Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

It would be interesting to look back through previous posts and see who actually originated this meme of the screensaver activating every 5 minutes for 12 hours.

The defense brief included something about the logs proving continuous activity all night with a maximum of six minute intervals. I still don't know what that means. I made a joke about it being possible the longest Raffaele could last with Amanda was five minutes, so that might be the first mention of that specific time period.

Can anyone clear up for us exactly what the defense is implying here? We had that six minute thing, then the 12 hours of whatever it was, and then the 'hot corners' and now I'm lost again.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

A partial list of Ms. Nadeau's errors

Your basis for Nadeau's alleged "error" was the word of an unidentified "anonymous" poster who claimed to have had access to/read the sworn statement of daniel, correct?

Should THAT "cut any ice"?

treehorn,

You misunderstand me. I gave you two links to search for Ms. Nadeau’s errors or misleading statements besides this thread. I don’t intend the following list to be understood as comprehensive (a quiet living could be made in such an endeavor), but here are a few of Ms. Nadeau’s errors

Reporting that a blond hair was found in Ms. Kercher’s room.
Saying that the kitchen knife had seven pieces of biological matter.
Claiming that Raffaele’s stepmother yelled an obscenity after the verdict was read, though no other reporter heard this.
Failing to challenge or to qualify the remarkable statement that Rudy Guede never changed his story, made by one of his lawyers.
Claiming that “A spot of Knox and Kercher’s mixed blood in one of the bedrooms, found using Luminol, and four additional spots in the small bathroom the girls shared also swayed the jurors.” This is nonsense for several reasons. As we have recently discussed here, luminol is presumptive but not conclusive for blood. Finding two person’s DNA in a blood spot is not evidence that both person’s blood is present. On the contrary, in the shared bathroom it is likely to be the result of a blood droplet hitting previously deposited biological matter, such as from brushing one’s teeth or combing one’s hair.

But I think that one of Ms. Nadeau’s most serious errors concerned the diary. Ms. Nadeau wrote, “And by her own account in a prison diary leaked to the media, she details her sexual escapades with at least seven men she'd been with in her three months in Italy before her arrest. She even wrote that she might have HIV and then she uses a process of elimination to narrow down who might have given it to her. The diary is part of the collection of evidence and could be damaging to Knox in a court trial. Recently leaked segments of her continuing tome paint a disturbing picture of her state of mind. In one entry, she writes: ‘I think it's possible that Raffaelle went to Meredith's house, raped her, then killed her and then when he got home, while I was sleeping, he pressed my fingerprints n the knife.’”

Mark Waterbury rightly took Ms. Nadeau to task for the many problems with her assertions. Ms. Knox wrote of having seven intimate partners her whole life because she was told that she was or might be HIV-positive. Ms. Knox’s diary shows her emotional distress, and to claim that it “details her sexual escapades” is so blatantly wrong that it leaves one wondering what Ms. Nadeau could possibly have been thinking. Some of the most problematic assertions, including the incorrect description of the night of the murder, were based on an English translation of an Italian translation of her diary, instead of the original. When she was contacted about the mistranslation, Ms. Nadeau claimed that there was a second diary, but she is the only reporter who has made this claim to the best of my knowledge.

It’s strange that the bilingual Ms. Nadeau would make this particular error. The error about Daniel just adds to the list above. What I find so interesting is that all of the errors tend to make Raffaele and Amanda look worse, not better. hmm….

 

[Mary_H]

In case you haven't noticed, this is an effort to define a social or normal personality in order to defend Amanda against charges of having a personality disorder of some type.

The book DSM III R is loaded with definitions of abnormal personalities, but few if any definitions of normal or social personalities.

I've been trying to find a list of social characteristics from a source that pleases the guilters. The guilters are NOT providing any help, they are just snipping at my heals. I have found two sources, but guilters reject both without finding one.

The reason I want this list of social characteristics from a reputable source is to refute the guilter's claim that Amanda had a personality disorder (PD). The guilters don't want to be refuted, so of course they attack my effort with slurs. Guilters are afraid that I might prove Amanda had a very social personality with fewer disorders than Massei, the police or the tabloids.

If Amanda didn't have a killer personality, then they would have to stop using personality disorders to justify their conclusion that she is guilty.

You could prove it if you want to go to the trouble, Justinian, but it's kind of like the the trial itself. We start with the presumption that Amanda is innocent, and we start with the presumption she is mentally healthy. It's up to her enemies to prove she is guilty or sick.

 

[Withnail1969]

The defense brief included something about the logs proving continuous activity all night with a maximum of six minute intervals. I still don't know what that means. I made a joke about it being possible the longest Raffaele could last with Amanda was five minutes, so that might be the first mention of that specific time period.

Can anyone clear up for us exactly what the defense is implying here? We had that six minute thing, then the 12 hours of whatever it was, and then the 'hot corners' and now I'm lost again.

The longest time the screensaver was active was 6 minutes? This does not imply that the screensaver activated every 5 minutes for the entire 12 hour period.

 

[katy_did]

As I noticed this topic of discussion I went back and read it a few days ago. I don't have an adjective to define its quality, and I have no time to express my opnion in detail now, but I was surprised the author could be a person with a law school background, I thought it's somthing really flawed from the basics. It's nothing serious from my point of view.

As I recall (though it's some time since I read it) his central point is the length of time Knox and Sollecito were detained without charge (a year) and his argument that this violates the fundamental rights of the suspect. I think he also refers to occasions when the European Court of Human Rights has criticized Italy for just this treatment of suspects. Making a comparison with other legal systems, there's controversy in many countries about the length of time for which terrorist suspects can be held without charge, even when the proposed increase is from, say, 30 days to 60 days. Looking at Italy's laws in in an international context, in my view there seems to be pretty solid grounds for criticism here.

When the paper was discussed on PMF, the posters missed the point by arguing that anyone charged with murder would be held in custody in most countries. Although this might be true, the point of the paper is that Knox and Sollecito (and Guede, for that matter) were held without charge. While the author gets some details of the case wrong, I think his legal arguments are convincing. I look forward to your more detailed analysis of that side of things, however.

 

[Alt+F4]

We need to keep in mind that by the time they were actually recounting what they did that night, they had spent three additional nights together, probably engaged in activities similar to what they had done on the night of the 1st.

Well if my roommate had been brutally murdered by an unknown stranger I'd be kind of freaking out that there was a crazed killer loose in Perugia. I wouldn't so much be focusing on goofing on the computer and having sex with the stranger I hooked up with a week earlier. Amanda seemed concerned about little more than getting her possession out of the apartment and finding a new place to live.

 

[Machiavelli]

Perhaps an expert review will be granted and the truth determined.

Yes, perhaps. The court will decide whether the possible information is important enough for the outcome of the trial to devolve time and rsources to search it. I can see in advance however that anyway there will be some poitns still standing: the fact the two suspect lied and claimed a different alibi, and the fact the computer activity doesn't prove innocence, neither the absence of two people from via della Pergola.

 

[Mary_H]

Well if my roommate had been brutally murdered by an unknown stranger I'd be kind of freaking out that there was a crazed killer loose in Perugia. I wouldn't so much be focusing on goofing on the computer and having sex with the stranger I hooked up with a week earlier. Amanda seemed concerned about little more than getting her possession out of the apartment and finding a new place to live.

So do you think they both sat up all night for the next three nights doing nothing?

 

[Alt+F4]

Guilters are afraid that I might prove Amanda had a very social personality with fewer disorders than Massei, the police or the tabloids.

You can prove no such thing. Amanda may be 100% mentally healthy, she may not. Your "Internet diagnosis" is a joke.

 

[Machiavelli]

As I recall (though it's some time since I read it) his central point is the length of time Knox and Sollecito were detained without charge (a year) and his argument that this violates the fundamental rights of the suspect. I think he also refers to occasions when the European Court of Human Rights has criticized Italy for just this treatment of suspects. Making a comparison with other legal systems, there's controversy in many countries about the length of time for which terrorist suspects can be held without charge, even when the proposed increase is from, say, 30 days to 60 days. Looking at Italy's laws in in an international context, in my view there seems to be pretty solid grounds for criticism here.

When the paper was discussed on PMF, the posters missed the point by arguing that anyone charged with murder would be held in custody in most countries. Although this might be true, the point of the paper is that Knox and Sollecito (and Guede, for that matter) were held without charge. While the author gets some details of the case wrong, I think his legal arguments are convincing. I look forward to your more detailed analysis of that side of things, however.

The focus and main argument of the paper seemed to me, instead, that precautional custody was not legal in the specific case of Amanda and Raffaele. And the building of this kind of argument in the way he does is nonsense, and unaccpetable, on multiple levels.

 

[Kaosium]

You could prove it if you want to go to the trouble, Justinian, but it's kind of like the the trial itself. We start with the presumption that Amanda is innocent, and we start with the presumption she is mentally healthy. It's up to her enemies to prove she is guilty or sick.

It is interesting to note that before Amanda came to Perugia there's no indication she was anything but a normal girl, one that liked boys and whom boys liked back. Only going to Perugia did she all of a sudden become described as a congenital lying 'Sex Monster,' and who was responsible for that?

The police who lied to and threatened her so they could arrest an innocent man, and then went and blamed it on her. Since then she's apparently been a model prisoner according to reports and a nice person according to what I've read about the two books published about her in prison.

 

[Mary_H]

Yes, perhaps. The court will decide whether the possible information is important enough for the outcome of the trial to devolve time and rsources to search it. I can see in advance however that anyway there will be some poitns still standing: the fact the two suspect lied and claimed a different alibi, and the fact the computer activity doesn't prove innocence, neither the absence of two people from via della Pergola.

When you write, "the fact the two suspect lied and claimed a different alibi," I assume you are referring to what they told the police during their interrogations.

Why don't you see their interrogations as coercive?

 

[Alt+F4]

So do you think they both sat up all night for the next three nights doing nothing?

Well what would do Mary, if your roommate had be brutally murdered in your own home? I'd be freaking out, wondering if maybe he (or them) were actually after me. I'd be on the first plane home.

 

[Withnail1969]

As I recall (though it's some time since I read it) his central point is the length of time Knox and Sollecito were detained without charge (a year) and his argument that this violates the fundamental rights of the suspect. I think he also refers to occasions when the European Court of Human Rights has criticized Italy for just this treatment of suspects. Making a comparison with other legal systems, there's controversy in many countries about the length of time for which terrorist suspects can be held without charge, even when the proposed increase is from, say, 30 days to 60 days. Looking at Italy's laws in in an international context, in my view there seems to be pretty solid grounds for criticism here.

When the paper was discussed on PMF, the posters missed the point by arguing that anyone charged with murder would be held in custody in most countries. Although this might be true, the point of the paper is that Knox and Sollecito (and Guede, for that matter) were held without charge. While the author gets some details of the case wrong, I think his legal arguments are convincing. I look forward to your more detailed analysis of that side of things, however.

Isn't Italy a signatory to the EU Human Rights Act which has been implemented in Britain? And doesn't Italy routinely allow dangerous criminals to remain at home whilst on trial?

Article 5 - liberty and security

Article 5 provides that everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. Liberty and security of the person are taken as a "compound" concept - security of the person has not been subject to separate interpretation by the Court.

Article 5 provides the right to liberty, subject only to lawful arrest or detention under certain other circumstances, such as arrest on suspicion of a crime or imprisonment in fulfilment of a sentence. The article also provides the right to be informed in a language one understands of the reasons for the arrest and any charge against them, the right of prompt access to judicial proceedings to determine the legality of one's arrest or detention and to trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial, and the right to compensation in the case of arrest or detention in violation of this article.

 

[katy_did]

The longest time the screensaver was active was 6 minutes? This does not imply that the screensaver activated every 5 minutes for the entire 12 hour period.

No you're right, the defence don't say that the screensaver activated every five minutes. They say that the longest time the screensaver was active prior to about 6:30 was just six minutes (after that, there's a gap of 6 hours until 12:30 where there's no activity). So the suggestion is that during that time, there was some kind of activity on the computer which prevented the screensaver kicking in for any length of time - although it could just have been someone putting in a CD, touching the mouse or hitting a key on the keyboard. Still, an activity that didn't happen automatically and needed someone to be present.

The activity at just before 1 is quite interesting with regard to the whole computer discussion. It seems as if it was a connection to Apple, perhaps a pop-up ad that needed to be closed by the user. But Amanda or Raffaele must have been doing something on the computer which caused that to happen in the first place - an ad wouldn't just pop up of its own accord. Yet all they were able to find a trace of was the connection itself, and no record of the activity that led to it.

That does suggest that there might have been a fair amount of activity on the computer which was simply never picked up, but which the defence may have now managed to find some record of.

 

[Mary_H]

Well what would do Mary, if your roommate had be brutally murdered in your own home? I'd be freaking out, wondering if maybe he (or them) were actually after me. I'd be on the first plane home.

I don't know what I would do. As I understand it, Amanda was worried about the killer still being out there. I'm sure you've read about Amanda's mother saying how often she regrets not insisting that Amanda get on the next plane home. Amanda seems to have been pretty idealistic at the time.

 

[Mary_H]

No you're right, the defence don't say that the screensaver activated every five minutes. They say that the longest time the screensaver was active prior to about 6:30 was just six minutes (after that, there's a gap of 6 hours until 12:30 where there's no activity). So the suggestion is that during that time, there was some kind of activity on the computer - although it could just have been someone putting in a CD, touching the mouse or hitting a key on the keyboard. Still, an activity that didn't happen automatically and needed someone to be present.

Didn't SomeAlibi say that it was during the interval before 6:30 that Raffaele was loading the "Clean up, clean up, everybody clean up" song onto his iPod?

 

[katy_did]

The focus and main argument of the paper seemed to me, instead, that precautional custody was not legal in the specific case of Amanda and Raffaele. And the building of this kind of argument in the way he does is nonsense, and unaccpetable, on multiple levels.

Well, as I said it's been a while since I read the paper, but I certainly didn't get the impression he was saying "It's OK to hold suspects for a year without charge, just not these suspects". I got the impression he was saying that it's a violation of the suspect's rights in principle to hold them for such a long time without charge. Naturally, he also addresses the reasons given by the Court for justifying such a long period of detention in this particular case.

But as I said, if you want to put forward an argument criticizing the content of the paper I'd be very interested to read it.

 

[Withnail1969]

Didn't SomeAlibi say that it was during the interval before 6:30 that Raffaele was loading the "Clean up, clean up, everybody clean up" song onto his iPod?

That makes sense now. He may have been loading up '101 Housework Songs' available from Amazon for just £7.99.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Housework-Songs-Vol-1-Various-Artists/dp/B000BAVZLW

 

[Kaosium]

Well if my roommate had been brutally murdered by an unknown stranger I'd be kind of freaking out that there was a crazed killer loose in Perugia. I wouldn't so much be focusing on goofing on the computer and having sex with the stranger I hooked up with a week earlier. Amanda seemed concerned about little more than getting her possession out of the apartment and finding a new place to live.

It definitely looked like she was freaking out when she wrote that e-mail.