Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kaosium]

Amanda Knox: What's in a face?


Interesting article in 'The Guardian' - food for thought:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/08/amanda-knox-facial-expressions?newsfeed=true

Beautiful piece! Quite insightful, thank you for bringing it to our attention.

 

[Paninaro]

In my mind, and my mindset, thing like thse have nothing to do with "police leaks" or police lies. These are leaks and stories that occurr always on any case in Italy and have nothing to do with police or prosecution. They are endemic to the Italian system, they are simply not prevented from happening.

You say this and

There is a basic misunderstanding that seems go on: people mistake my arguments for one whose mindset is founded on a trust of authority.
This is fundamentally false: I am not at all a person who trusts authority.

and yet you blindly refuse to accept any form of criticism of police and prosecutors in connection with the Meredith Kercher case and defend them in every detail?

You talk a lot about lies.

Do you really think that lying in itself is a criminal offence worth three years in prison? People lie all the time for a variety of reasons. Do you think that a man who lies to his wife and have a mistress should get three years in prison too? Your son lying to you that he doesn't drink, smoke or meet girls. Should we throw him in jail for that?

We're discussing a murder here, something very serious. Plain lying surely is nothing in comparison? Even lying to the police. If Amanda Knox is innocent, why punish her for mere lies that never would have been uttered without the police suspecting her of murder and putting pressure on her?

 

[JREF2010]

Is a person not a suspect if they're phones are being tapped?

Good question.

Giobbi said that his suspicions were first raised just hours after the murder, at the crime scene, when he watched Knox execute a provocative swivel of her hips as she put on a pair of shoe covers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/08/amanda-knox-facial-expressions?newsfeed=true

Does this mean she was a suspect within a hours before Nov 5?
Does having suspicions of Amanda not qualify as her being a suspect before Nov 5th?

 

[LashL]

Do you think you can say whatever unproven thing you want about someone because has a pending charge? (which you don't even know about)
Your is a dirty campaign, made of falsehoods. The conviction of Mignini is for you merely an instrument to take advantage from in order to insinuate lies that have nothing to do with it. In fact, you don't even know anything about Mignini's conviction nor about his actual personal credibility.

Wait, what?

How is Mignini in any different position after his first instance conviction than Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito were after their initial conviction in the court of first instance, when you personally were all too willing - and continue to be all too willing - to say every unproven thing you can think of to say about them? By your "reasoning" (and I use the term loosely here), woudn't that make yours a dirty campaign? A dirty campaign made of falsehoods? An instrument to take advantage in order to insinuate lies? (whatever that means)

See, you can't have it both ways, Machiavelli. You can't pick and choose, and only apply your "reasoning" to the one scenario that you're trying to promote (even though it has no evidence to support it).

Either all three of them (Mignini, Ms. Knox, and Mr. Sollecito) were entitled to the same protection that you are now claiming for Mignini but that you never acknowledged for Ms. Knox or Mr. Sollecito (and that you, in fact, personally breached repeatedly if you now take the position that Mignini is entitled to such protection) or none of them were entitled to such protection. So, which is it, from your perspective? You can't have it both ways, so you're going to have to choose if you want to go further down that path. Frankly, I don't think anyone really gives a flying fig about Mignini's own legal problems in the big picture; it appears quite clear that he's a nutcase and a disgrace to Italy and its legal system.


Meanwhile, though, why don't you address this:

Nel nostro caso non abbiamo richiamato il secondo comma dell'articolo 530 del Codice

You seem to be avoiding giving your personal interpretation of those words. I'd like to see you acknowledge them and give your personal interpretation of them.

It seems that, instead, you are studiously avoiding them, and that doesn't really make any sense to me.

 

[Kestrel]

Italian source for claim to have clear video of Amanda.

Intanto è spuntato un video che dovrebbe incastrare definitivamente Amanda Knox: nel filmato si vede la giovane americana che alle 20.43 di quel 1 novembre rientra verso casa. Le riprese sono state ottenute grazie ad una telecamera di sorveglianza del parcheggio davanti la casa del massacro. Questo video fa crollare così la tesi secondo cui Amanda non si trovava in casa al momento del delitto, e non ci sono dubbi che si tratti di lei poichè il video è di buona qualità, e si vede l'americana che indossa una gonna bianca ed è riconoscibilissima.

Google translation:

Meanwhile, a video popped up that should definitely fit Amanda Knox in the movie we see the young American to 20:43 November 1 of that back towards home. The images were obtained through a surveillance camera in the parking lot in front of the house of the massacre. This video is collapsed so the argument that Amanda was not home at the time of the crime, and there is no doubt that it is her as the video quality is good, and you see an American wearing a white skirt and is recognizable.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Short answer: No - You have no real protected right to counsel or against self-incrimination.

I refer to Machiavelli: "This is entirely legal: it is like it has to be. The incriminating statement is considered circumstantial evidence in the investigation and a document for practical use in the investigation, but it is still an informal act, not a judicial act nor a piece of evidence itself in a trial; it can be used in trial but cannot be used against the person who released it. There is no police misconduct in this, this is the normal police work. And there is nothing illegal in obtaining the document. The only thing is that the document is not usable in a trial against the person who released it. It is provided that the police collects incriminating statements from suspects; it is only not permitted their use in a trial for certain purposes."

In other words. You can't use the statement itself against the defendant. However, you can use the facts derived from that statement and the fact that the statement was made, e.g. the fruit of the poison tree, to build and prosecute a case against the defendant.

From my view point as a former military law enforcement official this would be great. No more worrying about ensuring the accused rights are respected because even if I violated those rights it would be considered normal police work. No more problematic cases like lying before congress in front of millions being reversed on appeal because forcing me to waive my constitutional rights is normal congressional work. Yes Mr. North you lied to congress and a jury found you guilty of that charge.

As we know legal technicalities such as the suppression of illegally obtained confessions only protect the guilty. The innocent need not fear the police.

Based a post below Machiavelli appears to be an honorable if very zealous defender of the Italian legal system. He also appears to be blind to the systematic faults in that system which allow an over-zealous police force or prosecutor to systemically violate a defendants civil (human) rights without pause for meaningful sanction.

Thanks - that was sort of the position of old in the US courts, also.

And I should add, lest LashL think I'm a legal illiterate, I wasn't quite using the term correctly. FotPT applies to secondary evidence obtained as a result of evidence illegally obtained (or in violoation of 4th Amendment rights). Ergo, Amanda's "accusation', not actually being evidence, wouldn't apply. So, "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" only works metaphorically.

Ah, well, it was a seemingly logical thought when I raised it, but it gets hoisted on the details. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

[Poppy1016]

Wait, what?

How is Mignini in any different position after his first instance conviction than Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito were after their initial conviction in the court of first instance, when you personally were all too willing - and continue to be all too willing - to say every unproven thing you can think of to say about them? Doesn't that make yours a dirty campaign? A dirty campaign made of falsehoods? An instrument to take advantage in order to insuate lies?

See, you can't have it both ways, Machiavelli. You can't pick and choose.

Either all three of them (Mignini, Ms. Knox, and Mr. Sollecito) were entitled to the same protection that you are now claiming for Mignini that you never acknowledged for Ms. Knox or Mr. Sollecito (and that you, in fact, personally breached repeatedly if you now take the position that Mignini is entitled to
such protection) or none of them were entitled to such protection. So, which is
it, from your perspective? You can't have it both ways, so you're going to have
to choose.

Hi LashL,
I Agree and you make good points. As for Machiavelli, I find the way he argues his points to be very one sided and he makes about as much sense as his buddy Mignini.

 

[Dan O.]

____________________

Dan,

Is this just the time at which Rita "specified in the entry" that she'd received Amanda's Memorandum? We know that Amanda had given it to Rita far earlier than "20:00 pm." Amanda had given it to Rita before being transferred from the police station to Capanne Prison. From the photographs of that transfer, we know the transfer happened in daylight, so no later than afternoon, November 6th, 2007.

///

Thanks, I'll make a note of that.

 

[LashL]

Thanks - that was sort of the position of old in the US courts, also.

And I should add, lest LashL think I'm a legal illiterate, I wasn't quite using the term correctly. FotPT applies to secondary evidence obtained as a result of evidence illegally obtained (or in violoation of 4th Amendment rights). Ergo, Amanda's "accusation', not actually being evidence, wouldn't apply. So, "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" only works metaphorically.

Ah, well, it was a seemingly logical thought when I raised it, but it gets hoisted on the details. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

I don't know why you mentioned me in this post, but for the record, the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is, as far as I know, a purely American thing and it is not the same in Canada. Here, the circumstances would be analyzed pursuant to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The result would likely be the same in this particular instance, but it would be arrived at by a different analysis.

 

[Kaosium]

Another question I have is, when a person being questioned asks for legal representation, is it normal practice to refuse them?

That's the way they play the game in Italy. They tell them, like they told Amanda, 'it'll go worse for you' or they'll try to say they called but no one answered, they do their best to dissuade someone. There's a link I can't find this instant, I know it's buried back in the first continuation from a legal resource in Europe which is where I read that. I thought it was the European Bar Association, but I didn't find it there in a cursory search. I did find this though and wanted to make this point as Diocletus got me to thinking about it:

Electronic recording of interviews is obligatory when the suspect is detained. Furthermore, a written summary is made of the interviews, however it can significantly differ from the recordings. The electronic recordings are made by special technicians, who are supervised by the judge.

At 10:40 PM, November fifth 2007 Raffaele signed a statement that said Amanda had parted with him at the town center at about 9 PM on November first and didn't return home until about 1 AM later that night. He also intimated he went along with her version (which was right!) as he didn't think about the 'contradictions'--which didn't exist. The police would use that (and who knows might have personally believed) to later tell her Raffaele had said she asked him to lie. This suggests that Amanda had been lying all week about her alibi and might have tried to influence Raffaele into thinking something that was 'false' about the night of the murder.

The idea that Amanda was free to leave the Questura at that point is ludicrous, and as I recall one of the officers--think it was Ficarra or Napoleoni--said in court she was detailed to make sure Amanda didn't leave the building. She wasn't going anywhere, I know I sure as hell wouldn't have let her leave under those circumstances and I'm finding out compared to the police in Perugia I'm some kind of 'criminal' coddling bleeding heart!

Incidentally, if the police had as much mistaken and coincidental reasons to be suspicious as they should have had (and there's more they could have had) by 10:15 PM, November fifth I'd have had a talk with that young lady myself if I were them. I still suspect this started out as a tragedy of errors that spun out of control, but I do believe in the beginning they just wanted to solve a murder and make their people feel safe and impose justice for the gruesome death of person who died far before her time.

 

[moodstream]

True. Normal people also don't falsely accuse their former employers of killing somebody. Oops, seems Knox isn't all that normal...

You're guessing. Only the participants know what happened. So, if Knox turns out to have a normal personality... not borderline or sociopathic ... it will greatly support her version of events. She lied neither in the interrogation nor about the interrogation.

We will both see. I am betting on Knox.

 

[Kaosium]

Please don't be offended. This isn't exactly the thread for logical questions and direct answers.

What makes you say that?

 

[LashL]

Nel nostro caso non abbiamo richiamato il secondo comma dell'articolo 530 del Codice

Machiavelli, as a native Italian, how would you personally translate this into English?

(And why do you continue to avoid answering this question, despite being asked several times now?)

 

[moodstream]

Amanda Knox: What's in a face?


Interesting article in 'The Guardian' - food for thought:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/08/amanda-knox-facial-expressions?newsfeed=true

very interesting indeed!

 

[moodstream]

Time wasting questions: we know for certain Amanda was actually perceived by Meredith as being not very clean.

You're not claiming to channel Meredith's spirit now, are you?

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>Then [Mignini] also mentioned some material that would show some complex aspects of the personality of defendants: Sollecito's penchant for knifes, violent and bestiality porn, and his favourite mainstream manga, the main charachter of which is a young man - shy, nerd kind - whose mind is telepatically captured by the thoughts of a serial killer who kills nude girls with a knife on a sacrifice altar, by the ende the main charachter is transformed into a devil.
Material like this is merely elements to show aspects of the personality of defendants, as he is required by law to do, in order to show that their personalities are complex and not the stereotypes they may try to look like.

I didn't find this thoughts by Mignini entirely irrational.<snip>

How very generous of Mignini to show that the defendants' "personalities are complex" -- in other words, to prejudice the judges against them. It would have been nice if he had waited to do so until after some evidence had been collected, but you can't have everything.

So, a mere three days after the arrests, before any lab analysis, Judge Claudia Matteini announced to the world that, "As far as the juridical aspect of the case, there are no doubts at this moment in presuming this to be correct: that there was an initial wish of the three youths to try a new sensation...."

Whence did Matteini obtain this crucial information about all three defendants' desires for new sensations? Why, from that most reliable of sources, the internet blog of a 24-year-old college student, supplied to Matteini, no doubt, by the ever helpful Mignini, head of the investigation:

"Sollecito Raffaele, bored of the same old evenings and wanting to try "extreme experiences" as can be found on his blog with the date 13 October 2007 and as he confirmed in the audience chamber (experiences that can include also an intense sexual relation which breaks up the monotony of everyday life) went out with Amanda."

Yes, the same blog in which we find "RaffaSollecito's Favorites"

Film Hamlet
Type of music relax
Song sweet dreams
Band/Group Not specified yet
Person Not specified yet
Quote Not specified yet
Place to party Not specified yet
Place to relax on the beach
Place to holiday jamaica
Book mangas
Sport kickboxing

Raffaele doesn't really look all that complex in the first place -- half his list isn't even filled out yet. How odd, then, that with so little to go on, it was only the manga that made it into the dossier of character assassination to be used against him. Gosh, it almost looks as if Mignini was much more interested in showing that the defendants' personalities were simple, one-dimensional and, yes, stereotypically violent.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You're not claiming to channel Meredith's spirit now, are you?

Well it's not quite Halloween, and everyone knows comic book readers, pot smokers and other devotees of the occult conduct rituals when it's not quite Halloween. Who's to say Machiavelli and Mignini haven't been gathering evidence together using their ouija board? It wouldn't exactly be inconsistent with the other evidence-gathering methodologies of the PMF community like statement analysis, astrology and pulling things out of their backsides.

 

[Mary_H]

You're not claiming to channel Meredith's spirit now, are you?

moodstream, you silly. We know it because Meredith's friends reported it. And why do Meredith's friends have more credibility than Amanda? Because Amanda is a liar! How do we know she is a liar? Because what she said does not match what Meredith's friends reported!

 

[moodstream]

moodstream, you silly. We know it because Meredith's friends reported it. And why do Meredith's friends have more credibility than Amanda? Because Amanda is a liar! How do we know she is a liar? Because what she said does not match what Meredith's friends reported!

Precisely!

 

[Ammonitida]

Machiavelli, as a native Italian, how would you personally translate this into English?

(And why do you continue to avoid answering this question, despite being asked several times now?)

He has already answered I think.

He wrote this in response to the quote;

"I don't know what he is writing in his report. I still don't know id he will chose 530.1 or 530.2; what I know is that he should have chosen one, not be in between.

I had already noticed that they did not mention the 530.2 in their reading; but I also noticed that they did not mention the 530.1 And this is the point.
They have to chose. They have to indicate what they chose; not what they don't chose. Such a reading is something I have never seen: they have to say what they decide, not what they did not decide, I have never heared a judge not mentioning paragraph on the main condition of the formula."

In other words, Hellmanns statement, "Nel nostro caso non abbiamo richiamato il secondo comma dell'articolo 530 del Codice" is not good enough to settle the issue because he "have to say what they decide not what they don't decide". I don't quite follow his logic here. Clearly from Hellmann's statement, 503.2 of the paragraph is ruled out. So isn't 503.1 the only other option left?