Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[loverofzion]

What do you mean by "Pro-Knox"?

And I'm somewhat surprised that you haven't spotted the asymmetry in the relative rights of reply available between the various forums which discuss this case.....

Pro knox means anyone who believes in the pair's innocence; add to that all that sappy stuff about amanda being such a lovely darling girl etc etc.

 

[loverofzion]

Jeez, the lay-up and Wilt Chamberlain theory of rock throwing.

I'm out of this thread. Enjoy talking amongst yourselves.

Agree totally.
This thread has deteriorated into a forum for absurd, twisted ways of thinking up how the lovebirds were coerced; how they forgot what they wre actually doing that night; how all DNA and witness evidence against the two is deemed "contaminated" or alternately, the result of a broad conspiracy involving police, interpreters, prosecutors and juries.

Good luck with all this mental masturbating!

 

[Chris C]

What about Knox's handwritten (in English) 5.45 am statement, accusing Patrick? ETA: I am only addressing Chris C's contention that the police had no reason to arrest Lumumba.

That statement couldn't have been used either. I believe the key reason knox's statements where tossed is because of the first statement. That being the one the police did and had her sign it. So therefore before she signed that statement she should have had an attorney present. Thats something that was denied. The 5:45 statement can't be used for the same reason the previous statement couldn't be used. Since Knox was obviously a suspect when she signed the first statement, the 2nd statement holds to the same standard. Therefore neither of those statements could have been used against Patrick. You can blame Knox for making the statements all you want, but when it comes down to it. They had no evidence against Patrick when they arrested him. Don't fool yourself in believing that Mignini thought those statements would hold up in court. One thing Mignini is not, is an idiot.

 

[TomCH]

because italy is a police state, not a democracy.

wrong!

 

[Dan O.]

How interesting, I was just reading where it says: "The classification of a country or regime as a police state is usually contested".

 

[Chris C]

wrong!

One of the Key Characteristics of a police state is restrictions on expression and political views which are monitored and enforced by the police. Since prosecutors oversee the police and investigations in Italy. Plus, the judicial system stands apart from the government. The judicial system in italy would be considered to actually be the ones in control of the country and not the elected members of their government. Since the Judicial system which is the one with the most power, and are not elected, that makes Italy a fake democracy that is controled by the judicial system.

 

[TomCH]

One of the Key Characteristics of a police state is restrictions on expression and political views which are monitored and enforced by the police.

This is not the case in Italy.

the judicial system stands apart from the government. The judicial system in italy would be considered to actually be the ones in control of the country and not the elected members of their government.

No, not at at.

The judicial system is separate in Italy to avoid corruption, i.e. the judiciary cannot be influenced by politicians (unlike the US, where sherriffs and judges are elected, talk about corruption!).

Since the Judicial system which is the one with the most power, and are not elected, that makes Italy a fake democracy that is controled by the judicial system.

Nonsense, you really have no clue about how things work in Italy. Have you ever even been there?

If you want to see a police state in action, go to the US!

 

[Chris C]

Nonsense.

If you want to see a police state in action, go to the US!

I'm in the US.

 

[LondonJohn]

If you want to see a police state in action, go to the US!

While I recognise that Silvio Berlusconi might be regarded as having vested interests in this area, it's nonetheless rather interesting to see Italy's sitting Prime Minister describing his own country as a police state, isn't it?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0e493686-2180-11df-830e-00144feab49a.html#axzz1AiXhibQ7

 

[LondonJohn]

Pro knox means anyone who believes in the pair's innocence; add to that all that sappy stuff about amanda being such a lovely darling girl etc etc.

I didn't ask YOU what you meant by "pro-Knox" - but thanks anyway for presuming to answer on behalf of another. Oh, and the last part of this post is unintentionally quite revealing, but not (I'm guessing) in the way you'd hoped...

 

[LondonJohn]

What motivation would Rudy have to stage a break in?
And why then do his footprints lead him directly out of Meredith's room and out the door of the cottage?

I've addressed this point previously. I certainly don't think that it's illogical for Guede to have staged a break-in (not that I think this is what happened). My reasoning is this: if Guede had been let into the cottage by Meredith, and after killing her he'd left by the front door (i.e. leaving no signs of a forced entry), then the police would be able to deduce with some certainty that Meredith had been killed by someone she know (or at least by someone she felt comfortable opening the door to, when she was home alone at night).

Now, the universe of people whom Meredith might have opened the door to, who were also in Perugia that night and who didn't have an alibi, is pretty small. And it wouldn't be all that difficult for Guede to figure this out. In other words, his thinking might go along the lines of: "There might be only, say, 5-10 people who were known to Meredith and who have no alibi, and I'm one of them".

Therefore, it's not at all illogical for Guede to think that he might at least dilute possible police focus on him by making it look like Meredith was killed by somebody unknown to her who entered the cottage by breaking in. Even though he had previous form as a burglar, it wouldn't be hard for him to realise that the potential universe of people who might have broken into the cottage might be considerably greater than the universe of people who were known the Meredith (and who were in Perugia that night with no alibi). After all, this potential universe for a break-in would include not only known burglars, but also most known sex-offenders, and in fact could not exclude pretty much any male between the ages of 16 and 50 who was in Perugia that night and who had no alibi.

However, as I said before, I don't think Guede staged the burglary. I merely point out that it's not in fact correct to assume that it's illogical that he might have done so. I personally don't think the break-in was staged by anyone; I think that it was a real break-in, performed by Guede at around 8.40-8.50pm on 1st November 2007.

 

[komponisto]

More questions for any guilters interested in answering:

(1) When did you first arrive at your current belief that Knox and Sollecito most likely participated in the killing of Kercher? (Immediately when the story broke? After the first-level verdict? After reading the Massei report? etc....)

(2) If you were following the story from the beginning, what effect did the discovery of Rudy Guede's involvement have on your beliefs? Did your probability of K/S's guilt go down? If not, why not? If so, and yet it is now as high as it was originally, what pushed it back up?

 

[komponisto]

I've addressed this point previously. I certainly don't think that it's illogical for Guede to have staged a break-in (not that I think this is what happened). My reasoning is this: if Guede had been let into the cottage by Meredith, and after killing her he'd left by the front door (i.e. leaving no signs of a forced entry), then the police would be able to deduce with some certainty that Meredith had been killed by someone she know (or at least by someone she felt comfortable opening the door to, when she was home alone at night).

Now, the universe of people whom Meredith might have opened the door to, who were also in Perugia that night and who didn't have an alibi, is pretty small. And it wouldn't be all that difficult for Guede to figure this out. In other words, his thinking might go along the lines of: "There might be only, say, 5-10 people who were known to Meredith and who have no alibi, and I'm one of them".

Therefore, it's not at all illogical for Guede to think that he might at least dilute possible police focus on him by making it look like Meredith was killed by somebody unknown to her who entered the cottage by breaking in. Even though he had previous form as a burglar, it wouldn't be hard for him to realise that the potential universe of people who might have broken into the cottage might be considerably greater than the universe of people who were known the Meredith (and who were in Perugia that night with no alibi). After all, this potential universe for a break-in would include not only known burglars, but also most known sex-offenders, and in fact could not exclude pretty much any male between the ages of 16 and 50 who was in Perugia that night and who had no alibi.

I think we both agree that this sort of scenario is significantly more likely than Amanda and Raffaele staging the break-in, but I wonder if you are assigning it more probability than I do. I think 15% would be a generous upper bound -- with the probability only getting that large by defining "Guede staged the break-in" broadly, to mean "Guede created the mess in Romanelli's room after killing Meredith", and compensating for possible overconfidence reagarding behavioral inferences.

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

While I recognise that Silvio Berlusconi might be regarded as having vested interests in this area, it's nonetheless rather interesting to see Italy's sitting Prime Minister describing his own country as a police state, isn't it?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0e493686-2180-11df-830e-00144feab49a.html#axzz1AiXhibQ7

So Ms.Mellas has not been very precautious when letting her daughter go to study for many months in that dangerous state.
Did she seek additional information in advance from U.S. embassy or other institutions?

 

[Chris C]

So Ms.Mellas has not been very precautious when letting her daughter go to study for many months in that dangerous state.
Did she seek additional information in advance from U.S. embassy or other institutions?

Not all police states are dangerous, unless the police notice you or target you. Facism, communism, strong socialist democracies can all be considered in some form a police state. Italy is an enigma when compared to other democracies because of they way its democracy turned out.

 

[nopoirot]

While I recognise that Silvio Berlusconi might be regarded as having vested interests in this area, it's nonetheless rather interesting to see Italy's sitting Prime Minister describing his own country as a police state, isn't it?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0e493686-2180-11df-830e-00144feab49a.html#axzz1AiXhibQ7

Who knew? Has the US State Department issued the appropriate travel advisories? Obviously, there is a conspiracy here of unimaginable proportions.

 

[nopoirot]

That statement couldn't have been used either. I believe the key reason knox's statements where tossed is because of the first statement. That being the one the police did and had her sign it. So therefore before she signed that statement she should have had an attorney present. Thats something that was denied. The 5:45 statement can't be used for the same reason the previous statement couldn't be used. Since Knox was obviously a suspect when she signed the first statement, the 2nd statement holds to the same standard. Therefore neither of those statements could have been used against Patrick. You can blame Knox for making the statements all you want, but when it comes down to it. They had no evidence against Patrick when they arrested him. Don't fool yourself in believing that Mignini thought those statements would hold up in court. One thing Mignini is not, is an idiot.

Oranges are orange. Apples are red.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

PMF got the woman botherer witness wrong

From our friends at PMF:



I am glad to see that I've struck a nerve at PMF.
I'd been off their topic list for a month

Justinian2,

I am not sure whether you should be relieved or annoyed, but the writer of that passage (Michael?) should get his or her facts straight. Candace Dempsey quoted Zach Nowak about Rudi's behavior on pages 224-225 of Murder in Italy. The witness thrown out by Judge Micheli was someone else. The anonymous commenter should read the book and learn something.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

police states, Guantanamo, etc.

If you want to see a police state in action, go to the US!

TomCH,

In the past you mentioned Guantanamo, and now you claim that the U.S. is a police state. I note that Michael at PMF has again very recently claimed that Amanda’s defenders are racists. I think it is time to answer all such arguments and be done with it, lest we veer off topic too far.

Those of us who blog or comment regularly have electronic trails of where we stand on certain issues, and I can also release letters I wrote to back up any claims I make about my positions. I have defended the large group of black men and women wrongfully convicted of drug dealing in Tulia, Texas, and I have tried to show how indigent people are generally at a disadvantage in our CJ system. I criticized our government’s detainee policies in letters to news organizations, and I wrote a letter to Senator Elizabeth Dole on this issue. Indeed, some of what I learned about habeas corpus informed my opinions on the precautionary detentions in this case. RoseMontague defended the false accuser in the Duke lacrosse case, because when it became clear that no rape occurred, some of the commentary against her crossed the line. The false accuser is poor, black, and possibly mentally ill. More generally, those who believe that Knox and Sollecito are innocent cover broad regions political and religious beliefs. Charges of racism in this case are just plain silly. Claims about which country is closer to being a police state are too broad to be helpful in understanding this case, IMO.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'd like to echo Halides1's sentiments that the race-baiting we sometimes see from the lunatic fringe guilters is both distasteful and completely off-target.

It's also worth repeating that miscarriages of justice of an extremely serious nature happen in the USA, Australia, England and probably everywhere else just as they do in Italy. I think in many ways the Italian system is superior to the adversarial system we have here in Australia, in fact, and I've argued that case elsewhere on these forums in the past. In this one case the system demonstrably went wrong, but every system humans have yet tried goes wrong sometimes.

I'd prefer it if all parties to the discussion put race-baiting and Italy-bashing aside permanently.