Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Diocletus]

Before until you said this I had not the full convincement of how bad the Italian system of questioning witnesses/suspects really was. It seems to allow the cops to pick and chose the point of formally naming a suspect, usually after they get the goods, thereby denying a witness legal protection they should have been entitled to. What a racket.

Yes. An appalling and illegal system. Definitely not the pinacle of legality, modernity and righteousness that Machiavelli claims.

There are two kinds of suspects in Italy: (i) de facto suspects, and (ii) de jure suspects. De facto suspects are persons who the cops believe or know, based on fact-gathering, to be involved in the crime. De jure suspects are de facto suspects who, because of the facts gathered by the police, have been designated as suspects by a mere administrative act.

According to Machiavelli, de facto suspects have no rights--no right to remain silent and no right to counsel--even though the cops who may be questioning them already believe or know that the person is incriminated. These basic human rights guaranteed to all suspects attach only by mere administrative act after the cops have decided that the suspect should be declared a de jure suspect. In effect, the cops say to the suspect: "Now we have decided that we will let you have your rights." A person's human rights are therefore a function of the subjective judgment of the police and not any objective analysis.

So what safeguards are there for the rights of the de facto suspect? Well, I suppose there is the sophistication of the suspect: are they knowledgeable about law and how the system works, or are they ignorant of it, weak, subject to manipulation and unfamiliar with the culture? Also, there is the honesty and integrity of the cops: will they conduct their interrogation properly, or are they abusive liars? But without an objective standard, these considerations are just as likely to work against the suspect and against human rights.

This case is a perfect example of the complete inadequacy and illegality of the Italian system. The Perugian cops had before them a suspect who they believed to be involved in the crime. She was a young, foreign girl; unfamiliar with the legal system and the language and trusting of the cops. Unbeknownst to her, these cops had no integrity--just look at all the lies they released to the press. So, Amanda Knox had no rights and no protection. The lying cops were free to do whatever they wanted with this suspect, knowing that the Italian system would not recognize her human rights until the cops themselves decided that it was time to make her a de jure witness. The combination of these two factors was toxic, and resulted in a demonstrably false accusation.

This system is unfair and illegal. The interrogation of Amanda Knox was illegal and in violation of her right to counsel and right to remain silent as guaranteed by the European Human Rights Convention.

 

[Machiavelli]

I see I missed all the discussion yesterday about your comment regarding my comment.

I could care less what your personal feelings about me are and I feel no shame for my comment.

I think the court had seen these pictures before and had access to them any time they wanted to view them and the court was not cleared of guests and reporters because Maresca wanted to show them to the guests and reporters simply for the shock value in some sort of misplaced last ditch effort to sway public opinion.

I think this along with the change in venue will hurt the Kercher's case against the Sollecito family.

Just my opinion.

But you compared Sollecito's leak of Meredith's pictures to the tv, illegitimate (have no right to) and out of venue (extra-judicial, during investigation) and unprotected (dissemination and recording possible for everyone), with the Kercher's decision, which you may dislike and judge (based on your arguable assumption that the discussion of the picture in court is not useful) but it is legitimate (wanted by the Kerchers), appropriate to the venue (legitimate place and focal topic of discussion), protected from recording and taking photos (not allowed, police watch).

So you purposely are comparing criminal and unethical things with legitimate things. You mentioned justification. While justification has nothing to do with it.

Not everything is a matter of opinion. Honesty requires not to confuse one thing with another.

That said, the claim that the photos are irrelevant because the court have them, is silly. The court has all documentation, but the parties also show, point out and discuss the documentation. The court is not a mailbox.

 

[RoseMontague]

But you compared Sollecito's leak of Meredith's pictures to the tv, illegitimate (have no right to) and out of venue (extra-judicial, during investigation) and unprotected (dissemination and recording possible for everyone), with the Kercher's decision, which you may dislike and judge (based on your arguable assumption that the discussion of the picture in court is not useful) but it is legitimate (wanted by the Kerchers), appropriate to the venue (legitimate place and focal topic of discussion), protected from recording and taking photos (not allowed, police watch).

So you purposely are comparing criminal and unethical things with legitimate things. You mentioned justification. While justification has nothing to do with it.

Not everything is a matter of opinion. Honesty requires not to confuse one thing with another.

That said, the claim that the photos are irrelevant because the court have them, is silly. The court has all documentation, but the parties also show, point out and discuss the documentation. The court is not a mailbox.

Hmmm. Yes, I compared them. I can do that. I am comfortable with both my honesty and my opinion. It seems you don't agree. That matters to me not at all.

 

[icerat]

Meredith Kercher family are set to sue Amanda Knox for £8million.

HERE

HUH?

Interestingly, the link is no longer working. Neither is a similar one to an article in the Daily Mail

Some international outlets picked it up and still have articles.

 

[madrigal]

I feel that in order to understand this case, you first must understand the nature of false confessions and how they are obtained.

I would ask you to watch this program... it WILL change the way you view this case.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-confessions/

If the whole confession against Lumumba is fake and written under similar duress to that of himself..both alledgedley ofcourse then why does Lumumba to this day maintain that Knox is a liar and an actress?

 

[Grinder]

If you mean that in the, say, 30 seconds after reading the text and before posing the first question about it, then yes, they knew it before the interrogation.

But they did not know it before Amanda's questioning began at around 22:40 Nov 5.
They only knew of the fact that an SMS had been sent and another one had been received from a given SIM at given times.

As far as I know, to this day they don't know Lumumba's text, as both he and Amanda deleted it and texts were not preserved in the phone records at that time.

Really Bolint I fear you are just pullking our legs.

She went with Raffaele to the police station. The detective from Rome, Giobbi or something like that, testified that he wanted them both for questioning. The police asked to look at her phone and found in the outgoing message section a message to someone saying at 8:30 on the murder night "see you later" in Italian. They asked to whom it was sent. She told them. At this point they "knew the truth" and started the intense, tag team questioning that resulted in her first statement.

I guess I don't see why, if they only knew for half an hour before the intense interrogation started, that makes any difference. They had at least 12 police and a translator ready at midnight and the detective from Rome, they intended a big night.

So Bolint since no one that thinks the interrogation was bogus will explain what the chief meant when he said they questioned her until she buckled and told them what they knew to be the truth perhaps you would?????

 

[Bob001]

There's no such thing as jury selection in Italian criminal trials. Neither the prosecution nor defence has any influence over the composition of the six lay judges. They are selected arbitrarily (along with some alternates), and that is that. ...

Just curious: Arbitrary is not the same as random. How ARE Italian jurors selected? The next six names from a published register? Six voters' names drawn out of a hat? Darts thrown at pages from a phone book? Does ANYBODY exercise any decision-making authority in jury selection? If so, they would likely be part of the judicial system and would inevitably be biased toward the prosecution; if not, how does the system deal with blatant bias, prejudicial pretrial publicity, relatives and friends of the defendants and witnesses, and run-of-the-mill issues like drunks, drug addicts, illiterates and other folks who might not be well-suited to deciding matters of life and death? Can a selected juror decline to serve? Can he stand up in court and say "I already think he's guilty" (which is the speediest way to get dismissed from jury duty in the U.S.)? Considering the reach of his tentacles, is it really plausible that Mignini had no role in selecting the jurors at the original trial?

 

[RoseMontague]

If the whole confession against Lumumba is fake and written under similar duress to that of himself..both alledgedley ofcourse then why does Lumumba to this day maintain that Knox is a liar and an actress?

He is probably being helpful and recommending a career in politics.

Seriously, now that he knows she is a witch, he should protect himself with an anti-slander spell.

http://www.everythingunderthemoon.net/spells/anti-slander-spell.htm

 

[Grinder]

O.K., to take a cue from the rest of the discussion here: please provide some links to your proof. See if you can find one place where the city, county, or state governments or utility companies suggest not flushing urine. (No, sites from unofficial extremist environmental groups don't count.)

There have been, in fact, a number of PSA spots, particularly on radio, advocating for water conservation and offering tips on how to save water...and not flushing the toilet is definitely not one of them. Some of them suggest, as I have mentioned before, techniques like putting bricks or water bottles in the tank to cut down on the amount of water flushed each time, or going to compostable toilets. But leaving urine sitting unflushed in a toilet? Never.

Furthermore, I've known many, many people in this area. I've maybe had one person suggest that approach, and that person was openly an extreme pro-environmentalist who probably deposited their feces in the compost pile. Otherwise...no one. And, of all the people I've known in twenty-eight years, not a single one of their houses or apartments have ever had unflushed toilets.

Granted, I've found plenty of unflushed (of both kinds) public toilet stalls, but no more so than in other places I've lived, such as southern California or the northeast -- and those are clearly more a matter of rudeness and inconsideration than any sort of environmental consciousness.

Posted by Mary_H

Originally Posted by Grinder
Sorry but it is true. I'm not going to have a pissing match with you on this but I've been here well before 1983 and the yellow is mellow phrase was/is definitely part of life in Seattle particularly for teaching kids.

I agree.

I never said this was a government policy. Amanda has been described as a hippy girl and if so yellow mellow flush... is likely.

 

[Dougm]

Really Bolint I fear you are just pullking our legs.

She went with Raffaele to the police station. The detective from Rome, Giobbi or something like that, testified that he wanted them both for questioning. The police asked to look at her phone and found in the outgoing message section a message to someone saying at 8:30 on the murder night "see you later" in Italian. They asked to whom it was sent. She told them. At this point they "knew the truth" and started the intense, tag team questioning that resulted in her first statement.

According to Amanda's testimony on this, the intense questioning started before she showed them the text message.

 

[icerat]

Posted by Mary_H

I never said this was a government policy. Amanda has been described as a hippy girl and if so yellow mellow flush... is likely.

Well you could have said it was government policy, or at least suggested by the government.

Department of Ecology, State of Washington -

"let the yellow mellow"

SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES 2007 WATER SYSTEM PLAN -

Flush your toilet less often. Toilet flushing is the largest water use inside the home. As the saying goes, “If it’s yellow, let it mellow.”

 

[Machiavelli]

Hmmm. Yes, I compared them. I can do that. I am comfortable with both my honesty and my opinion. It seems you don't agree. That matters to me not at all.

This is something I already know: I already know half of the things of reality and morality don't matter at all to you.
This is the reason why I point them out.

 

[Machiavelli]

Yes. An appalling and illegal system. Definitely not the pinacle of legality, modernity and righteousness that Machiavelli claims.

There are two kinds of suspects in Italy: (i) de facto suspects, and (ii) de jure suspects. De facto suspects are persons who the cops believe or know, based on fact-gathering, to be involved in the crime. De jure suspects are de facto suspects who, because of the facts gathered by the police, have been designated as suspects by a mere administrative act.

According to Machiavelli, de facto suspects have no rights--no right to remain silent and no right to counsel--even though the cops who may be questioning them already believe or know that the person is incriminated. These basic human rights guaranteed to all suspects attach only by mere administrative act after the cops have decided that the suspect should be declared a de jure suspect. In effect, the cops say to the suspect: "Now we have decided that we will let you have your rights." A person's human rights are therefore a function of the subjective judgment of the police and not any objective analysis.

(....)

... to remain silent as guaranteed by the European Human Rights Convention.

For the sake of accuracy: the administrative act by the police has a maximum validity of only 48 hours (but normally lasts much less, since the police may not delay its transmission to authorities). Within 48 hours there must be a judiciary act; and within further 48 hours there must be a judge's decision on it.

I smile to the "illegal system" comment. The system is acknowledged as entirely valid in the whole European Union. Several other states have the same principle. In fact many have les guarantees. In France, for example, the status of de jure suspect has a political aspect and is not officially motivated.

 

[Diocletus]

I don't think the Italians see lying as a crime or as immoral in general. Instead, what is interesting, I think instead the Italian moral perspective is entirely related to the matter of the lying. We tolerate lies much easilly when they are legitimate, on the other hand we weight them much more seriously when they are illegitimate. When the topic of the lie is informal, lies count less; but when the topic is formal, Italy is a country where your life may depend on one word.

My impression is that Italians don't consider lying at all troublesome, unless the alleged lie is the excuse they can seize on to "save face" in the case of illegal and internationally embarrassing state action.

For example: if the cops tell lie after lie in furtherance of their attempts to wrongfully convict an innocent person, that's no problem. But if an innocent person is coerced by the cops to tell a lie, and that lie becomes a convenient way to justify the illegal actions that caused the lie to be made in the first place, well then, no problem sending that person to jail for three years. LOL.

 

[Dan O.]

But you compared Sollecito's leak of Meredith's pictures to the tv, illegitimate ...

Perhaps while talking about illegal activities of journalists, we should talk about you making blatant accusations of a crime where the preliminary hearing is yet to be heard for several months.

 

[Diocletus]

I smile to the "illegal system" comment. The system is acknowledged as entirely valid in the whole European Union. Several other states have the same principle. In fact many have les guarantees. In France, for example, the status of de jure suspect has a political aspect and is not officially motivated.

Are you referring to the old French system, that was actually deteremined to be illegal, or the new one? Are you suggesting that politicians decide who is a de jure suspect in France? Or perhaps you are suggesting that persons immune from political/local/pro-police bias decide the de jure witness question in Italy?

At any rate, you miss the point. The illegality is in the continuing to interrogate a person after facts sufficient to incriminate them are already known to the interrogators. And, in allowing the police to decide when they will allow the witness to have their human rights. Human rights attach regardless of any subjective decision by the police and regardless of the ministerial adjudication of a person's status.

 

[RoseMontague]

This is something I already know: I already know half of the things of reality and morality don't matter at all to you.
This is the reason why I point them out.

I am flattered. Carry on then.

 

[Diocletus]

For the sake of accuracy: the administrative act by the police has a maximum validity of only 48 hours (but normally lasts much less, since the police may not delay its transmission to authorities). Within 48 hours there must be a judiciary act; and within further 48 hours there must be a judge's decision on it.

So what you're saying is that the cops can do whatever they think they should with a suspect for 48 hours before they have to do something that would cause an already-incriminated person to have the right to remain silent and get counsel.

 

[Machiavelli]

....

So what safeguards are there for the rights of the de facto suspect? Well, I suppose there is the sophistication of the suspect: are they knowledgeable about law and how the system works, or are they ignorant of it, weak, subject to manipulation and unfamiliar with the culture? Also, there is the honesty and integrity of the cops: will they conduct their interrogation properly, or are they abusive liars? But without an objective standard, these considerations are just as likely to work against the suspect and against human rights.

This case is a perfect example of the complete inadequacy and illegality of the Italian system. The Perugian cops had before them a suspect who they believed to be involved in the crime. She was a young, foreign girl; unfamiliar with the legal system and the language and trusting of the cops. Unbeknownst to her, these cops had no integrity--just look at all the lies they released to the press. So, Amanda Knox had no rights and no protection. The lying cops were free to do whatever they wanted with this suspect, knowing that the Italian system would not recognize her human rights until the cops themselves decided that it was time to make her a de jure witness. The combination of these two factors was toxic, and resulted in a demonstrably false accusation.

....

One basic problem in your assessment about the system and of this case, is that your focus is limited to the possibility of failure or problems in the earlier phase, you seem to consider only the early phase before the implementation of that status of formal suspect.
This is opposed to the philosophy of the inquisitorial system from the roots. This kind of system places the defendants' protection on tools which the defendants can use subsequently. The key protection in the system is given by the suspects' possibility of complaint. The anglo saxon principles emphasizes protections that work as preemptive functions, the inquisitorial systems emphasize protections and warrant that apply as possibility of correction. I believe the philosophy of the second system to be safer. I think early protections are mainly teorethical, while their use is dangerous in practice, and this goes both for the suspect and for collectivity.

So, the fact itself that a weak person in a situation he/she perceives as problematic, may act wrongfully, is a danger in this system but also in others, the key factor however is that a wrong declaration to the police can be easilly corrected in this system, because the suspect is given full freedom to speak and to speak with a chain of preliminary judges and magistrates within the subsequent days and weeks.
The failure of using this opportunities for clarification of her position during the investigation phase, is what creates the evidence against Amanda. You could justify or excuse a suspect who made illicit declarations because of his/her weakness while was not protected while being a witness. But you cannot do this if the suspect has then been unable to provide clarification also in the following period of time when was given faculties and legal tools and counsuel to defend himself/herself.
Amanda and her defense failed to give any consistent explanation before the preliminary investigation judge on nov. 8 even in the form of spontaneous statement, failed to make spontaneous statements before Patrick's release and before Guede's capture, failed to answer or give consistent statements on the topic before the magistrate on dec 17., before the Riesame Tribunal on January and before the preliminary judge in summer, and failed to release any oral or written spontaneous statement providing any consistent position over all this period of time.

 

[Machiavelli]

Are you referring to the old French system, that was actually deteremined to be illegal, or the new one? Are you suggesting that politicians decide who is a de jure suspect in France? Or perhaps you are suggesting that persons immune from political/local/pro-police bias decide the de jure witness question in Italy?

At any rate, you miss the point. The illegality is in the continuing to interrogate a person after facts sufficient to incriminate them are already known to the interrogators. And, in allowing the police to decide when they will allow the witness to have their human rights. Human rights attach regardless of any subjective decision by the police and regardless of the ministerial adjudication of a person's status.

In the actual system, it is not the polticians, but it is prosecutors who depend from political authorities, and follow a different protocol.

The interrogation after facts sufficient to incriminate the person are already known, is not permitted. But in order to have sufficent facts to incriminate the person, well, sufficient facts have to be already collected and documented.