Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

Yes. To the journalists. (and in English). But in the trial documents, where is this position? They didn't make it.
You don't have anything except these assertions that have no roots in the documentation.

Are you saying he is lying about this?

 

[theRealBob]

Shucks. I mistyped Always.

I hope I don't get life.

 

[theRealBob]

and six months solitary confinement.

 

[theRealBob]

and my family taken to the cleaners

 

[theRealBob]

and my shoes stripped from me till I only have bare feet

 

[JREF2010]

And, yes there is also a little thing I forgot to say.
A little thing which, I notice nobody pays attention to it in the innocentisti camp, everybody seems focused on the fact that Amanda is free as the only parameter.

But in fact, the verdict is guilty of calunnia and three years imprisonment. This is a felony criminal record in Italy. This means, logicall, all those who predicted she would be considered innocent were also wrong in their prediction.
On a pure logical line, it is not that I was more wrong on verdict prediction compared to those who predicted "not guilty". In fact, Knox was found guilty. On a crime which, not only is rather serious in Italy but also loaded with implication on the other charges. By now, by the law Knox is a liar and a person who willfully obstructed justice. This is not an irrelevant point.

an example of chronic hate

 

[Micromegas]

On the contrary, this argument is purely semantic (it assumes that because "confession" and "accusation" are different words that the mechanisms that produce false confessions cannot produce false accusations), and it's also factually false.

It's not pure semantics to point out the difference between a confession and an accusation. Perhaps people are too smitten with Knox to be able to make this simple distinction.

I'm not denying that the Italian cops used inhumane interrogation tactics, I'm just saying that they never got a confession out of Knox.

-Mike

 

[Teddy2007]

I have no relationship with Mignini.
I talked to Mignini; tens of other journalists and writers did the same. I talked to Mignini because I was in Perugia and I happened to meet him on a coffee break during a hearing session. Just like any citizen in Perugia can speak to another citizen. Why shouldn't I?

From what you wrote on PMF, if I recall, it seemed that you were sufficiently close to him to discuss a disagreement you had with something he did in the case (can't remember what now). Anyway, based on your response, does this mean you're a journalist?

Do you know Giuseppe Castellini? You seem to have very similar views as him.

 

[LondonJohn]

I have no relationship with Mignini.
I talked to Mignini; tens of other journalists and writers did the same. I talked to Mignini because I was in Perugia and I happened to meet him on a coffee break during a hearing session. Just like any citizen in Perugia can speak to another citizen. Why shouldn't I?

So you're a journalist then, are you, Machiavelli? Care to elaborate, since there is now a strong likelihood that you have a vested interest in defending a certain point of view? Are you being paid to write on forums such as this, or do you do it in your spare time?

 

[theRealBob]

And, yes there is also a little thing I forgot to say.
A little thing which, I notice nobody pays attention to it in the innocentisti camp, everybody seems focused on the fact that Amanda is free as the only parameter.

But in fact, the verdict is guilty of calunnia and three years imprisonment. This is a felony criminal record in Italy. This means, logicall, all those who predicted she would be considered innocent were also wrong in their prediction.
On a pure logical line, it is not that I was more wrong on verdict prediction compared to those who predicted "not guilty". In fact, Knox was found guilty. On a crime which, not only is rather serious in Italy but also loaded with implication on the other charges. By now, by the law Knox is a liar and a person who willfully obstructed justice. This is not an irrelevant point.

***********

I didn't see it coming.
But, it's true.
You're right. You are more right. Far, far more right.
It's a very relevant point.

I was wrong. We can really learn from you.

 

[RoseMontague]

But, I don't understand, even before entering the matter of what they are discussing in court in those hearings (anyway we already know about them), how do you think these documents could change things? There is no request of raw data files in the appeal documents, none in the reasons for appeal. These are the defence positions; these define the points in the first instance trial that the defence wants to be addressed. The poitns are not accessories put there for rethoric emphasis: they have to define the defence position on the trial, entirely and exaustively. And there is nothing in their position about raw electronic data. I don't see how can you change this.

How much evidence do you need?

From 25 September 2009 transcript:

CONSULENTE - I ferogrammi che avete visto tutti voi nelle relazioni della Dottoressa Stefanoni, questo è il famoso dato grezzo che tra l’altro a noi limitatamente alla traccia 36 B non è stato mai consegnato che ci mostra quello che è tutto il DNA nel suo insieme una volta che viene estratto ed amplificato dalla macchina, da questo DNA poi noi dobbiamo cercare di estrarre le singole composizioni alleliche per poter poi cercar di stabilire esaminandole a confronto con altre se quello è il soggetto in questione o se pure quel soggetto è diverso è un’altra persona. Ora questo successivo passo di identificazione diciamo modificazione del DNA avviene attraverso la corsa elettroforetica, cioè attraverso dei meccanismi particolari che non sto a spiegarvi, questa diciamo confusa immagine del DNA si riordina tranquillamente a seconda del peso del... del peso specifico eccetera dell’allele in questione su un foglio di carta bibula affinché poi può essere studiato, dopo che noi abbiamo fatto questo secondo passaggio noi abbiamo quella che l’immagine del soggetto in esame, però per passare da questo al passaggio appunto che vi ho detto all’elettroferogramma che voi avete visto è necessario che questo dato grezzo venga esaminato da un meccanismo di software che si chiama analisi Smithod ( simile), questo è nient’altro... non ve l’ho detto scusatemi, è nient’altro che delle slide che ho tratto dal manualetto di uso della macchina appunto utilizzata per le indagini genetiche. Ora voi vedete come funziona questo meccanismo di analisi, qui ci sono delle lettere B, G, Y, R e O che indicano dei colori, quindi sono a fianco invece dei numeri qui nella specie sono 50 che corrispondono ai RFU che sarebbero nient’altro per semplificare ovviamente sempre la diciamo consistenza in peso, in massa, come volete del DNA che viene studiato, cioè dire la macchina... l’analisi Smithod cosa fa? Stabilisce quali sono... il produttore della macchina ha stabilito quali sono i parametri con cui questa macchina va utilizzata, cioè se voi vedete qui c’è scritto factory default cioè dire questi sono i valori che il costruttore dice di utilizzare quando vogliamo avere una risposta genetica assolutamente attendibile. Ora qui questi valori dei 50 non sono stati stabiliti così autonomamente dal produttore ma ovviamente rispondono ai canoni che la scienza internazionale, la genetica internazionale prevede come utilizzo nell’esame genetico ai più bassi livelli, cioè dire quando ci troviamo di fronte a piccole quantità di DNA come nella specie del... che noi andremo ad esaminare la comunità scientifica internazionale consiglia di non scendere... di non prendere in considerazione valori di RFU cioè di quantità di DNA al di sotto dei 50, questo perché? Perché così evitano delle risposte che possano perdere di attendibilità in quanto possono essere influenzate da altri fattori. Alla fine di questo tipo di indagine escono fuori quelli che voi avete visto tutti gli elettroferogrammi, ora passiamo in specie a quello che si è... diciamo come si è svolta l’attività della Dottoressa...

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Tim Egan

Tim Egan wrote, "But if all the attention to the Knox episode prompts people to take a second look at other questionable cases, then perhaps the tide from Perugia will lift other boats." Amen.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

my opinions only

It's not pure semantics to point out the difference between a confession and an accusation. Perhaps people are too smitten with Knox to be able to make this simple distinction.

I'm not denying that the Italian cops used inhumane interrogation tactics, I'm just saying that they never got a confession out of Knox.

-Mike

Micromegas,

I am probably going to regret stepping into this, but it depends on how one looks at it. If Patrick had really been in the bedroom and Knox in the living room, then she might have been guilty of failing to come to someone's aid. My understanding of Italian law is weak, but I believe that this is an offense. Moreover, what she said had the effect of being a confession, since it got her incarcerated. However, I still think the strongest argument is the one that several of us have indicated, that many false confessions are also accusations; there is no bright line. Tommy Ward and Karl Fontenot are a good example, but the Norfolk Four also stands out in my mind.

I think it is worth asking why (whether guilty or innocent) would she have named Lumumba out of the blue? She had reason to believe that he had an alibi. IMO she named him because that is what PLE wanted to hear. MOO.

 

[NoahFence]

Instead of a link why not post what I said which was:

Are you as sure of this as you were sure they were taking a private jet?

Where in my post did I say you posted about the charter jet?

 

[Micromegas]

I think it is worth asking why (whether guilty or innocent) would she have named Lumumba out of the blue? She had reason to believe that he had an alibi. IMO she named him because that is what PLE wanted to hear. MOO.

Don't get me wrong. If nothing else, the Lumumba accusation plainly demonstrates that Knox wasn't involved with Guede in the murder. Otherwise, why on Earth wouldn't she have named him, or at the very least said she saw him, rather than Lumumba?

I'm just wondering whether her supporters are too blinded by her hawtness to admit that she never confessed to anything, regardless of how many times they say that police coerced her into a false confession.

-Mike

 

[Swimfish]

There is no misconduct. No proof nor element of evidence about misconduct was ever addressed.

The fact that AKs statements from the night of Nov 5th were declared inadmissable by the Italian Supreme Court is direct incontroversial proof that the police engaged in misconduct on that night. If they hit her on the head or not matters little as the court found that they clearly violated her rights that night and the police were sanctioned for that activity.

That you show a stunning lack of respect for the Italian Supreme Court rulings, unless of course they align with your strongly held prejudices in this case, speaks volumes.

 

[LondonJohn]

Here's a question: Has Costagliola actually said anything publicly about an appeal to the Supreme Court yet? I know that Mignini and Comodi have been seemingly taking every opportunity to appear on the media and shout about the certainty of an appeal. But I don't think it's their decision to take.

In fact, has Costagliola even said anything in public since the acquittals were announced? I can't recall him being quoted anywhere, but that's not necessarily to say that he didn't make some sort of statement. However, if he has said little or nothing - and seemingly nothing about an appeal - that would only add weight to the suggestion that Costagliola wants as little as possible to do with the prosecution meltdown in this case. And either way, it's extraordinary that the person who was the lead prosecutor in the appeal trial has not been at the forefront of prosecution comments and statments after Hellmann's verdict.

 

[Grinder]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7643176#post7643176

Why is everyone claiming her innocence still? She got 3 years, funny definition of innocent.

Well, because the crime they left on the books is minor, is still in appeal and most believe she was led into it by over zealous police.

I asked for a copy of the statement up thread and a link was provided. (see above)

Read the actual confession/accusation and then comment. The 1:45 official cracking of the case statement is a joke.

 

[LondonJohn]

The fact that AKs statements from the night of Nov 5th were declared inadmissable by the Italian Supreme Court is direct incontroversial proof that the police engaged in misconduct on that night. If they hit her on the head or not matters little as the court found that they clearly violated her rights that night and the police were sanctioned for that activity.

That you show a stunning lack of respect for the Italian Supreme Court rulings, unless of course they align with your strongly held prejudices in this case, speaks volumes.

Well, no, technically that's not true. The statements clearly could not be used against Knox herself (she hadn't been read her rights, and was not allowed access to a lawyer), but they have always been admissible for the Lumumba slander case. That's why they were actually heard and discussed in Massei's court - since Massei made the perverse and improper ruling that the slander trial should run concurrent with the murder trial.

And I think that this is one of the two factors that provide a good prospect of a successful appeal at Supreme Court level. I think that a judicial panel that was trying Knox for murder should not simultaneously have been trying her case for criminal slander. The prospect of the two sets of charges improperly impacting on each other is easy to identify. The other point of law for the slander charge is the mens rea: The court has to decide that Knox definitely made the accusation against Lumumba completely of her own free will if it is to find for guilt. But the very nature of the two written statements (which are riddled with confusion), and the rapid substantial retraction in the "gift" statement (which makes explicit reference to improper coercion), clearly tend to imply that there is at least reasonable doubt as to whether Knox was led or coerced into accusing Lumumba.

 

[Machiavelli]

You don't think a person innocent of a crime can accuse someone else of a crime and not be found guilty of the crime they did not commit?

I have already explained on PMF - in response to thoughtful - why the two charges are logically linked, and why the calunnia doesn't stand alone.