Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[quadraginta]

<snip>

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

<snip>

Does this "conventional wisdom" you're whipping out include anything resembling evidence? Cites? Studies?

You know ... facts?

Or are you just digging this out of a 'fundamental' cool supply?

 

[Chris C]

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?

So you are saying that just because Mignini used the word rite it doesn't mean satanic. Ok, so how many rites use human sacrifice? So basicly they are celebrating halloween, performing rites and using a human sacrifice. But you believe that doesn't imply anything Satanic.

Then again didn't Mignini use a Medium who spoke to the dead. I'm guessing the fact that since Mignini spoke to a witch he wasn't implying anything Satanic. Though its kinda ironic that he would use the Satanic card and yet he himself spoke to a witch about his cases.

 

[s_pepys]

I'm not talking about any "court videos", but about the still picture shown in the Telegraph report in which Amanda is clearly seen being held in a position to allow a photograph to be taken.



Is she supposed to be blind or something? Why does she need to be "gently guided" to her seat? She can walk into court unaided, and all that anyone needs to do is say "sit here, please" - without the visible manhandling that is shown on the photograph we're discussing.



I didn't say it was "police assault". I said "in other circumstances, this would be considered physical assault". Are you arguing this is not the case?

anthony

i very often have to escort prisoners from where they are being held to court appearances. I have even stood in the dock with them lots of times. Even with the more "menial" index offences, like burgalry for example, we have to hold them in level 1 restraint at least. Let alone murder or sex offences. To try and find conspiracy in the fact that ms Knox is being held by guards on the way into court is beyond ludicrous. Its common practise im afraid.

i know this was posted a while back but had to say something after reading that complete nonsense.

lxxx

 

[Antony]

Not to be mawkish about it, but is Meredith's right to justice deemed to have been forfeited by "police misconduct"?

Typically crass remark from one of the guilters, who can't get their heads around the difference between "justice" and "revenge".

So destroying the lives of 2 completely innocent people is in some way serving Meredith's "right to justice" - even though the real, sole culprit is receiving favourable treatment from the same prosecutors and the same system that is persecuting 2 of Meredith's friends (yes, I'm aware that she seems barely to have known Raffaele - but he is in her circle of friends by association).

It hardly needs adding that Meredith and her family deserve better than the way her case has been treated by the Perugia police, prosecutor and courts.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

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...

I share this concern. As with many areas of law there can be upsides and downsides. I do see some merit in recognizing that certain kinds of defamation carry a greater impact than others.

In the case of Amanda's testimony, or similar circumstances I am not sure that the issue is substantially different than if it was some random citizen making a false report in a police station. Accusations are made, and if they are made then the person making them should consider whether or not they can be proven.

Accusing an officer of the law of criminal malfeasance while in court is not something which should be done lightly. If circumstances were different and you personally could be absolutely certain that the charges were without foundation do you believe that they should be permitted without fear of consequences?

 

[Antony]

The police are allowed to lie in interrogations, it's standard procedure.

I'm sure I was aware of that, and in certain circumstances it could be justified. I doubt very much that it could morally be argued that this case was one of them, in which innocent people were bullied and tricked into incriminating themselves and others.

In any case, I wasn't referring just to underhand interrogation tactics, but to false, defamatory information leaked to the media (some of which is still current among certain of those commenting on the case), withholding of evidence and destruction of evidence.

 

[moodstream]

Merry Christmas everyone!

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? If they did not participate in Meredith's murder, why lie?

I am going to make the argument that Raffaele was referring to the front door, not Filomena’s door.

Here is the text: The first thing I noticed was that the room of Filomena (called Molli) had the door wide open. Ah, I forgot, Amanda had opened the house with the keys (that I have repeatedly asked myself inasmuch as she had said to me that she had found the entrance door wide open when she entered before). We saw that Filomena's bedroom was in completely disorder:

I assume my idea has been shot down already, but here goes:

Raffaele is not a linear thinker. He is not writing for posterity. He is ‘copying’ from his thoughts to a piece of paper – a diary.

If one were to ‘correct’ the entry for meaning it would read:

These are the first things I noticed –
1) was the room of Filomena
2) and the front door was wide open.
(Ah, I forgot, Amanda had opened the house with the keys)
(I have repeatedly asked myself could there be more to this, because Amanda said to me that she had found the entrance door wide open too)
3) We saw that Filomena's bedroom was in completely disorder

Of course this is speculation. What’s wrong with it?

 

[babycondor]

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.

Yes, but what did Amanda, whose native language was English and who was not fluent in Italian, ACTUALLY mean by it? Only she can tell us.

This entire case is (among many other things) a fascinating study of the notion of "things lost in translation." I hope someone writes a book on the cross-cultural psycholinguistic aspects alone.

 

[Danceme]

I am going to make the argument that Raffaele was referring to the front door, not Filomena’s door.

Here is the text: The first thing I noticed was that the room of Filomena (called Molli) had the door wide open. Ah, I forgot, Amanda had opened the house with the keys (that I have repeatedly asked myself inasmuch as she had said to me that she had found the entrance door wide open when she entered before). We saw that Filomena's bedroom was in completely disorder:

I assume my idea has been shot down already, but here goes:

Raffaele is not a linear thinker. He is not writing for posterity. He is ‘copying’ from his thoughts to a piece of paper – a diary.

If one were to ‘correct’ the entry for meaning it would read:

These are the first things I noticed –
1) was the room of Filomena
2) and the front door was wide open.
(Ah, I forgot, Amanda had opened the house with the keys)
(I have repeatedly asked myself could there be more to this, because Amanda said to me that she had found the entrance door wide open too)
3) We saw that Filomena's bedroom was in completely disorder

Of course this is speculation. What’s wrong with it?

Well, he used the word 'had' not 'and'. This implies a reference to Filomena's door IMO.
"...the room of Filomena (called Molli) had the door wide open"

Although the second sentence does create a little ambiguity, I'll give you that.

 

[RWVBWL]

Re: Mignini's closing remarks

I don't recall anything in the trial, about anything satanic. Could you link me to it, please.

capealadin,
It was brought up prior to the trial itself. Ms. Nadeau reported in Angel Face that PM Mignini wanted to reintroduce the satanic theory in his closing remarks, but Ms. Comodi nixed the idea. I have previously given the page number in the book, but I do not have it handy at the moment.

Hi CapeAladin and Halides1,
Here is a short passage from page 157+158 of author Barbie Nadeau's book Angel Face that has the relevant information that you mentioned Halides1:

"The prosecution concluded its final arguments with a video dramatazation of the murder, complete with sexy avatars of Amanda, Meredith, Raffaele, and Rudy-the women with big breasts and tiny waists ala Lara Croft, the men with broad shoulders and bulging crotches. It was a bizarre film that superimposed these animated figures over real crime scene photo's. Behind the scenes, the making of this video nearly broke the prosecution's team apart.
Il Messaggero's Italo Carmignani learned that Mignini and Comodi clashed over whether to include the sexual violence against Meredith.
Mignini also wanted to reintroduce the theory of a Satanic ritual.Comodi blocked both impulses."
<snip>

Satanic rituals?
Hmmm...

So you are saying that just because Mignini used the word rite it doesn't mean satanic. Ok, so how many rites use human sacrifice? So basicly they are celebrating halloween, performing rites and using a human sacrifice. But you believe that doesn't imply anything Satanic.

Then again didn't Mignini use a Medium who spoke to the dead. I'm guessing the fact that since Mignini spoke to a witch he wasn't implying anything Satanic. Though its kinda ironic that he would use the Satanic card and yet he himself spoke to a witch about his cases.

Hi Chris C,
do you have any further information about Mignini using a Medium who spoke with the dead?
Thanks, RWVBWL

 

[Kaosium]

I share this concern. As with many areas of law there can be upsides and downsides. I do see some merit in recognizing that certain kinds of defamation carry a greater impact than others.

In the case of Amanda's testimony, or similar circumstances I am not sure that the issue is substantially different than if it was some random citizen making a false report in a police station. Accusations are made, and if they are made then the person making them should consider whether or not they can be proven.

Accusing an officer of the law of criminal malfeasance while in court is not something which should be done lightly. If circumstances were different and you personally could be absolutely certain that the charges were without foundation do you believe that they should be permitted without fear of consequences?

Truthfully I don't even know if they are. I'm no lawyer and get the impression that a common defense is to simply put the prosecution on 'trial.' I don't know if that actually includes accusations of criminal conduct by officials or not, and I don't think that sort of thing should be done frivolously, I rather hope it isn't. There should be legal repercussions for absolutely unfounded charges of this nature, and I imagine there must be.

The interesting part about the calunnia charge in this case is how weak the actual offense is, at least if it's solely from the testimony I just listened to again yesterday. She actually makes excuses for the officer, 'to help her remember' not implying it was actually 'abuse.' I can't help but wonder despite the 'automatic' nature of this charge if in fact this really should have constituted calunnia.

Apparently she's doomed on this charge, there's no possible defense to it, the conviction is automatic. I recall finding a quote from Comodi, I believe, saying there's no investigation into whether it happened, like the Italian on the IIP site said they just look through the transcripts and that's all it amounts to, guilty as charged.

One thing I never got to the bottom of is what can actually be done about a case of police misconduct in Italy? There must be some recourse, right?

 

[nopoirot]

Hmm. So a necessary element of "calumnia" is communication to "an authority" or, in the civil arena, public disclosure by the author? Where does that leave the contention that Raffaele, bemoaning in his diary his stupidity for telling the police a "load of bs" was afraid to mention that nefarious tactics had been brought to bear on him? In any event, it would hardly be "police misconduct" for the police to tell Raf they had "hard evidence" placing Amanda at the scene, if they believed they had photographic evidence to that effect. And according to every chronology I have seen, Raf "broke," and quickly, well before Amanda.

So why did he do it? There is not a scintilla of evidence to show that his confession was not voluntary. That he repudiated it on 11-8 proves nothing. So one is asked to believe that an amorous, dissertation-writing, knife-collecting, pot-smoking, well-rested, recently-fed Italian male of 23, having vigorously defended himself for several days, is easily intimidated into throwing his girl friend to the wolves?

 

[Justinian2]

Does this "conventional wisdom" you're whipping out include anything resembling evidence? Cites? Studies?

You know ... facts?

Or are you just digging this out of a 'fundamental' cool supply?

My research on profiling revealed this interesting tidbit about the characterics of murderers (from a study funded in part by the USA department of justice):

Every single one of the murderers were subjected to serious emotional abuse during their childhoods. All of them developed into what psychiatrists label as sexually dysfunctional adults, unable to sustain a mature, consensual relationship with another adult.​

Neither of those characteristics were those of Amanda or Raffaele who were in a mature, consensual relationship with each other and who had happy childhoods.

Still searching for the cop/criminal personality traits study which I first heard about in the 1960's.

 

[nopoirot]

Hmm. So a necessary element of "calumnia" is communication to "an authority" or, in the civil arena, public disclosure by the author? Where does that leave the contention that Raffaele, bemoaning in his diary his stupidity for telling the police a "load of bs" was afraid to mention that nefarious tactics had been brought to bear on him? In any event, it would hardly be "police misconduct" for the police to tell Raf they had "hard evidence" placing Amanda at the scene, if they believed they had photographic evidence to that effect. And according to every chronology I have seen, Raf "broke," and quickly, well before Amanda.

So why did he do it? There is not a scintilla of evidence to show that his confession was not voluntary. That he repudiated it on 11-8 proves nothing. So one is asked to believe that an amorous, dissertation-writing, knife-collecting, pot-smoking, well-rested, recently-fed Italian male of 23, having vigorously defended himself for several days, is easily intimidated into throwing his girl friend to the wolves?

 

[Kaosium]

Hi CapeAladin and Halides1,
Hi Chris C,
do you have any further information about Mignini using a Medium who spoke with the dead?
Thanks, RWVBWL

Gabriella Carlizzi

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/masonic-theory-that-put-knox-in-the-dock-981759.html

http://keithridgway.com/?tag=giuliano-mignini

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/knox-prosecutor-tainted-by-satanism-case-1992485.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/08/48hours/main4929950_page4.shtml

 

[Antony]

i very often have to escort prisoners from where they are being held to court appearances. I have even stood in the dock with them lots of times. Even with the more "menial" index offences, like burgalry for example, we have to hold them in level 1 restraint at least. Let alone murder or sex offences. To try and find conspiracy in the fact that ms Knox is being held by guards on the way into court is beyond ludicrous. Its common practise im afraid.

i know this was posted a while back but had to say something after reading that complete nonsense.

I can't quite see where you are disagreeing with the point I was making. You don't seem to have read the thread leading up to this.

 

[Kestrel]

In any event, it would hardly be "police misconduct" for the police to tell Raf they had "hard evidence" placing Amanda at the scene, if they believed they had photographic evidence to that effect.

You might just be confused, but the Perugia police were simply lying. There was no "clear cut image" of Amanda returning to the cottage. What they did have was a poor quality grainy image of Meredith returning on that fateful night. (See the first photo on the second link).

There is something else odd about this image. The police cropped the camera timestamp before showing it to the press and the jury. Considering how important a timeline is to this kind of investigation, why would they remove evidence of time?

 

[Kaosium]

Hmm. So a necessary element of "calumnia" is communication to "an authority" or, in the civil arena, public disclosure by the author? Where does that leave the contention that Raffaele, bemoaning in his diary his stupidity for telling the police a "load of bs" was afraid to mention that nefarious tactics had been brought to bear on him? In any event, it would hardly be "police misconduct" for the police to tell Raf they had "hard evidence" placing Amanda at the scene, if they believed they had photographic evidence to that effect. And according to every chronology I have seen, Raf "broke," and quickly, well before Amanda.

So why did he do it? There is not a scintilla of evidence to show that his confession was not voluntary. That he repudiated it on 11-8 proves nothing. So one is asked to believe that an amorous, dissertation-writing, knife-collecting, pot-smoking, well-rested, recently-fed Italian male of 23, having vigorously defended himself for several days, is easily intimidated into throwing his girl friend to the wolves?

He didn't 'confess' to anything. Raffaele's interrogation is even a bigger mystery than Amanda's, we have his bit about being "psychologically tortured" and his description of being stripped down. We also have his opinion of the competency of the police, which is most entertaining.

Why there's no tapes of either of these interrogations whilst they apparently taped just about everything else is most curious, being as this was their 'crown jewel'--where they got their two 'murderers.' Why he told his 'load of BS' is just speculation on my part, if I could read Italian I'd go back and read the two pages Rose posted a few pages back. If I could figure out how to get them to copy so I could paste them into google translate, I'd try to see if I could read them before my brains oozed out my ears.

The mystery of him 'throwing Amanda to the wolves' is matched only by why he repudiated it.


Oh, and by the way, I fully understand why police lie to subjects during interrogations, it's a time honored and effective way of garnering confessions, hardly 'police misconduct.' However when they lie about those interrogations and 'forget' to tape them, it's another thing entirely.

 

[shuttlt]

So you are saying that just because Mignini used the word rite it doesn't mean satanic. Ok, so how many rites use human sacrifice?

Well, most don't I would imagine.

So basicly they are celebrating halloween, performing rites and using a human sacrifice. But you believe that doesn't imply anything Satanic.

Are we really arguing this? Most human sacrifices aren't and haven't been associated with Satanism. Halloween doesn't have anything to do with Satanism it's really more strongly associated with paganism and the occult. But this isn't what we are arguing, is it? I also don't see why you, or Amanda supporters in general would specifically choose the word "Satanic", when "pagan" is closer to what a Halloween rite might normally be taken to mean and even that is more specific than anything I've seen directly attributed to Mignini. I haven't ever seen any indication that he actually claims that he believed the murder was committed by pagans let alone Satanists. In his email, my recollection is that his claim is that the murder has some ritualistic elements, that is all.

Then again didn't Mignini use a Medium who spoke to the dead.

Often claimed. Denied by Mignini. I've never seen any actual evidence for this.

I'm guessing the fact that since Mignini spoke to a witch he wasn't implying anything Satanic.

Is this witch a Satanist, or again, do you mean anything pre-Christian/pagan = Satanism? In any case, I had forgotten that he had asked somebody about what he perceived to be the potentially ritualistic elements of the crime. If that happened, fair enough.

Though its kinda ironic that he would use the Satanic card and yet he himself spoke to a witch about his cases.

Are you American? I really mean no insult, it's just to me the notion of a rite, even a Halloween rite is not necessarily, and indeed probably not connected to the Christian devil.

Perhaps it seems like I'm quibbling, but I genuinely don't see why pro-Amanda folks seem to be proactively introducing the word Satanic. This added meaning/specificity comes from somewhere and I'm puzzled as to where and why.

Also, and perhaps more importantly to this specific aspect of the case, you seemed to be introducing the unsupported claim, as if it was a documented fact, that Mignini believed the murder was satanic. To me, and perhaps this is my reading rather than your meaning, this implies that he believes it was committed for satanic reasons, and/or was committed by Satanists. Just as kids can lark about with a ouija board without being pagans/Satanists/occultists a murder could have ritual elements without being committed by pagans/Satanists/occultist. Off the top of my head, it could be kids larking about post-Halloween and things get out of hand.

Given the efforts that are made to find innocent explanations for Amanda's statements, it bothers me that people are willing to be so relaxed about other peoples statements. If you only show interest in the nuance and possible secondary meaning of statements that you disagree with, but accept the Google-translate/somewhat manipulated version of statements you find agreeable then you introduce bias.

 

[shuttlt]

Every single one of the murderers were subjected to serious emotional abuse during their childhoods. All of them developed into what psychiatrists label as sexually dysfunctional adults, unable to sustain a mature, consensual relationship with another adult.​

Neither of those characteristics were those of Amanda or Raffaele who were in a mature, consensual relationship with each other and who had happy childhoods.

Who's word are we taking for the happiness of their childhoods?