Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Withnail1969]

Exactly. And, in addition, platonov seems to be advocating a position that "the end justifies the means" - which runs contrary to most modern jurisprudence practice. If this maxim were applied rigorously, then we might as well tap everybody's phone (a la Police State), and as a result we could undoubtedly stop more crimes from taking place. But in a civilised democratic state, we instead require there to be clear evidence of criminal activity taking place before someone's phones can be tapped.

BTW with regard to the inter-EU-member-state travel situation, it's possible that my transit between Germany and France last week was unusual, and I see that Switzerland only joined the Schengen area in December 2008 (and I last crossed the Italy/Switz border in February 2008). So I think I'm probably wrong about the "normal" state of affairs, and apologise for my false confidence on this issue. But of course it doesn't change the fact that Knox would have had to have a passport to return to the USA - which was explicitly the concern of the court when deciding on imprisonment over any form of house arrest.

Going 'on the run' with no passport is far from straightforward these days and way beyond Amanda's capabilities, as anyone with a lick of sense can see. But trying to make these common sense points with some people is like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling.

She should have been under house arrest, but it suited Mignini's narrative to pretend she was a flight risk or serious threat to the public. If Mafia bosses, war criminals and child molesters can be given house arrest, then so can Amanda.

Of course, two of the people I mentioned, the Indian priest and the Nazi war criminal, are not Italian, which seems to blow out of the water this idea that non-Italians can't get house arrest. Another lie exposed.

 

[Dan O.]

The Ankle bracelet was introduced in Italy in 2001:
http://translate.google.com/transla...blica.it/online/cronaca/bracci/albi/albi.html

 

[Fine]

Originally Posted by Fine
As I interpret the quote, it was Amanda who induced Raffaele to say she left for Le Chic. In which case Amanda induced Raffaele to lie. Why would she do that?

Common sense suggests she would not have asked him to lie in a way that incriminated her, i.e., tell the police she went out when in fact she stayed home with him.
You are reading way too much into this "evidence." You can interpret it in the most incriminating possible light, if you choose, but your interpretation is merely that. It is not proof of anything, and it never will be.

________________________________
Charlie,

Here's an abbreviated version (in English) of Judge Claudia Matteini's REPORT of November 9, 2007 confirming the arrest of Raffaele and Amanda: HERE This statement is found in the REPORT:

"He retracted his previous statement and justified his conduct by say that it was Knox who convinced him to give a false version of events."

It's clear that Raffaele told the cops Amanda induced him to lie. He says so in his Diary. And as I read this REPORT, as well as Raffaele's Diary (where he speaks of what he'd told Judge Matteini), Raffaele confirmed to Judge Matteini, on November 9, 2007, that he had lied, and that Amanda had induced him to lie.

Raffaele seems to confirm my interpretation in a written statement he released a week after his arrest (note that his arrest on November 5th was prior to Amanda's interrogation the same night):

"In a behind-bars interview with the Roman daily La Repubblica on Tuesday, Sollecito wrote, through his attorneys Marco Brusco and Luca Mauri, 'I never want to see Amanda again. Above all, it is her fault we are here.' " Newsweek

Hmm. Amanda's fault? Sure looks like Amanda had asked him to lie and Raffaele is saying so a week after his arrest.

Doctor Sollecito was blaming Amanda at the same time. From Barbie: "After Raffaele's arrest, his father told ABC News, 'She has ruined my son's life. I damn the day he met her.' " (Angel Face, page 34)

///

 

[Fine]

Going 'on the run' with no passport is far from straightforward these days and way beyond Amanda's capabilities, as anyone with a lick of sense can see. But trying to make these common sense points with some people is like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling.

She should have been under house arrest, but it suited Mignini's narrative to pretend she was a flight risk or serious threat to the public. If Mafia bosses, war criminals and child molesters can be given house arrest, then so can Amanda.

Of course, two of the people I mentioned, the Indian priest and the Nazi war criminal, are not Italian, which seems to blow out of the water this idea that non-Italians can't get house arrest. Another lie exposed.

____________________

Amanda, prior to her arrest, had asked permission to leave Italy for two weeks.

///

 

[Withnail1969]

____________________

Amanda, prior to her arrest, had asked permission to leave Italy for two weeks.

///

Citation please. Irrelevant anyway, she wouldn't be asking permission if she intended to go on the run.

Now that we've shown that far worse alleged criminals than Amanda are routinely given house arrest, that Italy has a system of electronic tagging, and that non-Italians can be given house arrest, I don't see what argument remains as to why she had to be kept in prison.

 

[Mary_H]

____________________

Amanda, prior to her arrest, had asked permission to leave Italy for two weeks.

///

Do you think a murderer would ask, or would just go?

 

[Mary_H]

Originally Posted by Fine
As I interpret the quote, it was Amanda who induced Raffaele to say she left for Le Chic. In which case Amanda induced Raffaele to lie. Why would she do that?
________________________________
Charlie,

Here's an abbreviated version (in English) of Judge Claudia Matteini's REPORT of November 9, 2007 confirming the arrest of Raffaele and Amanda: HERE This statement is found in the REPORT:

"He retracted his previous statement and justified his conduct by say that it was Knox who convinced him to give a false version of events."

It's clear that Raffaele told the cops Amanda induced him to lie. He says so in his Diary. And as I read this REPORT, as well as Raffaele's Diary (where he speaks of what he'd told Judge Matteini), Raffaele confirmed to Judge Matteini, on November 9, 2007, that he had lied, and that Amanda had induced him to lie.

The quote from the article you cited was: "He retracted his previous statement and justified his conduct by say that it was Knox who convinced him to give a false version of events."

All this means is that he was convinced of Amanda's story up until the time he talked to the cops. He had no reason to question it until they gave him one.

Raffaele seems to confirm my interpretation in a written statement he released a week after his arrest (note that his arrest on November 5th was prior to Amanda's interrogation the same night):

"In a behind-bars interview with the Roman daily La Repubblica on Tuesday, Sollecito wrote, through his attorneys Marco Brusco and Luca Mauri, 'I never want to see Amanda again. Above all, it is her fault we are here.' " Newsweek

Hmm. Amanda's fault? Sure looks like Amanda had asked him to lie and Raffaele is saying so a week after his arrest.

Doctor Sollecito was blaming Amanda at the same time. From Barbie: "After Raffaele's arrest, his father told ABC News, 'She has ruined my son's life. I damn the day he met her.' " (Angel Face, page 34)

///

All of these statements were made by people who had been informed by the authorities that Amanda had been involved in the crime. Obviously, they stopped feeling that way soon afterward.

 

[Machiavelli]

Are you saying that even if Vanessa herself has done nothing she still can't be a carabiniere because her brother has been charged with a crime? Isn't that somewhat mediaeval and doesn't it breach Vanessa's human rights in some way?

It's a shame that these high standards you talk about aren't applied to senior figures in Italy's legal system, such as Giuliano Mignini. A mere conviction for abuse of office seems to have done his career no harm at all.

Yes, even if Vanessa had no indictment she would be dropped by the Carabinieri. Her brother is convicted, not charged. The senoir figures in the Italian judiciary are subject to high standards, even higher standards in fact (albeit not the same standards). But the members of the judiciary are also related to a separate power, the CSM, an independent entity. Noboy else - no hieararchy nor court - has power over the single magistrates or the CSM.

There is anyway something more to say about Mignini's conviction and those who think his conviction in some way affects his credibility or makes him seem corrupt. I find this conclusion very arguable. The judgements I read about Mignini's abuse of power seem to me very partial, only focused on one part of the truth, and fail to see the picture in the perspective based on the Italian reality.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Raffaele and Matteini

SNIP
Charlie,

Here's an abbreviated version (in English) of Judge Claudia Matteini's REPORT of November 9, 2007 confirming the arrest of Raffaele and Amanda: HERE This statement is found in the REPORT:

"He retracted his previous statement and justified his conduct by say that it was Knox who convinced him to give a false version of events."

It's clear that Raffaele told the cops Amanda induced him to lie. He says so in his Diary. And as I read this REPORT, as well as Raffaele's Diary (where he speaks of what he'd told Judge Matteini), Raffaele confirmed to Judge Matteini, on November 9, 2007, that he had lied, and that Amanda had induced him to lie.
SNIP

Fine,

Both Darkness Descending and Murder in Italy indicate that Raffaele backed up Amanda in what they did that evening, but not with respect to the exact times. I have previously given extensive quotes from both books. The stuff about Raffaele not wanting to see Amanda again is understandable from the context of his blaming her for naming Patrick, however it fails to take into account the interview tactics that, um, induced both of them to say false things on the night of the 5th of November. Finally, I infer from one passage in Raffaele's diary that the police suggested that Amanda had not been faithful to him.

What Matteini's report says is clearly not very heavily influenced by statements made by the suspects in court on the 8th of November, if it is even influenced at all.

 

[katy_did]

Charlie,

Here's an abbreviated version (in English) of Judge Claudia Matteini's REPORT of November 9, 2007 confirming the arrest of Raffaele and Amanda: HERE This statement is found in the REPORT:

"He retracted his previous statement and justified his conduct by say that it was Knox who convinced him to give a false version of events."

It's clear that Raffaele told the cops Amanda induced him to lie. He says so in his Diary. And as I read this REPORT, as well as Raffaele's Diary (where he speaks of what he'd told Judge Matteini), Raffaele confirmed to Judge Matteini, on November 9, 2007, that he had lied, and that Amanda had induced him to lie.

No, I don't think this is what Matteini's report says.

As I read the original, Raffaele told Matteini he spent the entire night with Knox; then under questioning, he said he can't be sure whether or not she left. This is also what he says he told her in his diary (that he thinks Amanda was with him all night, but that he can't remember whether she left and for how much time and in fact whether she left at all).

In the bit you quoted, I think Matteini is referring to what happened during the interrogation on 5/6 November, which will have been based on Raffaele's police statement. This is Matteini's paraphrasing of that statement. And she doesn't say that "Knox convinced him to give a false version of events", she simply says that [Raffaele said in his statement that] Amanda "influenced" his earlier statements.

Here again is Raffaele's police statement, which seems to be the source of the claim Amanda asked him to lie:

In my previous statement I said a load of crap because Amanda convinced me of her version of the facts and I didn't think about the contradictions.

Do you really understand that to mean Amanda told Raffaele to lie? To me, that makes no sense, because he is saying he believed Amanda's version of what happened, and didn't think about the contradictions in that version. In other words (no doubt having been confronted with new 'facts' from the police) he thinks Amanda tricked him. I can't see how the statement can be interpreted as Amanda persuading him to 'lie'...?

 

[Machiavelli]

Of course, if Amanda had been a child molester, house arrest would have been no problem...

Why Amanda and not Rudy Guede?
Why not the murderer Roberto Spaccino? Or the girl Rosa Della Corte? (to mention a couple Perugians).

 

[katy_did]

The stuff about Raffaele not wanting to see Amanda again is understandable from the context of his blaming her for naming Patrick, however it fails to take into account the interview tactics that, um, induced both of them to say false things on the night of the 5th of November.

A very good example of how people can be "induced" or "influenced" to say false things without being told directly to "lie", Chris.

 

[Withnail1969]

Why Amanda and not Rudy Guede?
Why not the murderer Roberto Spaccino? Or the girl Rosa Della Corte? (to mention a couple Perugians).

I don't know enough about the other cases to judge. As far as I know, Rudy's adopted family had disowned him so he didn't have a stable family base if he had been given house arrest. Did his lawyers actually request house arrest? I don't know.

Amanda and Raff had not been in trouble before, and their families were prepared to supervise them. Electronic tags make flight impossible. If Amanda is such a danger to others, why isn't she held in solitary in a high security prison?

 

[Chris C]

____________________

Amanda, prior to her arrest, had asked permission to leave Italy for two weeks.

///

Why would she need permission?

What did Amanda ask Sollecito to lie about?

 

[Fine]

Why would she need permission?

What did Amanda ask Sollecito to lie about?

_________________________________________

In Raffaele's Diary he tells us what Amanda wanted him to lie about.................

"Amanda persuaded me to talk crap [dire
cazzate] in the second version, and that she [quella] had gone out to go to the bar where she worked, Le Chic."
And further confirmation of just what the lie was, derived from his police interrogation of November 5th...

"Knox left him, saying to him that she would go to the pub Le Chic to meet friends while he returned to his house, where he received a phone call from his father on his fixed line at 2300, and that he was using his computer for two hours while smoking a joint, and that the girl returned around 1am and that they both work up at 1000 when Amanda left the house to return to Via della Pergola.

He retracted his previous statement and justified his conduct by say that it was Knox who convinced him to give a false version of events."
(From Judge Matteini REPORT, > Matteini Report)

///

 

[Kaosium]

But Telenorba executives are also indicted. It's not normal for a tv network to comply and publish this material, to produce and to broadcast news reports like they did. It is not normal for a man in Bari to speak on the phone asking for governemtal powers to "flay" the chief of Perugia Flying squad. It is not comon for an average citizen to have a pillar of Bari masonry as prof. Introna and Giulia Bongiorno on his payroll.

His son is arrested in a bizarre murder charge (what were the initial press reports--the satantic ritual 'theory?') so he contacts his representatives, goes to the press, and his family is arrested and the press arrested too?

Do I have this right?

 

[RoseMontague]

Saw an article posted at PMF that contained a link to this abstract and it mentions both coffee and cherry soda along with rust and bleach possibly causing a positive Luminol reaction.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ac101107v

http://gizmodo.com/5689095/blood-camera-to-spot-invisible-stains-at-crime-scenes

Who has not spilled some coffee on occasion? The more I read about what does or doesn't cause a Luminol reaction, the more confusing these things get.

 

[Withnail1969]

Saw an article posted at PMF that contained a link to this abstract and it mentions both coffee and cherry soda along with rust and bleach possibly causing a positive Luminol reaction.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ac101107v

http://gizmodo.com/5689095/blood-camera-to-spot-invisible-stains-at-crime-scenes

Who has not spilled some coffee on occasion? The more I read about what does or doesn't cause a Luminol reaction, the more confusing these things get.

That's interesting. I had been given the impression from repeated comments from some parties that only turnip juice, apart from blood itself, could cause a Luminol reaction. Funny how these pieces of misinformation get propagated.

 

[Machiavelli]

I don't know enough about the other cases to judge. As far as I know, Rudy's adopted family had disowned him so he didn't have a stable family base if he had been given house arrest. Did his lawyers actually request house arrest? I don't know.

Amanda and Raff had not been in trouble before, and their families were prepared to supervise them. Electronic tags make flight impossible. If Amanda is such a danger to others, why isn't she held in solitary in a high security prison?

If you don't know other cases, why do you suggest comparison with other cases? You quote foreign papers like the Times of India mentioning a child molester or a Nazi criminal convict, but seems you miss completely thousands of ordinary cases.
You also have no problem in suggesting a new standard to keep Rudy Guede in prison: a "stable family base" is no legal requirement for house arrest in any code, yet you make it up for Rudy Guede.
Then, again you complain about things that are just law and standard. Are other inmates given electronic bracelets while in cautional custody? No. So why should Amanda receive this kind of privilege?
The law says people with serious evidence against them remain in custody. The law could be wrong, but it is applied to thousands of people. Sure Sabrina Misseri would prefer to go home, and Rudy has no less entitlement for leaving prison. There is no argument to adjust or crook the law because of Amanda and only complain if it is applied to Amanda.

 

[Machiavelli]

That's interesting. I had been given the impression from repeated comments from some parties that only turnip juice, apart from blood itself, could cause a Luminol reaction. Funny how these pieces of misinformation get propagated.

It was not "given an impression" and was not "misinformation": a research was posted with several quotes and citation of scientific literature with articulated topics, for everyone to read.
The collected papers were not that confusing in their conclusions.

The topic of chemical reagents in the case of the Luminol prints must be dealt with differently, anyway. For the court, the failure by the defence to indicate or suggest an alternative substance (present in the house) is a point of capital value. The judges are not allowed to rest on a passive approach like the one suggested by RoseMontague.