wrong. There is a clear separation between these two levels: a political or professional level like trust on authorities, assessment on competence and honesty of officers, behaviours of officers and assessment on procedures, etc, and the investigation level: what regards the evidence about a suspect. An assessment on authorities and on a suspect is no zero sum: you can find there is corrupt police and a guilty suspect. A relation between levels is considered only if indirect, mediated by assessment on logical implications in specific topics (in case there is the need to sort out things on specific issues, for example if on a point there is one’s word against the other’s, you have to decide who is credible), but the process of proving things on a suspect must not depend on how much you trust authorities, on if they are good or bad or corrupted or not.

No mix of these two level is admissible: to me, nothing like “assess the evidence so to incentive behaviour of authority and civil liberties” is admissible. These doctrines are not compatible with my concept of justice and not compatible with the Italian system. No political issue like civil liberties can interfere in the judicial process: the establishing of whether a person is guilty or not of a crime, must not be determined on contexts like if the police is corrupt or fascist or whether it a free society or not. Given the knowledge of context and the laws, the judges shall be able to see if there are elements to find the truth.

For example the recording of police interrogation, has a logical value based on the context and laws. I would consider: whether there is a reason to expect to find in the interrogation audio recording something different from what declared in minutes, or not. What it the relevance of the claim of this expected difference. Secondarily, if there is any issue, whether it is normal to have this recording or not in the normal praxis: how usual it is to note have recordings, how meaningful is it in practice to have it or not have it. Whether there is a legal binding to have it or not. Whether it is normally expected whether it is legal to listen to it in court, or not.
I won’t make an inference about an interrogation recording or its lack based on my ideology, my personal preferences about civil liberties. And in general, standards are not “my” standards, they are just established standards. Judges and citizens don’t “write” laws and standards by their preference on a process.

All right. I think I understand what you mean, and you have a valid position. I'm not sure it is realistic in practice, though.

You wrote, "Elements on policemen must be collected as elements regarding the policemen if there is an investigation on those people, elements on Sollecito must not be directly depending on what others did right or wrong." Ideally, that would be true. Can we examine a case of possible wrongful arrest and conviction, though, while keeping what the police did separate from what the defendant did? Is it even possible in that case to judge the defendant's position objectively?

If you really want to keep the two entities separate as you have described it, then you can never give the police more credibility than you give the suspect. Are you willing to do that?

 

[Justinian2]

Rules of argument:
The claim probably should be stated in each post. The claim cannot be argued by a counter claim. For example: The claim that “Amanda is innocent” cannot be argued with the counter claim “Amanda is guilty”.

However these arguments have moved into more specific claims which should be stated so that they can argued and not rejected with a mere counter claim. Such claims could be:

1.) “The double DNA knife was not good evidence.” because of probable lab contamination.
2.) “The double DNA knife was not good evidence.” because the leading lab technician wasn’t qualified.
3.) “The double DNA knife was not good evidence.” because the electronic data wasn’t released.
4.) “The double DNA knife was not good evidence.” Because of the LCN of the DNA.
5.) “The double DNA knife was not good evidence.” Because the knife was randomly picked from a draw in a location different from the murder location”
6.) “The double DNA knife was not good evidence.” Because the knife was the wrong size to produce all the wounds.
7.) “The double DNA knife was not good evidence.” Because the knife was the wrong size to produce all the wounds.
8.) “The double DNA knife was not good evidence.” Because the knife was the wrong size to produce all the wounds.
Then to argue a claim, you would attack the qualifiers or data. For example:
I attack the claim that “The double DNA knife was not good evidence.” Because the knife was randomly picked from a draw in a location different from the murder location”.

Then offer your counter data such as:
Massei said that the kitchen knife could have fit in Amanda’s bag.
Massei said that Amanda carried a kitchen knife in her bag for defense.

You might also want to attack the qualifiers such as the phrases "conclusively shows that", "probably shows that" or "possibly shows that".

My points are:
1) Don’t attack the claim, attack the data, the qualifiers or the logic.
2) Don’t attack the author of the claim unless he suggests that he is an authority that should be believed and trusted.
3) State the claim at the beginning of your post. Don’t refute another’s claim with a mere counter claim.

Arguments here sometimes are of the stupid claim, counter claim variety. Let’s cease that junk.

 

[Machiavelli]

All right. I think I understand what you mean, and you have a valid position. I'm not sure it is realistic in practice, though.

You wrote, "Elements on policemen must be collected as elements regarding the policemen if there is an investigation on those people, elements on Sollecito must not be directly depending on what others did right or wrong." Ideally, that would be true. Can we examine a case of possible wrongful arrest and conviction, though, while keeping what the police did separate from what the defendant did? Is it even possible in that case to judge the defendant's position objectively?

If you really want to keep the two entities separate as you have described it, then you can never give the police more credibility than you give the suspect. Are you willing to do that?

I'm not giving a police officer a bigger credibility in principle than to any other citizen. Credibility depends on intrinsic factors, like the person's declarations, how that person performs in reporting facts.
In any case, judges and magistrates do not examine a case of arrest or conviction of wrongful arrest and conviction: they investigate and examine the case in the murder of Meredith Kercher. And this is my perspective.

 

[Withnail1969]

I'm not giving a police officer a bigger credibility in principle than to any other citizen. Credibility depends on intrinsic factors, like the person's declarations, how that person performs in reporting facts.
In any case, judges and magistrates do not examine a case of arrest or conviction of wrongful arrest and conviction: they investigate and examine the case in the murder of Meredith Kercher. And this is my perspective.

So what happens if in the course of a trial the police are found to have faked evidence or otherwise acted improperly? Nothing?

 

[Machiavelli]

How do you feel about Mafia murderers being released after serving as little as 3 years?

As far as I know, mafia murderers are convicted and serve terms longer than three years even if they cooperate. However their penalties are sensibly shorter.
The matter is complex and there is controverse, there are very specific laws. Anyway mafia murderers are not just criminals, they are political enemies, like terrorists. The political nature of mafia, which is a political power, is among the criteria by which society establishes what is the best collective interest. A government may not like hizbullah or hamas, but may found convenient to negotiate or to issue special laws to settle agreements or to incentivate certain political choices.

 

[Withnail1969]

As far as I know, mafia murderers are convicted and serve terms longer than three years even if they cooperate. However their penalties are sensibly shorter.
The matter is complex and there is controverse, there are very specific laws. Anyway mafia murderers are not just criminals, they are political enemies, like terrorists. The political nature of mafia, which is a political power, is among the criteria by which society establishes what is the best collective interest. A government may not like hizbullah or hamas, but may found convenient to negotiate or to issue special laws to settle agreements or to incentivate certain political choices.

Nope. The crime prevention boss of Naples says this:

"Naples anti-crime chief Vittorio Pisani says nearly 50 clan members arrested four years ago and charged with Mafia conspiracy were able, through plea bargaining and court concessions, to gain their freedom in record time.

VITTORIO PISANI (Translation): It is unacceptable that camorra members who had committed many murders and gained world wide notoriety, were released after just three years. What is needed most of all is tough action by the judiciary and that is lacking at the moment. We also need to improve social and economic conditions in certain areas, which is not being done right now."


Italy - Curse of the Camorra 2009

 

[Machiavelli]

So what happens if in the course of a trial the police are found to have faked evidence or otherwise acted improperly? Nothing?

All findings are elements of assessment on the suspect, including the discovery of evidence fabrication.

And, on the other hand, criminal behaviour of officers would have consequences for those who committed the crime (calunnia).

No principle or law, however, establishes that there should be a direct relation with the outcome of a trial, nothing implying that when a fabrication of evidence is proven then the defendant has to be found innocent.

 

[Machiavelli]

Nope. The crime prevention boss of Naples says this:

(..)

I invite you to avoid these kind of contestation of my words. I said what I said, after having read your quote, and I maintain the position of my experience, because this is what I know.
I don't know what the prosecutor means exactly, also because the term "released" doesn't mean specifically that the people have finished thir prison term or that they are convicts nor that they are free. People can be released vor various reasons in mafia trials: we must understand that a mafia process can be very long, not three or four yeras but six, seven or eight.

 

[Fine]

Why?


For what purpose?


Harmonious tunes that put Amanda at the scene of the crime.


He does blame the cops. He calls them stupid all through his diary. He says they know nothing and are holding him in jail for no reason.


Their intent is an issue for me, too. What possible reason would they have for changing their stories and putting Amanda at the crime scene instead of at Raffaele's? What would Amanda have to gain by accusing Patrick? They had already helped the cops plenty in the preceding three days. Things were going well. Why rock the boat?

__________________
For purposes of discussion, let's suppose the lovebirds are innocent of murder, in which case the intent of their scheme would be different than if guilty.

The answer to your question, I think, then comes down to Amanda's abnormality, a certain cockiness, conjoined with a touch of narcissism.

From a Cost/Benefit Analysis, the boat was already rocking in that they were uncomfortable with the situation. A sort of seasickness had already surfaced. (And didn't Amanda say in an intercepted message something like "I can't take this any longer?")

She didn't think that in accusing Patrick that she was incriminating herself. As she said in her court testimony that after signing her DECLARATION the night of November 5th, she expected to go back to the comfort of Raffaele's home (not to prison).

When Amanda was devising her scheme on November 5th, she may have been so confident of Patrick's guilt---having spoken to him earlier that day---she saw only the advantage in having the murderer arrested, the Perugian women now safe, and her daily interrogations ended. Of course all this anticipated benefit would depend on the cops getting independent evidence against Patrick. Maybe even a confession. If that had happened Amanda and Raffaele could stroll off into the sunset.

Of course, she miscalculated, which is pretty much what she seems to have said in her personal letter to Madison Paxton about her confession/interrogation...writing to her "I f**ked up."

If I were an innocentisti that's the way I'd see the police interrogations of Raffaele and Amanda the night of November 5th. Raffaele says explicitly in his Diary that Amanda asked him to lie. There is no escaping that fact, and the most charitable interpretation of the fact is to take it at face value. Amanda asked him to lie. Amanda's scheme makes more sense to me than a double-whammy false internalized confession/accusation. (Whether a textbook example or not.)

///

 

[Withnail1969]

I invite you to avoid these kind of contestation of my words. I said what I said, after having read your quote, and I maintain the position of my experience, because this is what I know.
I don't know what the prosecutor means exactly, also because the term "released" doesn't mean specifically that the people have finished thir prison term or that they are convicts nor that they are free. People can be released vor various reasons in mafia trials: we must understand that a mafia process can be very long, not three or four yeras but six, seven or eight.

In this case the gang members were initially arrested 4 years ago and have already been released. These are people with multiple murder convictions. If they can be released, why can't Amanda?

 

[daydreamer]

Sorry for the interuption.
Does anyone know when (date?) Rudy wrote his prison diary?
Thaks for any help.