Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[nopoirot]

What would happen if Amanda's lawyer went to Raf's lawyer (a woman not to be trifled with, I understand), and said "We're really going to have to call Raffaele as a witness. That confession of his is dragging us down like a millstone around a rubber duck." Can he be forced to testify?

 

[Kaosium]

Really. I confess I haven't read the book. What were the cultists [or whatever] supposed to be. Wiccans? Catholics? Illuminati?

Just a sick puppy, a serial killer, no Satanic cults, Templars, Bavarians or anything else required. Actually the MO sounds like a combination of Son of Sam and Ed Gein.

Which book? Preston's book? Are you sure that Preston is reliable?

Do you really want to argue about the Monster Of Bloody Florence?

What draws my interest about Mignini is not the low-hanging fruit of the conspiracy theories and Satanic cults, that's good for a quip or two, but might just be affectation or eccentricity. He's not the only one who saw 'Satanism' in the Florentine deaths either, it had become local legend. He is the one who tried to find it in the death of that doctor with the body-swapping and whatnot, but it's still just silly, not dangerous.

What troubles me is the wiretapping, extraneous investigations, enemies lists, jailing of detractors--abuse of power. Like all the suits he slaps on people to keep them intimidated, especially journalists. Also family members of both defendants, opposition lawyers, bloggers overseas....this is Mignini's true danger, and in part how I think he manipulated the outcome of what was frankly a pretty pathetic case.

 

[shuttlt]

Just a sick puppy, a serial killer, no Satanic cults, Templars, Bavarians or anything else required. Actually the MO sounds like a combination of Son of Sam and Ed Gein.

But the claim was that it was the work of ACTUAL Satanists, yes? You clearly are going on the assumption that Preston is correct as to the identity of the real killer.

What draws my interest about Mignini is not the low-hanging fruit of the conspiracy theories and Satanic cults, that's good for a quip or two, but might just be affectation or eccentricity. He's not the only one who saw 'Satanism' in the Florentine deaths either, it had become local legend. He is the one who tried to find it in the death of that doctor with the body-swapping and whatnot, but it's still just silly, not dangerous.

Good for a quip yes, and again all quotes lead back to Preston.

What troubles me is the wiretapping, extraneous investigations, enemies lists, jailing of detractors--abuse of power. Like all the suits he slaps on people to keep them intimidated, especially journalists. Also family members of both defendants, opposition lawyers, bloggers overseas....this is Mignini's true danger, and in part how I think he manipulated the outcome of what was frankly a pretty pathetic case.

One of the frustrations I've had is finding additional details to understand what was going on with the whole wire-tapping thing. None of it seems as well documented as it might be. Mignini of course plays it down (it might actually be an opportunity to catch him in a lie if anybody is interested). I think some official document came to light that made the charges seem more serious.

I chalk the whole thing up as an opaque mess that I hope some day to understand. It could be bad, or it could not. I remain to be convinced either way.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Really. I confess I haven't read the book. What were the cultists [or whatever] supposed to be. Wiccans? Catholics? Illuminati?


It is one of the weird coincidences of the case that a man who normally writes horror novels about Satan inspired murders ends up writing a book partly dedicated to criticising someone for supposedly thinking that a series of murders was Satanically inspired.

Come on Shuttlt, you're better than this. I really hope you aren't inferring a hypocricy when one is put forth as fiction and the other is being criticized because his "satanically inspired" scenario is being put forth as realistic. You do see the difference? This is the same ridiculum Kermit made in his power points about Doug Preston being obsessed with Satanism more than Mignini, or whatever on earth he was trying to say.

If I wrote a fictional book about Vampires, is it wrong of me for mocking a prosecutor who thinks a Vampire killed some poor unsuspecting victim?

 

[Kestrel]

But the claim was that it was the work of ACTUAL Satanists, yes? You clearly are going on the assumption that Preston is correct as to the identity of the real killer.

Preston could get the identity of the real killer wrong and still be correct that the MoF murders were the work of a serial killer.

Mignini's Satanic cult theory keeps running into the problem of lack of evidence. He gets around it by expanding his conspiracy theory to include a cover up of the evidence. For example, Mignini claimed that Narducci's body had been swapped and someone else was buried in his grave. The body was exhumed and DNA proved it was Narducci. Mignini then changed his theory to include a second body swap.

 

[shuttlt]

Come on Shuttlt, you're better than this. I really hope you aren't inferring a hypocricy when one is put forth as fiction and the other is being criticized because his "satanically inspired" scenario is being put forth as realistic. You do see the difference? This is the same ridiculum Kermit made in his power points about Doug Preston being obsessed with Satanism more than Mignini, or whatever on earth he was trying to say.

If I wrote a fictional book about Vampires, is it wrong of me for mocking a prosecutor who thinks a Vampire killed some poor unsuspecting victim?

I did wonder whether to put that in. But it really is a weird coincidence isn't it?

If the prosecutor were to put that in, of course you would be free to mock (but this being the real, hypothetical, world you would probably be mocked back). The whole Preston business seems too horribly muddled for pat judgements about who is telling the truth and who isn't. I certainly consider the subjects of his other books to be of little (oops missed that last word out in draft 1, as if to illustrate how meaning can turn on a single word) more than gossipy interest, and for that reason perhaps should not have commented. I will take myself off to the naughty step.

 

[shuttlt]

Preston could get the identity of the real killer wrong and still be correct that the MoF murders were the work of a serial killer.

Sure.

Mignini's Satanic cult theory keeps running into the problem of lack of evidence. He gets around it by expanding his conspiracy theory to include a cover up of the evidence. For example, Mignini claimed that Narducci's body had been swapped and someone else was buried in his grave. The body was exhumed and DNA proved it was Narducci. Mignini then changed his theory to include a second body swap.

Kestel, I'm afraid I'm bailing out on going any deeper into Narducci and the Monster of Florence. For one thing I don't know enough to debate you and for another I'm not quite sure how I found myself debating something I am so ignorant about.

 

[tsig]

Sure.


Kestel, I'm afraid I'm bailing out on going any deeper into Narducci and the Monster of Florence. For one thing I don't know enough to debate you and for another I'm not quite sure how I found myself debating something I am so ignorant about.

Sounds like the rite thing to do.

 

[moodstream]

No worries, moodstream, I have always enjoyed your posts. I am not going over to the dark side so let not your heart be troubled on my account. The pricking of Meredith's hand is something that Raffaele just made up is one example. The reasons I think he did so have been discussed endlessly. One of Amanda's is the forgotten phone call to Mom. In this one I think she was tired and didn't want to answer so she just said she had forgotten about it and then became stuck with defending that story. One which came back and bit her based on what I have seen and read on this. A lot of what are claimed as lies that I have seen posted at PMF and TJMK may just be mistakes or getting the times or sequences of things wrong. Some may be lies, who knows for certain? I am quite certain that they are both innocent of murder and don't deserve to be in jail for telling a few fibs.

Thank you for your extraordinarily kind words. As you probably already know, you are considered one of the towers of knowledge and ability. It would be a real shame to lose you to the other side.

However, I believe strongly in the truth. Whatever road that takes you down, that’s the right one to follow.

The account of Raffaele’s pricking Amanda must I suppose be untrue. Could it be true, if by home he means anywhere but prison, including Amanda’s place, and, if by knife he means any knife, including butter and steak knives? In just a few days of knowing each other, it still seems unlikely.

As I read the diary, I have a sense that Raffaele believes the main focus of the investigation is towards Amanda. He knows he is innocent. He knows the shoeprints are not his. He believes he is trying to help the police solve the crime, even though they have temporarily mistakenly mixed him up in it all. He is willing, particularly at the start, to blame Amanda. He wonders if it could be her. In the days that follow he seems to resolve that for himself.

I am convinced that she could not have killed Meredith and then come back home. The fact that there is Meredithʹs DNA on the kitchen knife is because on one occasion, while we were cooking together, I, while moving around at home [and] handling the knife, pricked her hand, and I apologized at once but she was not hurt [lei non si era fatta niente]. So the only real explanation for that kitchen knife is this one.

The first sentence expresses the resolution of his doubts about Amanda. What follows after that I read as sort of an apology for those doubts and a cover for Amanda – ‘oh, no it can’t be Amanda’s fault. Stop blaming her. I am the one to blame. I pricked Meredith when we were cooking.’ It's like he believes he can vouch for her. Even now he does not understand completely how much trouble he is in.

I am presuming he thinks he is telling the truth. If he is misremembering, that seems likely. Perhaps I just don’t want to believe he is intending to deceive, but I honestly don’t think he is.

The strongest impression I have from reading this though is that Raffaele has no specific accurate understanding of what knife the police are referring to. His imagery describes a much shorter knife, the way I read it. That’s one reason I wonder if the event could be true, but with a different knife. Perhaps some minor forgettable incident at Amanda’s?

 

[Mary_H]

Whose religion? By your description I might have no religious belief at all, but because of your particular religious beliefs my actions become Satanic. The word Satanic tells us more about the contents of your head than what I've been up to. It is also a bloody confusing way to use language since one could actually mean that the act in question is in fact the work of Satanists and was part of some kind of explicitly Satanic ritual relating to the Christian Devil.

If we're going to stretch language. Aren't all murders inspired by Satan and therefore plausibly describable as Satanic rites? I mean, if the intentions of the people involved have nothing to do with it.... Why not describe sex with a condom as a Satanic rite (unless you are a gay prostitute).

You know, you have a point there, shuttlt. You could as easily address your post to Mignini and Massei as to Chris. It probably is inherent in the judges' thinking that all evil is Satanic. They are Catholics in a country that is 90% Catholic.

It follows that we could conclude that when Mignini uses words referring to rites and rituals, he is of necessity referring to Satan. Massei, too -- in summing up the motivations report, he describes the defendants above all as having made the "choice of extreme evil." To Massei, isn't Satan the source of extreme evil?

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>
Nonsense. On this forum people make claims and then have to back them up. It doesn't matter if you are on the side of the prosecution, or the defence. If you claim that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, you must offer proof. if you claim that Mignini is in the thrall of Satanic visions, prove it. For myself I claim that this case is open to many interpretations.<snip>

No, it does not have to be proven that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. In order to convict them, it has to be proven they committed the crime.

The restrictions around making claims about the other people involved in the case can be looser (if desired), since they are not on trial. It depends on how valid one wants to make one's argument.

 

[Mary_H]

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? 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?

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.

I guess there's plenty of disappointment and puzzlement to go around. You can be disappointed and puzzled about why the lawyers didn't think to ask about the door being open or closed, and I can be disappointed and puzzled about why the police didn't think to question and investigate Patrick before arresting him.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, it does not have to be proven that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. In order to convict them, it has to be proven they committed the crime.

I believe that was what was done in the 1st trial, "Guilty as Charged" - now it is up to the defence to try and prove their innocents during this appeal.

 

[Mary_H]

So do we now have an admission (if only by silence) that there is not a shred of admissible evidence in the record to support the notion that Raf's confession was coerced, or improperly procured? Going forward, just how do you propose to get it before the court? The defense can argue that his recanting of the confession is more persuasive than the confession, but how will they introduce the thought that the confession was coerced? Note they didn't even try to get Amanda to claim, during her cross, that the sudden change in Raf's testimony which "astonished" her was improperly procured. So how does it come in? "Ladies and gentlemen, we could say much here if it weren't for the laws relating to calumnia, or if we weren't scared to put our client on the stand"?

Raffaele's statements to the police the night of November 5th were improperly procured. It is explained on pages 17-18 of the Massei report that Raffaele was denied his right to legal representation during his interrogation. His attorneys unfortunately filed the complaint too late to nullify the interrogation.

Raffaele wrote that they tortured him psychologically. He also sent his father a telegram from prison that said, "I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING. THEY HAVE ARRESTED ME. I'M IN ISOLATION. I AM SAD AND SCARED. IT ALL SEEMS SO UNREAL TO ME."

Those are facts. From a more philosophical point of view, it can be argued that Raffaele's statements were coerced on the basis that the police tricked him by lying, in order to obtain them. They also withheld information from him regarding what the consequences of his statements would be, so his freedom of choice about whether to make them was improperly constrained.

The law's intended purpose of providing a lawyer being, of course, to prevent those conditions.

 

[Mary_H]

I believe that was what was done in the 1st trial, "Guilty as Charged" - now it is up to the defence to try and prove their innocents during this appeal.

Or is it to show the weaknesses of the evidence used in the first trial?

 

[quadraginta]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14202082/...e-Personalities-of-Armed-Police-and-Criminals

<snip>​

There you go. It took me 20 minutes to find. You owe me one, or are guilters such as yourself merely capable of supposition and theory?

This is a rather odd Internet artifact. Aside from links back to this thread all of the hits on it seem to lead back only to the article itself. This includes the author, Richard Wisenheimer; the organization attributed by it, which is either the "Crime Research and Advisory Centre" (aka CRAC) or the "Independent Center for Research Criminal, Hertfordshire. England" (depending on which copy of the article you read); or any of the various titles that lead into it. Most of those repeats of the article seem to be found in sundry blogs of tenuous relationship to the topic, such as police dog training aficionados.

Who is this Wisenheimer? What is the provenance of the CRAC group under whose aegis the article was generated? Where are the details supporting these "interim findings" and what are the parameters of the "research study".

The whole thing is rather self-referential. No comments, no attribution, no peer review, no identification or bio on either the author or the sponsoring group, just that same one article ... over and over again.

I won't even bother going into the obvious weaknesses and insinuations so apparent even in the few paragraphs offered by that article. It's too easy, and not worth it. Try starting a thread in the Science sub-forum here asking for opinions about that article and the conclusions it suggests (without making any overt claims, it should be added). You will probably generate a short ... but lively ... discussion.

When referring to me as a "guilter" I am assuming that you are using the locally popular definition of that term, i.e. "Anyone who is not utterly convinced of Knox and Sollecito's total innocence or complicity, and who does not willfully refuse to so much as contemplate anything that might suggest otherwise."

If so then I must admit to falling within that group. Otherwise you might need to find some narrower brushes to paint with.

 

[Chris C]

You know, you have a point there, shuttlt. You could as easily address your post to Mignini and Massei as to Chris. It probably is inherent in the judges' thinking that all evil is Satanic. They are Catholics in a country that is 90% Catholic.

It follows that we could conclude that when Mignini uses words referring to rites and rituals, he is of necessity referring to Satan. Massei, too -- in summing up the motivations report, he describes the defendants above all as having made the "choice of extreme evil." To Massei, isn't Satan the source of extreme evil?

Thats the point I was trying to make. Everyone says Mignini never said satanic. Yet if he gives the definition of what a Catholic believes is satanic, then its the same as saying satanic.

I mean surely, how can one believe Mignini was talking about pagan druid rites that where performed on Halloween. Rites that the only reference to in history about pagan human sacrifice is from a Roman 2000 years dead. Especially considering the same reference cites those rites were performed by burning their human sacrifice. Where as Meredith had her throat cut.

Maybe Mignini found evidence Amanda played a Druid in World of Warcraft. Afterall, Sollecito had those satanic manga comics.

 

[Chris C]

I believe that was what was done in the 1st trial, "Guilty as Charged" - now it is up to the defence to try and prove their innocents during this appeal.

Don't fool yourself, the prosecution still has to prove guilt in the 2nd trial. Judge all but confirmed that there wasn't enough evidence to prove guilt at this time. He did this by making them prove the dna results were correct. Plus all the other things that will get tested if the DNA results come back the same. If they test the stain and it comes back semen and not sollecito's, Knox and Sollecito will walk. Plus Rudy could walk if its not his.

 

[Dan O.]

There is no evidence that they had Patrick's side of the message. I'm not aware of anybody in the case.. police, prosecution, defence claiming that they did. Is there any reason to suppose the network would have retained the message?

One of the PMF posters was in court in the day that the interpreter Anna Donnino testified. Stewart reported that Anna testified that Amanda was shown the text of Patricks message and asked: "did you see this sms? did you respond?"

This is evidence that ILE had Patrick's side of the message. Of course, someone may be in error or even lying, you don't have to believe it but now you are aware of it.

 

[Mary_H]

I would've thought that it was more-or-less axiomatic that they lied - given that both of them gave contradictory accounts at one point or another, and therefore at least one of these accounts had to be a lie.

The question then shifts to two areas: what is a lie? And what precipitated those lies?

With regard to the first area, I'd prefer to use the word "untruth" to "lie" here, because the word "lie" is pejorative and implies a deliberate attempt to mislead. And I don't think that there was a deliberate attempt to mislead taking place here.

And as to what precipitated these lies (or "untruths"), that's surely what we've been debating these past months. I (and others) might argue that they were led towards telling these "untruths" by police interrogation techniques. Others might argue that they deliberately chose to tell lies in order to try to derail the investigation and/or try to deflect attention from themselves. An appeal court in Perugia might be of some help in figuring out what really happened.

"...the word "lie" is pejorative and implies a deliberate attempt to mislead. And I don't think that there was a deliberate attempt to mislead taking place here."

That is my view.