Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[moodstream]

To enumerate all of them would take too long. I don't feel like doing these lists, it's very boring for me as I feel it as a big waste of time. You could instead ask to mention one point or two and analyse it. Clearly, the weight is given by the whole picture and its effect on Raffaele's credibility. But it is about aspects of what he wrote that and said that each of us can see and assess on his own. I like the idea that people "discover" things themselves, I don't like when clues in murder misteries are "explained" by someone else.

It does take a lot of time to write a clear complete argument. I agree. That can be a burden. But it is not at all a waste of time. Look, Machiavelli, you have the power to shut this board down. What are we up to - 15,000 posts in just a few months? And there you stand, with clear, compelling arguments that will end all doubt about Knox’s/Sollecito’s guilt.

Machiavelli, your conclusions stem from clear and compelling arguments that will convince any group of reasonable people, provided they have the facts you have, and your explanation of those facts. Is this not so? Am I missing something? Or do you also doubt the guilt of Knox and Sollecito?

How much less time would it take to make your compelling argument clearly and completely just once, compared with dribbling along day after day with oblique references to your true meanings.

You write: I like the idea that people "discover" things themselves But, the reader is responding to your post, and so is only free to discover what you are intending to say.

Here is a sample: I realize his explanations and stories are inconsistent, and not credible. About his position in police interrogation, I think it contains outright lies and grave contradictions. I also think his writings are omissive, elusive, deceptive.

Thus, you put a terrible, time consuming burden on the reader. First, all possible relevant documents must be accessed. Then the reader must GUESS which facts you are using for your arguments, and then GUESS the construction of your argument. Meanwhile, you only sit in judgment on all of the work they have done.

You are not intending this as a prank. Your expectation is the reader will undertake the many hours needed to research your post (assuming the reader even has access to the documents).

But it leaves open the possibility that, after having forced your reader through such an ordeal, and feeling yourself losing your point, you can simply announce that the reader has it all wrong. That’s not what you meant at all, add in other facts or worse, other unsubstantiated claims that force the reader to start the cycle again, researching and trying to figure out what you mean.

Someone with your degree of sincerity and honor would not stoop so low. Although so many of your posts do contain a variation of the weight is given by the whole picture and its effect on Raffaele's credibility, and, although this looks to be a pre planted escape route for a weak argument, I will not allow myself to draw this conclusion.

Finally, I am not asking for clues to a murder mystery. I am asking you to state you point of view, and then give the facts that you will then use to argue the truth of your position. In short, I am asking for clear compelling argumentation, because if you cannot offer a clear compelling argument for guilt, you must allow for the reasonable possibility of innocence.

 

[Withnail1969]

I notice that furniture polish is way up there in the paper linked to by Rose as a substance causing a major Luminol reaction. Furniture polish, floor polish - probably pretty similiar.

Why are we talking about all this anyway since i understood that the Luminol footprints in the cottage definitely didn't contain blood? Am i wrong on that?

 

[katy_did]

Ray Turner has a list here:

http://knoxarchives.blogspot.com/2010/02/another-giuliano-mignini-defamation.html

Thanks, yes, Oggi journalist Giangavino Sulas and (I think it's a separate person) the editor of the magazine. It'd be interesting to know exactly what they said which led to the defamation charges.

 

[katy_did]

Amanda's plan was to frame herself as an accessory to murder? By accusing somebody that if she was present at the time of the murder she would know was not even there? This was their scheme?

I guess they must also have had a plan to induce the police to misinterpret Amanda's text message to Patrick (or maybe that was all cunningly planned out when she sent the message in the first place...?)

 

[RoseMontague]

I notice that furniture polish is way up there in the paper linked to by Rose as a substance causing a major Luminol reaction. Furniture polish, floor polish - probably pretty similiar.

Why are we talking about all this anyway since i understood that the Luminol footprints in the cottage definitely didn't contain blood? Am i wrong on that?

A second (also presumptive) test for blood (TMB) was performed that was negative for blood. Why she used this test rather than a specific test for blood makes little sense to me. Or if she did, the results were not handed over as they should have been.

 

[RoseMontague]

I guess they must also have had a plan to induce the police to misinterpret Amanda's text message to Patrick (or maybe that was all cunningly planned out when she sent the message in the first place...?)

I think Matteini's reasoning seems that it was planned to give Patrick an alibi:

Also as regards the text of the message that the suspect sent to the 20.30 to Amanda there are discrepancies between what is reported by the girl and what the predicted; Indeed while the girl spoke of a message which was that the local sights would remained closed and therefore should not have to go to work, Patrick say they have written that evening there was no need of its few customers collaborative absence.
This may seem like a fact of little importance when in reality it is not absence a substantial difference between the two messages, it is likely that Patrick had intended actually not to open the room thinking that you can spend the night with Meredith, then, since the evolution of facts, has seen fit to open the pub for specially established an alibi.

 

[katy_did]

I think Matteini's reasoning seems that it was planned to give Patrick an alibi:

Scary how much can be read into so little (Amanda and Patrick's slightly different recollection of the text message...).

I think she should have stopped at "This may seem like a fact of little importance".

 

[Withnail1969]

I think Matteini's reasoning seems that it was planned to give Patrick an alibi:

So if you could refresh my memory here, is the Matteini report the original report in which the ludicrous claim was made that Patrick was the killer?

If this is the case, i would assume the only reason anyone would quote it would be to mock its idiocy.

 

[RoseMontague]

So if you could refresh my memory here, is the Matteini report the original report in which the ludicrous claim was made that Patrick was the killer?

If this is the case, i would assume the only reason anyone would quote it would be to mock its idiocy.

I have quoted it before to show how the evidence is fit with the presumption of guilt on the part of Patrick. It actually sounds more reasonable than say, the Massei report, but only because Matteini actually explains how some conclusions were made.

 

[Justinian2]

Even in the USA there is a presumption of guilt in certain cases.

If someone you know dies in your house, you are presumed guilty in both the USA and Italy. It's sad, but true, isn't it? The police will treat you as innocent, but all the while you will be near the top of their short list of suspects. In other words, you are presumed to be guilty.

 

[Alt+F4]

If someone you know dies in your house, you are presumed guilty in both the USA and Italy.

Wrong, people die of natural causes very often at home.

 

[Machiavelli]

The judges are supposed to have a presumption of innocence, we keep coming to this same issue. It is not up to the defense to prove that it was something in the house that may have caused this, it is up to the prosecution to prove the reaction was caused by blood. The prosecution failed to do so. The defense suggested alternate substances and emphasized the fact that specific tests for blood should determine the nature of the reaction and not the initial presumptive test with luminol.

The judges don't have the presumption of innocence as the only task and only duty.

The inquisitory process has in fact a different aim from proving guilt. The aim of the inquisitorial trial does is similar to an investigation, to an inquiry, it is to find out what happened. The judges in an inquisitory sistem - which the Italian justice system is in some of its structures - have he task of actively operate to discover the truth. This is a task, a main goal of the trial to which all parties are supposed to particiate.

The adversarial trial can be schematized in essence as a debate between the prosecution and the defence, while judge and jury are passive, and the defendant is relatively passive too. Assessment on defendant's words is only on his/her "reaction" to questioning under limitation.
The inquisitorial kind of trial has at his essence a debate betwen the judge and the defendant. It is about how the defendant performs in relation to his trial file, and how the defence does as well. The defendant is given wide freedom of speech including a right to lie. But questions and consistence of the defensive arguments get a crucial role.

In the trial debate, the defence and the prosecution can be relatively passive, but any "hole" or lack of argument towards points in the investigation file would be noticed. The defence doesn't have the right to defend as in some adversarial context: it has the duty to defend. If a defensive lawyer is not "defending" enough, the judge may replace him with a state-paid lawyer. A defence attorney must bring defensive arguments.

More important, it is what happens with the judges. The judges cannot just "wait" in their presumption of innocence until somebody else provides them with a more compelling proof, and do nothing until that moment. If there is something to know about, for example what alternative substance could have produced the luminol prints and how they where produced, since this is a key point to the discovery of truth, the judges must do everything possible to find it.

In an inquisitory trials the judges are investigators.
Their mind-set - including the one of lay-judges - is that of investigators, will be always oriented in a logic towards the "values" typical of of investigation. The kind of evidence that works for detectives to make up their minds, also works for judges. If judges are unable to think to alternative answers on partos of the scenario, if they fail to see any scenario by which falsify the investigation theory, once the falsification theory shows a failure, they will opt for conrifmatory indication (indizio, circumstantial evidence) towards the investigation. In the same logic, they can't help but interpret a failure by the defence to contribute to an alternative hypothesis. The lack of alternative argument stands out: the debate fails to produce it and the judges note it down.

 

[Fine]

How many people have had charges filed on them or been arrested so far in connection to this case?

Amanda
Raffaele
Rudy
Patrick
Amanda's mom
Amanda's dad
Four members of Raffaele's family
Two bloggers overseas
The defense lawyers

Am I missing anyone?

I wonder if Giuliano Mignini realizes that people notice that?

Here's an article I read on him translated from the Italian:
http://blog.panorama.it/italia/2010/02/08/i-metodi-di-giuliano-mignini-sei-mio-nemico-vai-indagato/

Quote:
You're my enemy? Then I will indict you.

The Index. Following the conviction of the pm Giuliano Mignini and of the policeman-turned-writer Michele Giuttari, their methods of investigation have come under severe criticism. Many blacklists found.

A blacklist, a secret file with the names of parliamentarians, ministers, and journalists. This is what investigators have discovered on the personal computer of Giuliano Mignini, the Italian prosecutor who has been heavily criticized in America (the same one who pointed a severely accusatory finger against the American Amanda Knox in the trial for the death of Meredith Kercher) and the lead investigator in the second part of the investigation of the Monster of Florence.

Florentine prosecutors Luca Turco and Gabriele Mazzotta have uncovered a series of “strange items” in the investigations conducted by Mignini and the policeman-writer Michele Giuttari, who were searching for the masterminds behind the serial killings of couples. The end result: on January 22 the Tribunale of Florence convicted the magistrate and the chief inspector for abuse of office.

According to the verdict of conviction (the two men received respectively a year and six months and a year and four months in prison, beyond a ban on holding public office), the two, in 2006, illegally investigated certain journalists, the police chief of Florence Giuseppe De Donno and two high officials of the Viminale [the Ministry of the Interior in Rome].

However, the disturbing files in question opened other possibilities. The affair had its origin in April 2006, during the sensational arrest of the journalist Mario Spezi for involvement in murder and obstruction of justice. Spezi spent 23 days in prison, of which five were spent in an isolation cell, denied access to his attorney, under laws of the Penal Code meant to be applied only to extremely dangerous criminals such as terrorists.

Spezi’s arrest unleashed scathing criticism by some journalists. Giuttari and Mignini responded with a series of “assessments” (later judged illegal by the tribunale) authorized under the signature of Judge Marina De Robertis, who used a legal procedure meant only to be employed in an emergency; but these emergency authorizations were never retroactively justified as required by law.

One of the cases involved the wiretapping of a cellular telephone owned by the daily newspaper, La Stampa, in use by the reporter Vincenzo Tessandori, who was moreover illegally investigated beyond normal judicial procedures, but who had written several articles critical of the investigation. The same illegal harassment was directed at other newspaper reporters such as Gennaro De Stefano (who has since died) and Roberto Fiasconaro.

Giuttari and Mignini ordered the wiretapping and shadowing of two police officials from the press office of the Polizia in Rome, who had earlier asked Giuttari to limit his television appearances.

These are the facts that have emerged from the Florentine inquiries. Here is a passage from the indictments written by the pm Turco regarding the fact that the victims of this judicial abuse were investigated illegally, outside of normal judicial procedures. “If Mignini suspected a crime had been committed, he had the capacity and obligation to investigate the suspect in a proper and legal manner.” But even more disturbing, for the repercussions it had, is the list of “enemies” of Mignini.

From December 2005 to May 2006 a file was created and added to entitled “Attacks to Remember”, in which there is another file: “Orgy of Attacks Following the Arrest of Spezi; an index of newspapers: Libero, Il Giornale, Oggi.” Following that is a long list of people “To Remember” that consisted of the names of some of the most prominent judges involved in the case of the Monster of Florence, a long list of politicians, among which could be found the ex-mayor of Florence, Leonardo Domenici, the deputy mayor Michele Venturo and the Minister of the Environment Altero Matteoli, all of whom signed a petition of solidarity protesting Spezi’s incarceration.


He's been busted once for it, and he's doing it again. A simple break-in gone bad becomes a bizarre conspiracy for one reason: Giuliano Mignini. He blew it and is again trying to silence anyone who points it out.

I just don't think he's going to get away with it.

___________________________

Errr, I'm confused. So, Mignini was investigating suspected corruption among police, judges, and politicians in another murder case. But isn't that exactly what the Innocentisti want done in the Meredith Kercher murder case? So why shouldn't we be applauding Mignini's courage, Mignini having done what no prosecutor is willing to do in this Kercher case? I don't get it.

///

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

The judges don't have the presumption of innocence as the only task and only duty.

The inquisitory process has in fact a different aim from proving guilt. The aim of the inquisitorial trial does is similar to an investigation, to an inquiry, it is to find out what happened. The judges in an inquisitory sistem - which the Italian justice system is in some of its structures - have he task of actively operate to discover the truth. This is a task, a main goal of the trial to which all parties are supposed to particiate.

The adversarial trial can be schematized in essence as a debate between the prosecution and the defence, while judge and jury are passive, and the defendant is relatively passive too. Assessment on defendant's words is only on his/her "reaction" to questioning under limitation.
The inquisitorial kind of trial has at his essence a debate betwen the judge and the defendant. It is about how the defendant performs in relation to his trial file, and how the defence does as well. The defendant is given wide freedom of speech including a right to lie. But questions and consistence of the defensive arguments get a crucial role.

In the trial debate, the defence and the prosecution can be relatively passive, but any "hole" or lack of argument towards points in the investigation file would be noticed. The defence doesn't have the right to defend as in some adversarial context: it has the duty to defend. If a defensive lawyer is not "defending" enough, the judge may replace him with a state-paid lawyer. A defence attorney must bring defensive arguments.

More important, it is what happens with the judges. The judges cannot just "wait" in their presumption of innocence until somebody else provides them with a more compelling proof, and do nothing until that moment. If there is something to know about, for example what alternative substance could have produced the luminol prints and how they where produced, since this is a key point to the discovery of truth, the judges must do everything possible to find it.

In an inquisitory trials the judges are investigators.
Their mind-set - including the one of lay-judges - is that of investigators, will be always oriented in a logic towards the "values" typical of of investigation. The kind of evidence that works for detectives to make up their minds, also works for judges. If judges are unable to think to alternative answers on partos of the scenario, if they fail to see any scenario by which falsify the investigation theory, once the falsification theory shows a failure, they will opt for conrifmatory indication (indizio, circumstantial evidence) towards the investigation. In the same logic, they can't help but interpret a failure by the defence to contribute to an alternative hypothesis. The lack of alternative argument stands out: the debate fails to produce it and the judges note it down.

I have always thought of US trials as a sort of “show” put on for the jurors. In that sense I think what you are stating is similar. The difference seems to be the rules by which the prosecution and the defense must abide.

That said (or written), do you think the defenses for AK and RS were ill-prepared for the trial? Could it be the rules in Italy, with respect to discovery, are different than in the US? Is it possible their defenses did not have the necessary information ahead of time to properly prepare for convincing counter-arguments resulting in the judges and jurors being more convinced by the prosecution’s arguments and theories?

 

[Mary_H]

The judges don't have the presumption of innocence as the only task and only duty.

The inquisitory process has in fact a different aim from proving guilt. The aim of the inquisitorial trial does is similar to an investigation, to an inquiry, it is to find out what happened. The judges in an inquisitory sistem - which the Italian justice system is in some of its structures - have he task of actively operate to discover the truth. This is a task, a main goal of the trial to which all parties are supposed to particiate.

The adversarial trial can be schematized in essence as a debate between the prosecution and the defence, while judge and jury are passive, and the defendant is relatively passive too. Assessment on defendant's words is only on his/her "reaction" to questioning under limitation.
The inquisitorial kind of trial has at his essence a debate betwen the judge and the defendant. It is about how the defendant performs in relation to his trial file, and how the defence does as well. The defendant is given wide freedom of speech including a right to lie. But questions and consistence of the defensive arguments get a crucial role.

In the trial debate, the defence and the prosecution can be relatively passive, but any "hole" or lack of argument towards points in the investigation file would be noticed. The defence doesn't have the right to defend as in some adversarial context: it has the duty to defend. If a defensive lawyer is not "defending" enough, the judge may replace him with a state-paid lawyer. A defence attorney must bring defensive arguments.

More important, it is what happens with the judges. The judges cannot just "wait" in their presumption of innocence until somebody else provides them with a more compelling proof, and do nothing until that moment. If there is something to know about, for example what alternative substance could have produced the luminol prints and how they where produced, since this is a key point to the discovery of truth, the judges must do everything possible to find it.

In an inquisitory trials the judges are investigators.
Their mind-set - including the one of lay-judges - is that of investigators, will be always oriented in a logic towards the "values" typical of of investigation. The kind of evidence that works for detectives to make up their minds, also works for judges. If judges are unable to think to alternative answers on partos of the scenario, if they fail to see any scenario by which falsify the investigation theory, once the falsification theory shows a failure, they will opt for conrifmatory indication (indizio, circumstantial evidence) towards the investigation. In the same logic, they can't help but interpret a failure by the defence to contribute to an alternative hypothesis. The lack of alternative argument stands out: the debate fails to produce it and the judges note it down.

They don't seem very investigatory to me. We have asked a lot more pertinent and essential questions than they seem to have asked.

Where are their questions about what raised police's suspicions in the first place? Where are their questions about why Raffaele was arrested? Where are the questions about why Patrick was arrested without a preliminary investigation?

Why haven't they challenged the ridiculous circumstances under which the knife and bra clasp were collected? Why haven't they challenged Mignini for not ensuring the defendants' rights to attorneys? Why haven't they challenged the police for claiming to have arrived at the cottage before the phone call was made, for lying about going into Meredith's bedroom, for declaring the case solved before evidence was collected?

Everything the judges seem curious about has to do with the validity of the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, but nothing to do with the credibility of the people claiming to have the evidence. It seems to be a foregone conclusion that the prosecutor and the police are trustworthy no matter how much misbehavior and how many bizarre events prove otherwise.

 

[Withnail1969]

The judges don't have the presumption of innocence as the only task and only duty.

The inquisitory process has in fact a different aim from proving guilt. The aim of the inquisitorial trial does is similar to an investigation, to an inquiry, it is to find out what happened. The judges in an inquisitory sistem - which the Italian justice system is in some of its structures - have he task of actively operate to discover the truth. This is a task, a main goal of the trial to which all parties are supposed to particiate.

The adversarial trial can be schematized in essence as a debate between the prosecution and the defence, while judge and jury are passive, and the defendant is relatively passive too. Assessment on defendant's words is only on his/her "reaction" to questioning under limitation.
The inquisitorial kind of trial has at his essence a debate betwen the judge and the defendant. It is about how the defendant performs in relation to his trial file, and how the defence does as well. The defendant is given wide freedom of speech including a right to lie. But questions and consistence of the defensive arguments get a crucial role.

In the trial debate, the defence and the prosecution can be relatively passive, but any "hole" or lack of argument towards points in the investigation file would be noticed. The defence doesn't have the right to defend as in some adversarial context: it has the duty to defend. If a defensive lawyer is not "defending" enough, the judge may replace him with a state-paid lawyer. A defence attorney must bring defensive arguments.

More important, it is what happens with the judges. The judges cannot just "wait" in their presumption of innocence until somebody else provides them with a more compelling proof, and do nothing until that moment. If there is something to know about, for example what alternative substance could have produced the luminol prints and how they where produced, since this is a key point to the discovery of truth, the judges must do everything possible to find it.

In an inquisitory trials the judges are investigators.
Their mind-set - including the one of lay-judges - is that of investigators, will be always oriented in a logic towards the "values" typical of of investigation. The kind of evidence that works for detectives to make up their minds, also works for judges. If judges are unable to think to alternative answers on partos of the scenario, if they fail to see any scenario by which falsify the investigation theory, once the falsification theory shows a failure, they will opt for conrifmatory indication (indizio, circumstantial evidence) towards the investigation. In the same logic, they can't help but interpret a failure by the defence to contribute to an alternative hypothesis. The lack of alternative argument stands out: the debate fails to produce it and the judges note it down.

This all sounds great. How do you think the Matteini report fits with your rose-coloured spectacled view of the Italian legal system?

 

[Mary_H]

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.

Vanessa had no indictment but has been dropped by the Carabinieri. Her brother is convicted, not charged.

There is, however, something more to say about Raffaele's conviction and those who think his conviction in some way affects his credibility or makes him seem evil. I find this conclusion very arguable. The judgments I read about Raffaele's involvement in the murder seem to me very partial, only focused on one part of the truth, and fail to see the picture in the perspective based on actual reality.

 

[Mary_H]

___________________________

Errr, I'm confused. So, Mignini was investigating suspected corruption among police, judges, and politicians in another murder case. But isn't that exactly what the Innocentisti want done in the Meredith Kercher murder case? So why shouldn't we be applauding Mignini's courage, Mignini having done what no prosecutor is willing to do in this Kercher case? I don't get it.

///

It's about content, not form, Fine. The questions to be explored are about whether the police, judges, and politicians in the other case and/or this case actually are corrupt, and whether Amanda and Raffaele actually are guilty. From what we have seen, Mignini seems to be motivated by forces other than a genuine interest in the truth.

 

[Justinian2]

Wrong, people die of natural causes very often at home.

Bang, ya got me!

 

[Withnail1969]

Vanessa had no indictment but has been dropped by the Carabinieri. Her brother is convicted, not charged.

There is, however, something more to say about Raffaele's conviction and those who think his conviction in some way affects his credibility or makes him seem evil. I find this conclusion very arguable. The judgments I read about Raffaele's involvement in the murder seem to me very partial, only focused on one part of the truth, and fail to see the picture in the perspective based on actual reality.

Your rephrasing makes me think about how much actual content there is in Machiavelli's posts, as opposed to opinion. While people on one side of this debate run around providing citations and evidence, people like Machiavelli don't appear to need to do anything apart from pontificate.