Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[platonov]

It's a Vast International Conspiracy. The evidence is indisputable.

How else does one explain the willful refusal of officials at the highest levels of power on continents around the world to execute their sworn duties? There can be no other explanation.

The sinister influences and overwhelming power of the Perugia Police Mafia cannot be eluded by mere national governments and international alliances.

Hold on, is that a giant reptile in your avatar.

This 'thing' might be bigger than even some here suspect.

Have I just 'juiced the piglet' ?

.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

was Raffaele a flight risk?

To all,

As weak as the grounds for holding Amanda without charge were (given the other options available), they are even weaker for Raffaele. Can anyone contend that he was a flight risk?

 

[Kaosium]

I think there are two issues here:

1. What is Italian case law and the European Convention say about house arrest as an option for a non-EU citizen who has no home or family in the country in question?

2. According to the paper in question, according to the European Court a person can be held if there is the belief they will flee. From that paper:

Based on that, I think there was justification that Amanda might flee. She was facing a serious sentence, she had no family, work or financial ties to Italy and it wouldn't be that difficult to escape.​

In regard to Amanda possibly being a flight risk that paper also says:​

Did the court deem her a flight risk? What is the legal procedure for "taking away" a person's passport? The last part was the most strange. There is already an extradition treaty between the United States and Italy. Why would an additional assurance be needed? On what legal grounds?​

​

Those are interesting questions you raised about Amanda, but I suspect the reason is more pragmatic than legal. The Italian courts probably figured if she were to go to the US there would be no extradition as the Italian government wouldn't ask very hard and the US wouldn't accede. I don't equate the Italian courts with the Italian government, and have seen that the Italian courts sometimes embarrass the government.

Raffaele is an entirely different question, and frankly that's a mystery. I wonder sometimes if all that senator accomplished was to ensure poor Raffale stays locked up so there would be no cause for anyone to assume they were showing favoritism to the Italian suspect.

 

[Justinian2]

I think it's a joke that you think you know more about Amanda Knox above what has been said about her in the media, whether it was negative or positive.

I never said that. However, I've had DSM III R in my library for 23 years. I know something about that. And when people make a diagnosis that Amanda has a personality disorder (PD), alarm bells go off.

The tabloids do not have a reputation for reliable information. I don't trust them. So if I don't think they are reliable information sources, I'm not alone.

I have always thought the DSM III R was defective because it never described a social or normal personality. I have challenged all of you here to find a respected source of information of a social/normal personality.

I don't claim to know more, but my extrapolations have usually been better than most. A lifetime as a Mensan, an engineer, a father, and a chess player have made me quite confident in my own reasoning ability. Others provide me with the facts, but I make my own extrapolations. In me I trust.

 

[Alt+F4]

As weak as the grounds for holding Amanda without charge were (given the other options available), they are even weaker for Raffaele. Can anyone contend that he was a flight risk?

I agree with you that Raffaele was not a flight risk. That fact that he had none of the criteria that one would look for in a flight risk only further shows that Amanda did meet the criteria.

The paper in question only discusses Amanda's precautionary detention, not Raffaeles. Perhaps someone has more information about his particular situation?

As for "other options" for Amanda, what were they based on other similiar cases?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

If she had no involvement in this case except being in the house when the body was discovered why would she be worried about not being about to continuing to study in Perugia? RS seemed to have no problem with her staying with him.

A better question is why would she kill her housemate if she wanted to continue to study in Perugia? Wouldn't she realize that such an event would throw her entire plan, for which she had worked and saved, into disarray?

 

[Alt+F4]

The Italian courts probably figured if she were to go to the US there would be no extradition as the Italian government wouldn't ask very hard and the US wouldn't accede.

Why do you think this?

 

[Alt+F4]

A better question is why would she kill her housemate if she wanted to continue to study in Perugia? Wouldn't she realize that such an event would throw her entire plan, for which she had worked and saved, into disarray?

Simple, no matter what her involvement was, she didn't think she would get caught.

 

[platonov]

A better question is why would she kill her housemate if she wanted to continue to study in Perugia? Wouldn't she realize that such an event would throw her entire plan, for which she had worked and saved, into disarray?

Is this stratagem used in many murder cases.

The 'inconvenience defence '?

.

 

[RoseMontague]

I never said that. However, I've had DSM III R in my library for 23 years. I know something about that. And when people make a diagnosis that Amanda has a personality disorder (PD), alarm bells go off.

The tabloids do not have a reputation for reliable information. I don't trust them. So if I don't think they are reliable information sources, I'm not alone.

I have always thought the DSM III R was defective because it never described a social or normal personality. I have challenged all of you here to find a respected source of information of a social/normal personality.

http://d.yimg.com/kq/groups/9728474/1543715707/name/Unwritten+Rules+of+Social+Relationships.pdf

It's a start, anyway.

 

[Kaosium]

Why do you think this?

It is not in Italy's national interests. The victim was British, Amanda is American. It's a lose-lose scenario for them, the most they 'gain' if she's finally convicted is the cost of incarcerating her.

 

[platonov]

treehorn,

At last we can agree on something. Her many errors in this case suggest to me that she can misunderstand people in more than one language.

Without taking a stand on the debate over her accuracy as a whole, is she not still ahead of C Dempsey in this regard, who misunderstands/misreports misblogs in only 1 language.

.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

better options

I agree with you that Raffaele was not a flight risk. That fact that he had none of the criteria that one would look for in a flight risk only further shows that Amanda did meet the criteria.

The paper in question only discusses Amanda's precautionary detention, not Raffaeles. Perhaps someone has more information about his particular situation?

As for "other options" for Amanda, what were they based on other similiar cases?

Alt+F4,

Mr. Sayagh wrote, "The judge must make certain findings prior to ordering precautionary measures. First, no person can be subject to precautionary measures absent “grave indications” of that person’s guilt. Permitted precautionary measures include: a prohibition on leaving the country ; an obligation to present oneself before a police officer on a specified schedule ; ordering the suspect to stay away from his or her family home or other specified residence unless given permission to return by a judge; house arrest ; detention in a mental facility ; and lastly, detention in prison . In choosing which measure is appropriate, the judge is given discretion and makes a determination on an individualized basis. The judge can only order detention in prison in “exceptional circumstances” and only then, when all other possibilities are deemed inadequate. To justify imprisonment, the judge must find that there is a danger that the suspect will (1) counterfeit or destroy evidence; (2) escape; or (3) commit more crimes of the same kind. A finding that the accused might tamper with evidence or escape must be based on “specific facts” validating such fears. A finding that the accused may commit further offences must be based on “specific conduct” or a history of criminal behavior."

Elsewhere in the same manuscript he wrote, "The court could easily have reduced the risk of actual flight by taking Amanda’s passport away from her, and perhaps asking for extradition assurances from the American embassy."

 

[Withnail1969]

http://d.yimg.com/kq/groups/9728474/1543715707/name/Unwritten+Rules+of+Social+Relationships.pdf

It's a start, anyway.

My World is What I Do
By Temple Grandin​

When I was a child I was a big fan of Superman and The Lone
Ranger. These television shows had clear-cut values of right and
wrong. Good guys fought bad guys and good guys won.

I would argue that both Superman and the Lone Ranger embody establishment values and are engaged in upholding the capitalist, colonialist system of oppression under which so many languish. As such, they can't be described as 'good guys' any more than the Joker or Lex Luthor can be described as 'bad guys'.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the pudding

Without taking a stand on the debate over her accuracy as a whole, is she not still ahead of C Dempsey in this regard, who misunderstands/misreports misblogs in only 1 language.

.

Ms. Dempsey writes only in English, AFAIK. However, she reads and speaks Italian. In my estimation, the proof of the pudding is in the eating with respect to any of the reporters/bloggers on this case.

 

[RoseMontague]

I would argue that both Superman and the Lone Ranger embody establishment values and are engaged in upholding the capitalist, colonialist system of oppression under which so many languish. As such, they can't be described as 'good guys' any more than the Joker or Lex Luthor can be described as 'bad guys'.

You are quite the funny one today. Seriously, most social norms are unwritten and vary from culture to culture. Teaching a child with autism requires that these things be precisely delineated, defined, and taught. It is a good resource for this question, maybe.

 

[Mary_H]

I'm sorry, I must have missed that post. Could you link to it? Thanks.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6549678&postcount=14669

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6541530&postcount=14392

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6483934&postcount=12684

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6482737&postcount=12620

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6482661&postcount=12612

 

[Mary_H]

Amanda refused to answer to the GIP (the preliminary judge) but she was there. Then she decided to clear her position in an interrogation with Mignini (the magistrate) on Dec 18.
Raffaele decided to speak with the GIP, but he didn't want to be interrogated by Mignini (not that he just refused to answer: he declined the interrogation) and he expressed the reason why: because he had already clarified his position and thus didn't have anything different to add after what he said.
Everything he said outside the police interrogation - in the GIP interogation, in his diaries, in his statements about having clarified everything - is incompabible wit an alibi of being awake at the computer the whole night.

His alibi doesn't include being awake at the computer the whole night. We don't know yet what the appeal is saying about the computer activity. The important thing will be whether they are able to establish activity in the hours between 9 and midnight.

And, about assuming coercive interrogations, where is the claim he underwent a coercive interogation? There is no claim of this, no fact explaining coercion was claimed by his defence or reported by him, and there is not even a claim - by him or by the defence - that these facts about his alibi he reported in any of those in interrgations were false.

We've been thorough this. Regardless of whether the interrogation was coercive, he said something different during the interrogation from what he had said before or would say after. Maybe the police promised him a lollipop if he would change his story.

 

[Withnail1969]

We've been thorough this. Regardless of whether the interrogation was coercive, he said something different during the interrogation from what he had said before or would say after. Maybe the police promised him a lollipop if he would change his story.

I've seen these Italian police before, strutting around Rome with their boots and their guns. I'm sure an all-night discussion with 12 such gentlemen was a delightful experience for all concerned.

 

[Amazer]

Alt+F4,

Mr. Sayagh wrote, "The judge must make certain findings prior to ordering precautionary measures. First, no person can be subject to precautionary measures absent “grave indications” of that person’s guilt. Permitted precautionary measures include: a prohibition on leaving the country ; an obligation to present oneself before a police officer on a specified schedule ; ordering the suspect to stay away from his or her family home or other specified residence unless given permission to return by a judge; house arrest ; detention in a mental facility ; and lastly, detention in prison . In choosing which measure is appropriate, the judge is given discretion and makes a determination on an individualized basis. The judge can only order detention in prison in “exceptional circumstances” and only then, when all other possibilities are deemed inadequate. To justify imprisonment, the judge must find that there is a danger that the suspect will (1) counterfeit or destroy evidence; (2) escape; or (3) commit more crimes of the same kind. A finding that the accused might tamper with evidence or escape must be based on “specific facts” validating such fears. A finding that the accused may commit further offences must be based on “specific conduct” or a history of criminal behavior."

And those are the only circumstances in which a judge can order detention?

Elsewhere in the same manuscript he wrote, "The court could easily have reduced the risk of actual flight by taking Amanda’s passport away from her, and perhaps asking for extradition assurances from the American embassy."

Given the rather poor reputation of the USA with regard to the extradiction of its own citizens and add to that that travel within the European Union does not require a passport and that there are other US embassies within the EU where Amanda could have applied for a new passport; and I think it should be abundantly clear that detention in prison was the only reasonable option.