Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RWVBWL]

Italian judge: Knox might know 'truth' in case

'They could also be responsible but the proof isn't there,' he says of freed American and ex-boyfriend'

Link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44790728/ns/world_news-europe

 

[Poppy1016]

The fact that all of the suspects were denied legal representation, should have ended the process before it got to trial.

 

[davefoc]

No, no. The calunnia against Patrick is no civil trial. Patrick himself could not stop it even if he wanted to.
Your understanding is all wrong; information is wrong, and reasons are entirely different.

You are right. I think. So let me see if I have this straight. Maresco represented Kercher's family in a wrongful death suit (a civil case) but Lumumba's lawyer represented Patrick in a criminal trial that could not only result in incarceration for Knox but in s finding of damages to Lumumba?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Not a good idea

This was posted today on Perugia Murder File.

Okay new angle.

One way or the other, over time, AK will come out from under the Mellox PR campaign regime. She will have her OWN life again.

No matter what happens in Italy (next appeal, return of a guilty verdict or not, RG being granted his appeal or not, RG beginning to spill the beans or not, RS being returned to prison or not, etc.) AK is not likely to go back or be extradited.

She will internally struggle with what she has done.

She will socially struggle with being hated as a murderer.

Once out from under the Mellox umbrella she will make herself accessible to the world through social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.).

If she is not to be returned to Italy to service out a sentence and therefore fulfill a need for criminal justice, then perhaps she can be cultivated to service out a sentence of moral justice.

Moral justice would considered in terms of what is needed by the Kerchers to come to peace with the murder of their daughter

There are many of us PMFers in the Pacific Northwest where AK is likely to reside.

We reach out.

We cultivate her.

We school her as to what is the right thing to do to absolve herself.

- Tell the truth to the Kerchers as to what happened that night
- Ask for their forgiveness
- Reach out to Patrick and apologize
- Ask for his forgiveness
- ????
- ???
- ??
- ?

There will be no criminal justice IMO for AK. OJ didn’t face criminal justice. CA didn’t face criminal justice. The PR campaign and the current Italian political climate likely played into this verdict. We may never know. What is more important are the Kerchers and their need for closure. For them, closure is knowing what happened to their daughter on that night. They have said as much on numerous occasions.

It's me, I know, but I don't care about the courts anymore. I care about what the Kerchers need.

I have some advice for Perugia Murder File; leave Amanda Knox alone.

If PMF wants to help the Kerchers understand what happened to Meredith then they need to let them know that Rudy Guede killed their daughter.

Its time for these people to walk away from their keyboards and find another hobby. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are free and that will never change. They are free because they are innocent. Let them get on with their lives. They already had 1427 days stolen from them, no one has the right to take any more.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Maybe, because it's irrelevant. The interpreter tried to help the parties communicate, she said things, and so what? Who cares? Should that produce any critical consequence?
Recall, by now Knox is just a proven liar. She falsely and willfully accused an innocent person, willfully obstructing an investigation on the murder of her roommate.

At this stage I do not expect Machiavelli to engage with the relevant scientific facts but for the viewers at home:

It is very important that the translator admitted to suggesting to Knox that Knox had repressed memories of witnessing Meredith's murder because this is exactly the tactic that leads to internalised false confessions and Knox's statements to the police bear several hallmarks of an internalised false confession including a vague, dream-like quality, total lack of internal logic, immediate retraction, the utter lack of any real knowledge of the circumstances of the crime, and conformity with the "facts we already knew to be true" the police had fed her.

Denying that Knox was interrogated under conditions known to lead to internalised false statements requires either mendaciousness, ignorance of the circumstances of Knox's interrogation or ignorance of the scientific knowledge we have of internalised false statements.

Denying that Knox's statement bears several hallmarks of an internalised false statement also require seither mendaciousness or ignorance of the scientific knowledge we have of internalised false statements.

Machiavelli and Mignini's continued insistence that Knox's statement is anything other than an internalised false statement brought about by incompetent interrogation is an insult to the intelligence of any informed reader.

It took her about half an hour to make the statement, and read it, maybe a little more, according to Mignini.

I think that at this stage the fact that Mignini said something should be taken at best as meaningless and at worst as evidence that whatever Mignini said is in fact factually false.

 

[LondonJohn]

Maybe, because it's irrelevant. The interpreter tried to help the parties communicate, she said things, and so what? Who cares? Should that produce any critical consequence?
Recall, by now Knox is just a proven liar. She falsely and willfully accused an innocent person, willfully obstructing an investigation on the murder of her roommate.

It's entirely relevant. The role of the interpreter is strictly to translate the literal words (and their direct meaning) from Italian to English and from English to Italian. Full Stop.

In this instance, the interpreter actively integrated herself into the interrogation. She offered Knox a personal anecdote, which clearly had the intention of helping to convince Knox that traumatic amnesia is a very real and powerful phenomenon. Moreover, it is extremely likely that since an interpreter, by their very definition, is a go-between, Knox regarded Donnino as a neutral party with no agenda to pursue. That makes Donnino's injection into the interrogation even more egregious.

And you seem rather keen to highlight - with seeming relish - that Knox is "just a proven liar". I think that you have allowed emotional investment to cloud whatever judgement you possess. You will realise, once the criminal slander verdict is very likely rejected by the Supreme Court and once Knox is rightfully acquitted of the charge at an appeal-level retrial, that you are as wrong about this issue as you are about practically every single other issue of any importance in this case. I wonder just what is motivating you to cling to your position. Is it no more than a stubborn refusal to admit that you're wrong, or is there something more to it than that?

 

[Machiavelli]

Hypothetically speaking, Machiavelli.

If the police lie to a suspect and say that they have strong evidence that she and another man are involved in a murder; they are putting pressure on her to confess to this and they are skillfully leading her in that direction - it being the main focus of the interrogation, instead of trying to find out what really happened: Do you consider this good police work and a good thing in general?

If the police tells a lie, I would consider a "lie" only a factual lie. A lie about a fact. For example, if they tell you: a lady has witnessed you while you were killing your neighbour, and that is false, that is a lie. I would consider that a bad police work (also the law would consider it so).
If you find any claim about a factual lie said by the police in Knox's interrogation, on this case, then you can build the first part of your reasoning.
Which is the lie that the police allegedly told her?
The fact is, there wasn't any police lie. If you think the police told a lie, you should say what lie exactly you are thinking about, and bring some evidence about this.
But, let's make clear, that the lie that I expect to see in order to decide it is a police misconduct, must be a lie about a fact. Information that is factually false that is given purposely. Not a wrong opinion or a wrong judgement.

And if this results in a false confession and a false accusation of an innocent man, is this the moral responsibility of the police, how started the lying or of the innocent suspect who has no experience at all of police interrogation, while the police are supposed to be experts in the field and conducting themselves according to a strict ethical code?

No. Even if there is a police misconduct, this does not shift responsability from the person wo declares. A misconduct by one, itself is something that does not justify any wrong action by another, it does not diminish anyone's moral responsibility. Even if the police is unethical, the suspect must behave ethically or, if he does not, the moral responsibility of his action will belong to him alone and not to others. This goes for each human being. Moral responsibility for one's choices is permanently personal, not depending on possible bad actions of others.

 

[Machiavelli]

It's entirely relevant. The role of the interpreter is strictly to translate the literal words (and their direct meaning) from Italian to English and from English to Italian. Full Stop.

In this instance, the interpreter actively integrated herself into the interrogation. She offered Knox a personal anecdote, which clearly had the intention of helping to convince Knox that traumatic amnesia is a very real and powerful phenomenon. Moreover, it is extremely likely that since an interpreter, by their very definition, is a go-between, Knox regarded Donnino as a neutral party with no agenda to pursue. That makes Donnino's injection into the interrogation even more egregious.

And you seem rather keen to highlight - with seeming relish - that Knox is "just a proven liar". I think that you have allowed emotional investment to cloud whatever judgement you possess. You will realise, once the criminal slander verdict is very likely rejected by the Supreme Court and once Knox is rightfully acquitted of the charge at an appeal-level retrial, that you are as wrong about this issue as you are about practically every single other issue of any importance in this case. I wonder just what is motivating you to cling to your position. Is it no more than a stubborn refusal to admit that you're wrong, or is there something more to it than that?

Have you ever heard the word Justice?

 

[LondonJohn]

This was posted today on Perugia Murder File.



I have some advice for Perugia Murder File; leave Amanda Knox alone.

If PMF wants to help the Kerchers understand what happened to Meredith then they need to let them know that Rudy Guede killed their daughter.

Its time for these people to walk away from their keyboards and find another hobby. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are free and that will never change. They are free because they are innocent. Let them get on with their lives. They already had 1427 days stolen from them, no one has the right to take any more.

I highlighted this very post earlier, Bruce. And I suggested that Seattle law enforcement might just want to identify and keep tabs on the maladjusted individual who posted it. There seriously are some very unbalanced personalities there, many of whom have already demonstrated their willingness and propensity to hunt and stalk people - not only in cyberspace (which is odd and sad in itself), but also in the physical world (which is getting into the realms of dangerous and criminal activity).

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I highlighted this very post earlier, Bruce. And I suggested that Seattle law enforcement might just want to identify and keep tabs on the maladjusted individual who posted it. There seriously are some very unbalanced personalities there, many of whom have already demonstrated their willingness and propensity to hunt and stalk people - not only in cyberspace (which is odd and sad in itself), but also in the physical world (which is getting into the realms of dangerous and criminal activity).

Sorry! I didn't browse through the posts.

 

[Poppy1016]

I have a great idea that will settle this whole dispute. How about if we review the interrogation recordings of AK, RS, and Patrick. Oops

 

[LondonJohn]

Have you ever heard the word Justice?

What does that even mean?

In a way, I admire your belligerence. But you are so hopelessly over-invested in a belief in guilt that you are incapable of making reasonable arguments. You're now starting to embarrass yourself in your zealotry and stubborn refusal to see things as they truly are. Perhaps you might take some time for quiet reflection, and that might enable you to see through the fog of your own delusions and reach something closer to an objective viewpoint on this sad case.

Good night (Would I be right to suppose that the reason you're up at 3.35am Italy time might have something to do with newspaper deadlines......?)

 

[Machiavelli]

It's entirely relevant. The role of the interpreter is strictly to translate the literal words (and their direct meaning) from Italian to English and from English to Italian. Full Stop.

In this instance, the interpreter actively integrated herself into the interrogation. She offered Knox a personal anecdote, which clearly had the intention of helping to convince Knox that traumatic amnesia is a very real and powerful phenomenon. Moreover, it is extremely likely that since an interpreter, by their very definition, is a go-between, Knox regarded Donnino as a neutral party with no agenda to pursue. That makes Donnino's injection into the interrogation even more egregious.

....

This is an issue only in the scope of professional ethics of translators and interpreters.
It is not an issue in the case. Personal anecdotes don't have the power to take control of people's minds and force them into telling false stories.

Moreover, I want to add a little point on interpreter/translator as a job: it is not true that an interpreter's job is merely to translate a language into another word by word (that is not an interpreter but a translator). An interpreter, in a certain degree (but it is very a careful and dificult topic) is also a facilitator and a mediator (or you say negotiator?), has to facilitate communication, sometimes by explaining to a client some points of possible misunderstanding between foreigneers or about points concerning cultural differences and contexts.
The professional profile of Anna Donnino in Italy is called facilitatore linguistico, this is the functions by which interpreters are mostly hired.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Raffaele and Amanda will probably meet up in Seattle !! (according to her father anyway)

Was it BOLINT who was so interested in why Amanda and Raffaele did not hug in court (despite the guards whisking Amanda away almost as soon as the verdict was announced)?

Here ya go:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...o-prepares-fly-Seattle.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

And don't forget that it's a dogmatic belief of most of the more rabid pro-guilt commentators that Sollecito's father regards Knox as toxic, that he blames her almost entirely for his son's predicament, and that he will essentially forbid his son to have anything to do with her in the future.

The truth, I suspect, is that both families are by now fully aware that it was circumstances and police/prosecutor zealotry that got Amanda and Raffaele into trouble. I suspect that Knox and Sollecito will remain close friends for life, united by their common experience and their very brief romance. But I suspect that neither of them has any plans to rekindle the romance, and that neither regards the other as any sort of "life partner" material.

Ah yes, that would be the same rabid pro-guilt commentators who held the dogmatic belief that Raffaele's defence team would throw Knox 'under the bus' - how did that turn out?

I am in complete agreement with your post, apart from the slight romantic in me thinking that it would be nice if Amanda and Raffaele could get together but that's probably pushing it a bit too far!

 

[spartacus]

That should be interesting, indeed! I think they should give some weight to Ron Hendry's Lone Wolf killer analysis. I doubt there were others involved.
Yes, off-duty Polizia, what a surprise. And errors in reporting still abound in this case.

Digos corresponds to our SWAT teams. I wonder what the people of Italy think about paying taxes to go to the salary of men who stand outside court rooms and shout insults at the officers of the court when they exit. I think this was a pre-planned event, kind of like Ghadaffi busing in his supporters. But Perugia style. Funny they were all "young men" (the youth of Perugia spontaneously speaks out?)

 

[Scorpion NITE]

This was posted today on Perugia Murder File.



I have some advice for Perugia Murder File; leave Amanda Knox alone.

If PMF wants to help the Kerchers understand what happened to Meredith then they need to let them know that Rudy Guede killed their daughter.

Its time for these people to walk away from their keyboards and find another hobby. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are free and that will never change. They are free because they are innocent. Let them get on with their lives. They already had 1427 days stolen from them, no one has the right to take any more.

Well said Bruce.

Actually, LondonJohn posted that disgusting little outburst on PMF earlier but I'm glad you repeated it for those that missed it earlier.

ETA: Apologies - just seen that he answered and you also acknowledged!

 

[Machiavelli]

What does that even mean?

In a way, I admire your belligerence. But you are so hopelessly over-invested in a belief in guilt that you are incapable of making reasonable arguments. You're now starting to embarrass yourself in your zealotry and stubborn refusal to see things as they truly are. Perhaps you might take some time for quiet reflection, and that might enable you to see through the fog of your own delusions and reach something closer to an objective viewpoint on this sad case.

Good night (Would I be right to suppose that the reason you're up at 3.35am Italy time might have something to do with newspaper deadlines......?)

No. It hasn't got to do with newspapers. I saw nothing bad in newspapers.

But I want to recall that I did not step in aggressively in the forum by my initiative: it is you who called my name first, with your argument about 530.1 "axiomatic certainity": you wrote a post in which you cited me and mentioned my name, and you attempted to use it to "lecture" your plain wrong argument.
That was an argument which you believed to be rational, and was instead a piece of false information. You were lecturing (me and/or others) teaching false things on a topic you did not know about, and you were doing so by using my name. And that point, was a point where you were proven to be not factual and not rational.

To me, your problems is that you are invested in pontifications. These pontifications are based on your principles, your beliefs, or even your self-convincements on specialized topics on which you are not acknowledged. You state rules and principles that don't exist; then you build an argument on them. Based on the principles that you create, your argument stand as rational. But your axiomes are false.
You are generous in bringing judgements ("over-invested", "irrational", "refusal", "stubborn"), why don't you bring facts.

 

[Poppy1016]

None of the interrogations were recorded and legal representation was denied. Nothing more needs to be said.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

No. It hasn't got to do with newspapers. I saw nothing bad in newspapers.

Whoosh !!

(That's not what he meant).

 

[Justinian2]

If the police tells a lie, I would consider a "lie" only a factual lie. A lie about a fact. For example, if they tell you: a lady has witnessed you while you were killing your neighbour, and that is false, that is a lie. I would consider that a bad police work (also the law would consider it so).
If you find any claim about a factual lie said by the police in Knox's interrogation, on this case, then you can build the first part of your reasoning.
Which is the lie that the police allegedly told her?
The fact is, there wasn't any police lie. If you think the police told a lie, you should say what lie exactly you are thinking about, and bring some evidence about this.
But, let's make clear, that the lie that I expect to see in order to decide it is a police misconduct, must be a lie about a fact. Information that is factually false that is given purposely. Not a wrong opinion or a wrong judgement.
No. Even if there is a police misconduct, this does not shift responsability from the person wo declares. A misconduct by one, itself is something that does not justify any wrong action by another, it does not diminish anyone's moral responsibility. Even if the police is unethical, the suspect must behave ethically or, if he does not, the moral responsibility of his action will belong to him alone and not to others. This goes for each human being. Moral responsibility for one's choices is permanently personal, not depending on possible bad actions of others.

In the USA, the only way you can bring up charges of police misconduct is to have a video of their misconduct. In the USA, the police know how to induce you to touch them. And then they know how to file A & B charges against you. Like Italy, is it not? If you don't have that video, you will just spin your wheels getting out from under A & B charges. You will never get to actually file misconduct charges against the police unless you have a video.

However, in the USA, you hardly ever go to jail for two years for A & B on a cop unless you really mangle them or have many priors.

Cops in the USA "lie like troopers". Every hear that expression? Troopers are state cops.

Italy and the USA are not that different. The trial is better in the USA and the appeal process is better in Italy. Cops lie in both countries. There is police misconduct in both countries. There are farcical laws in both countries. There are bad forensic scientists in both countries.

The difference may be that the Italians may not know how flawed the system frequently is because too many slander suits (calumnia?) are filed.

I only like American lawyers that agree with my viewpoint. Many/most do.