Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[capealadin]

This is not my understanding. Do you have an Italian speaker quote giving the correct nuance?

It's probably on PMF. It was discussed there and here. Amanda's reply was : OK, See you later. Nothing more.

 

[nopoirot]

That the courts may free the guilty to preserve the rights of the citizenry does not mean that their guilt or innocence does not remain a valid subject for public concern and debate.

Hard for me to understand the complaints about Amanda's suppressed statements coming into evidence, when she had demanded pen and paper to scribble an admissible statement that referred back to them.

Does anyone know what record can be retrieved of a call or message that has been deleted?

 

[Malkmus]

It's probably on PMF. It was discussed there and here. Amanda's reply was : OK, See you later. Nothing more.

It was discussed. Machiavelli/Yummi was quite adamant that the message in Italian could only mean a meeting on that same day. There was a discussion some time back where I doubted this, but Machiavelli is Italian and I checked this out elsewhere. Amanda's message is ambiguous in English, but not in Italian. The police definitely took it to mean she was meeting Patrick that night as that is the Italian meaning of the phrase.

I'm a bit tired so I want to make clear as possible as I can:
"ci vediamo più tardi" in Italian is *not* ambiguous: it means that you are going to meet that person within the same day.
"buona serata" is generally used as "have a nice evening" and "have fun" (if it's evening) with no implication that you are not going to meet each other the night.
So the whole message sounds as somebody arranging an appointment in the night.
I think it's very clear and there is not much more to learn about this.

 

[shuttlt]

It's probably on PMF. It was discussed there and here. Amanda's reply was : OK, See you later. Nothing more.

That is the literal, cleaned up Google translation. It tells you nothing about the nuance. Is the "see you later" just a vague intention/pleasantry, or a reference to a specific meeting, etc. etc. etc.....

From PMF:
I take the occasion to share the topic with the several Italian speakers on this blog, to recall again that this Candace and followers' claim is false.
"Certo, ci vediamo a piu' tardi, buona serata"
does not have the value of:
"Okay, see you later, good night"

Just to recall:

"buona serata" is NOT "good night", but rather it means "enjoy yourself" (and "serata" is NOT a part of the day like the evening nor the night, it is the condition and quality - weather, entertainment, experiences - of the night).
"ci vediamo più tardi" or the variant "a piu tardi" is NOT usable as salutation like "see you later", this expression can ONLY be used to set an appointment.
"Certo" does not mean "Okay", because "certo" is not used as a response to mean
you got the information, it indicates that you are in agreement and giving your assurance ("sure!").

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=20302#p20302

Unless you are reading something that is by an Italian speaker specifically talking about the nuance of the phrase, you really don't know what she said, not precisely enough to answer a question like this.

 

[capealadin]

This is not my understanding. Do you have an Italian speaker quote giving the correct nuance?

The entire answer Amanda texted to Patrick. " Sure. See you later. Have a good night!. By Simone Tacconi, from telecumminations, police branch, Rome.

 

[shuttlt]

The entire answer Amanda texted to Patrick. " OK. See you later. Have a good night!. By Simone Tacconi, from telecumminations, police branch, Rome.

Unless there is a specific discussion of the implications of the word choice, I don't see that this helps.

 

[Malkmus]

She should just ask over at PMF. There really is no debating this point. It was settled some time back here and there.

 

[moodstream]

I agree with you that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent of murder. The only solid evidence against AK and RS is that they lied. The reason for the lies are the main questions TBD.

I hate to be thick, but, could you spell out in a straightforward way what lies you think they told, or might have told?

Thanks,

 

[quadraginta]

Yes, Rose, it is regrettable that there isn't more tolerance for minority views. I posted a couple of comments before drifting here, and was denounced for being one Harry Rag, and drummed out of the forum.

On the one hand, the theories dreamed up by the prosecution are ridiculous. On the other, it is awfully difficult to believe that Raf and Amanda have been altogether candid with us. The defense team appreciates this. That's the reason I think they would have elicited from Amanda during her examination any further evidence they had of coercive tactics.

Calunnia is an automatic charge against anyone claiming police misconduct in court, if I recall correctly what Machiavelli--who's no believer in Amanda's innocence--posted about it. I suspect Amanda's lawyers tried to skirt the edge of it and Mignini decided they sailed too close anyway.

My recollection is that "calunnia" was explained as being a criminal charge (as opposed to civil violation as in the English Common Law concept of "defamation") which specifically addresses someone knowingly and falsely bringing accusations of a criminal act against someone else before authorities. While this could certainly include accusing people who happened to be police of breaking the law while the accuser happened to be testifying in court it would certainly not be limited to that, which is what you seem to be implying.

Perhaps my understanding is flawed, though. Maybe some of the posters more familiar with Italian law could help clarify this.

As to how "automatic" it is, I have to think that a crime which by definition involves an act done in the presence of law officers is going to have a certain inevitable sort of consequence. Making a point of committing all of your armed robberies while a cop was standing around watching could result in some fairly "automatic" consequences as well.

From a more general point of view I think such a statute could have a great deal of merit. Libel, slander, and other defamations of character get tossed around with a surprising amount of impunity in English Law jurisdictions. Since the only recourse is a civil court one the avenues of redress can be torturous, expensive, and frequently unsatisfying. Adding an element of statutory violation to the ones which involve false accusation of crimes could help discourage some of that.

 

[Matthew Best]

I would agree with you, if the message had stipulated * sta sera* or tonight. It did not. No italian speaker has defined the message than anything else, except see you later, which could mean ANY time, in the FUTURE.

You seem to be saying that Machiavelli isn't an Italian speaker!

 

[Malkmus]

Chris, you know perfectly well that there are no quotes of Mignini ever saying anything about the case being satanic, and in his email he specifically says that he never thought the case was satanic. Presumably you are going on his use of the word 'rite', but substituting 'satanic' because it sounds better.

Can we try to be precise about what we mean?

Is "Halloween rite" any less far-fetched? They're pretty much synonymous really.

At the end of that first trial, Mr Mignini told Judge Micheli that Ms Kercher's murder "was premeditated ... a 'rite' celebrated on the occasion of the night of Halloween", postponed for one day because there was a Halloween dinner party in Ms Kercher's room. He added: "The presumed assassins contented themselves with the evening of 1 November to perform their do-it-yourself rite, when for some hours it would again be the night of All Saints." He described the murder scene, saying Ms Kercher was on her knees, Guede holding her rigid and Mr Sollecito grasping one arm while Ms Knox wielded the knife. The satanic Halloween rite version of the murder has gone around the world, but Judge Micheli rejected it out of hand in his summing-up. Mr Mignini's Halloween scenario was "to say the least, a fanciful descriptive reconstruction", he wrote, which belonged to the world of comic books. Nor did the judge give much credit "to the kneeling position espoused by the prosecutor in describing a scene suggestive of an orgy".

 

[capealadin]

You seem to be saying that Machiavelli isn't an Italian speaker!

Seem to be or am? Are you not sure? Where did I mention Macchiavelli? Or not? In any event, the subject seems to have been dropped. I certainly don't think it would ever have been an issue, Patrick wouldn't have been arrested, If Amanda had simply denied she had met Patrick that night. But, she HAS apologized. In Court. 3 years later, of course. But, I suppose better late than never. Patrick's not swayed, however.

 

[Justinian2]

What dont you get? Mignini opened his mouth and claimed the killing was satanic. That wouldn't be the first time he claimed the satanic theory. Last time he charged someone using that theory he ended up getting multiple charges against himself related to abuse of office. So when the evidence didn't support Satanic, he moved on to the next theory. When the evidence didn't support the next theory he made another one up. So on and so forth. In the end there was no theory. It was, She did it.

After Magnini implanted the false motive, then everybody got onboard the conspiracy idea. Magnini then moved on to second step in brainwashing - the details. He then quit preaching the motive as it was proven to be only a theory.

Now the guilters are only discussing the details having forgotten that the skeleton has been removed. Perfect brainwashing! Mignini is a prosecutor, thus it is logical that brainwashing is Mignini's forte and that the guilters have been brainwashed by a true expert!

 

[Matthew Best]

Seem to be or am? Are you not sure? Where did I mention Macchiavelli? Or not?

No, you didn't mention Machiavelli by name. You just said that

No italian speaker has defined the message than anything else, except see you later, which could mean ANY time, in the FUTURE."

It has been pointed out that Machiavelli (who is an Italian speaker) said:

"ci vediamo più tardi" in Italian is *not* ambiguous: it means that you are going to meet that person within the same day.

i.e. "within the same day" NOT "any time in the future."

By then going on to say "the subject seems to have been dropped", you are really juicing the piglet!

 

[Antony]

What a difference a word makes. Allegedly, declared, but not proven. As, in , an alleged miracle.

Yes, and "the only solid evidence" is also in the realms of "not proven". Evidence is not the same as proof.

In any event, it's Rose's statement, it's not yours to rebut.

Your point escapes me. With regret, it's time to put you back on <ignore>.

 

[Justinian2]

I honestly don't get your posts. Maybe it's just me

The punch line preceeding that comment was: "Oh, I get it! Amanda's witchcraft made the Perugian Police make all their mistakes! After all, this is a witch trial."

Criminals typically don't take responsibility for their actions. They have said stuff like: "I didn't kill him; my finger pulled the trigger - my finger killed him." The criminal would actually believe that he had articulated a logical excuse.

Conventional wisdom is that test results of cops are similar to those of criminals in tests designed to profile criminal behavior.

The Perugian police seem to show criminal characteristics. I'm sorry that you didn't notice this pattern.

 

[capealadin]

Yes, and "the only solid evidence" is also in the realms of "not proven". Evidence is not the same as proof.



Your point escapes me. With regret, it's time to put you back on <ignore>.

Oh, I didn't know that I was on ignore before. Gosh, you REALLY know how to hurt someone

 

[Danceme]

Merry Christmas everyone!

I really didn't see a lot of grilling during her grueling c-e. It seemed mostly focused on her inadmissible statements (LOL) and an unremembered phone call at a time no call was made. Most of the arguing was between the lawyers and I didn't see a lot of hard questions. Somebody should have asked her how she broke the window in Filomena's room from the inside and made the glass pattern look like it was broken from the outside. They should have asked how she managed to clean her and Raffaele's footprints in Meredith's room yet left the ones of Rudy. They could have at least explored why they brought the murder weapon back home and placed it back in the cutlery drawer. And what in the world was she doing at Quintavalle's store the next morning? Did she steal something?

I agree with you that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent of murder. The only solid evidence against AK and RS is that they lied. The reason for the lies are the main questions TBD.

I agree. I really thought the questioning at trial failed to focus on a number of issues we internet sleuths find intriguing, another one for instance is why did she say Filomena's door was closed and Raffaele say it was open? The lies and/or clear inconsistencies really make one wonder what they are hiding. If they did not participate in Meredith's murder, why lie?

Which in Italian, unlike English, definitely implies a future meeting, thus the police thought for sure that Amanda and Patrick met up the night of the murder. It makes sense from their standpoint, they think they've got Amanda on video entering the house, and Patrick's cellphone records 'revealing' he wasn't where he said he was.

I think it's understandable from a police perspective why Patrick became so suspicious to them. Along with Amanda's text message and her accusation of him, his phone was also pinged in the vicinity of the cottage and he actually changed his phone the very next day. To an investigator this would seem very incriminating.

... and when is one of the PMF faithful going to admit that the police lied? The evidence for that is far more unequivocal than any indications of "lies" by Amanda and Raffaele.

It destroys the prosecution case.

The police are allowed to lie in interrogations, it's standard procedure. There are many articles you can read about interrogation methods, here's a couple;

http://people.howstuffworks.com/police-interrogation1.htm

http://www.straightdope.com/columns...e-lie-about-while-conducting-an-interrogation

It sometimes backfires at trial if there was coercion that can be deemed excessive but for the most part it is an entirely legal and acceptable practice the world over. Amanda's interrogation was not unique.

 

[Danceme]

No, you didn't mention Machiavelli by name. You just said that

It has been pointed out that Machiavelli (who is an Italian speaker) said:

i.e. "within the same day" NOT "any time in the future."

By then going on to say "the subject seems to have been dropped", you are really juicing the piglet!

Yes, I think this subject was exhausted before and it's generally accepted that Amanda's poor grasp of Italian at the time led her to choose words she didn't mean to say. She was never intentionally implying a meeting later with Patrick. In any case, this would only make sense if Patrick was still a suspect and we really believe he had something to do with it, which I'm pretty sure both sides agree is clearly not the case.

 

[Kaosium]

My recollection is that "calunnia" was explained as being a criminal charge (as opposed to civil violation as in the English Common Law concept of "defamation") which specifically addresses someone knowingly and falsely bringing accusations of a criminal act against someone else before authorities. While this could certainly include accusing people who happened to be police of breaking the law while the accuser happened to be testifying in court it would certainly not be limited to that, which is what you seem to be implying.

Perhaps my understanding is flawed, though. Maybe some of the posters more familiar with Italian law could help clarify this.

Oddly enough it was this very issue that I saw a news report about last summer that caused me to wonder what had happened in this case, and why she would be charged with 'slander' when there were no tapes to prove it one way or another. I spent some time looking into it, thus here's some of what I came across.

Here it is from the Massei report, which makes it sound something like obstruction of justice or an attempt to frame to my non-lawyer mind, but apparently it isn't--at least as it was applied to Amanda Knox. This also differentiates between the two types of charges that get translated as 'slander.'

[MASSEI REPORT PAGE 11 - 12: With the intervention of the public prosecutors: Dr Giuliano Mignini and Dr Manuela Comodi, the parties concluding thus:

The public prosecution concludes by requesting the affirmation of penal responsibility for both of the accused the sentence for all of the crimes to them ascribed ex Article 72 paragraph 2 and [Article]76, 2nd paragraph of the Criminal Code for Amanda Knox, to the penalty of life sentence with daytime isolation equal to 9 months, for the crimes under (A) and (C), (B), (D) and (F); for Raffaele Sollecito, to the penalty of life sentence with daytime isolation equal to 2 months for the 2 The charge of calunnia (art. 368) has been commonly translated as “slander” in the English/US media.

This translation is incorrect, however, as calunnia is a crime with no direct equivalent in the respective legal systems. The equivalent of “criminal slander” is diffamazione, which is an attack on someone‟s reputation. Calunnia is the crime of making false criminal accusations against someone whom the accuser knows to be innocent, or to simulate/fabricate false evidence, independently of the credibility/admissibility of the accusation or evidence.

The charges of calunnia and diffamazione are subject to very different jurisprudence. Diffamazione is public and explicit, and is a minor offence, usually resulting in a fine and only prosecuted if the victim files a complaint, while calunnia can be secret or known only to the authorities. It may consist only of the simulation of clues, and is automatically prosecuted by the judiciary. The crimes of calunnia and diffamazione are located in different sections of the criminal code: while diffamazione is in the chapter entitled “crimes against honour” in the section of the Code protecting personal liberties, calunnia is discussed in the chapter entitled “crimes against the administration of justice”, in a section that protects public powers.

Here's something from the IIP site written by an Italian familiar with their law:

http://www.injusticeinperugiaforum.org/post2131.html?hilit= calunnia#p2131

In Italy "calunnia" is a "crime against justice" and can be "formal" or "material". There is "formal calunnia" when a person promotes a "legal prosecution" against another, while knowing she was innocent. A fundamental concept: if there is no "legal prosecution" there is no "calunnia". So in trials for "formal calunnia" (like the trial against Amanda) debate is largely limited to the examination of documents. Only documents will say whether the defendant is guilty or innocent. The interrogation of the accused only serves to highlight any mitigating/aggravating circumstances.

In October the Judge does not know anything of "murders" and "interrogations." He could only examine the documents provided by the "Prosecutor" (I use this English word also if it's wrong), documents that showing that in 2009 Knox Amanda Marie promotes a "legal prosecution" against officials of the "Polizia di Stato", after investigating the accusation was unfounded and the defendants were acquitted; so the judge who had conducted that investigation had to indict Knox, as prescribed by law.


If Amanda wanted to avoid prosecution for "calunnia" had to do condemn the policemen. To do condemn the policemen Amanda had to denounce them by her lawyers. After the acquittal of the policemen the conviction for "calunnia" is virtually automatic.

Here was Machiavelli's explanation when I asked him:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6508872&highlight=calunnia#post6508872

The crime of calunnia is a multi-offensive crime, in which the prevalent victim is the "administration of justice", which means the people's right to fair justice. It can be defined as a specific kind of obstruction to justice consisting in giving false evidence or false incriminating information against someone. This crime is committed by communicating this info in some way to an authority. The false information not necessarily must be against someone else, by art. 369 the crime is committed even if a person falsely accuses himself.

The legal term must not be confused with the common Italian term calunnia, which also exsist and can be used exstensively, or metaphorically, outside from criminal contexts just to indicate any "false accusation" or "false report" in general.

As to how "automatic" it is, I have to think that a crime which by definition involves an act done in the presence of law officers is going to have a certain inevitable sort of consequence. Making a point of committing all of your armed robberies while a cop was standing around watching could result in some fairly "automatic" consequences as well.

This is how Machiavelli explained the 'automatic' part:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6508930&highlight=calunnia#post6508930

One thing more to be said about calunnia in law, is that in the Italian criminal law, crimes are usually prosecuted only after complain of a victim. There are relatively few crimes that can be investigated and prosecuted ex officio, automatically by the prosecutor's initiative. For example a Roman Polanski case would be impossible in Italy, where a sexual violence would require the consent of a victim for the investigation and where almost all crimes have an "expiration term".
So calunnia is on the side of the fewer always prosecutable crimes, because its prosecution is automatic and is a must for the public minister. This feature is typical of the crimes against society or law in general, and not crimes against a specific individual.

From a more general point of view I think such a statute could have a great deal of merit. Libel, slander, and other defamations of character get tossed around with a surprising amount of impunity in English Law jurisdictions. Since the only recourse is a civil court one the avenues of redress can be torturous, expensive, and frequently unsatisfying. Adding an element of statutory violation to the ones which involve false accusation of crimes could help discourage some of that.

The idea of criminal penalties for speech rather makes me nervous. In this specific case I find the idea that someone cannot defend themselves in court even if abused by police rather ominous. That strikes me as a system prone to abuse. I wonder just how many calunnia cases there are each year...