Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

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.

Well, this comment is based on ignorance. Luciano Aviello, before testifying at this trial, had already got a conviction to nine years for lying in other occasions.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

I have not made any "blatant" accusation.
I hae not made any actual accusation at all. There are facts, which are ascertained, whether these facts are illegal or not there will be a judge to decide. These facts actually happened. But this is not my point: I was not talking about if the activities actually took place or not, about these allegations being true or not their being a crime or not. I was talking about their being or not comparable with Maresca showing pictures in court.

 

[spartacus]

http://perugiashock.com/

Frank really is intuitive and shows great insight.

In his latest offering, he also says:

''....It looks like to work as a journalist in Mignini’s town, and to be not arrested, not only you have tell facts in the right way, you even have to praise him and the police, you even have to explicitly state that you are on his side!''


and he quotes from a piece in Umbria24 related to the immediate aftermath of the acquittals:


“…We can only stand with the side of Perugia who was screaming shame tonight… They called crazy a magistrate as courageous as Mignini. They won, but they will not convince us. We stand with Mignini, with Comodi, with the police…”


Ya know that reminds me of somebody, who appears to be hell-bent on defending the slimy Mignini at all costs - one of his 'disciples' who posts deluded rants on forums, aimed at misleading people. I just can't seem to think who, damn it! I wonder...

That disgraceful article was written by someone who redacted their name as author. The people who were shouting vergogna (shame) were members of DIGOS (i.e. off duty police, like SWAT). Umbrialeft.it will have to live with the shame of putting this disgraceful article on their website. It confirms the statements that there is a corruption of the left with the judicial system.

 

[Machiavelli]

Seriously, virtually everything you've written here recently is utterly nonsensical, and is just a bunch of copypasta from PMF.

How about trying to have a rational conversation for a change?

This isn't PMF. Here, unlike there, you don't get brownie points for toeing any so-called "party line" (because there aren't any "party lines" here) and you don't get turfed and "thanked for stopping by" for disagreeing with others.

But you are expected to actually say something worthwhile and intelligent in the midst of a discussion, instead of just copying and pasting the same old drivel from elsewhere.

So, how about a real discussion? Are you game?

A real discussion based on your (very rational) assertion that Amanda Knox was prematurely arrested?
I have started it. Why don't you go on.

 

[Bob001]

Trivial side issue for Italian-speakers: Amanda spent the last four years learning to speak Italian in prison, and spoke for herself quite fluently at her appeal. This is not your ordinary language school course. I wonder whether she picked up a regional accent or distinctive colloquial expressions? Chances are her teachers were not professorial types. Someone who learned to speak English in a Texas prison would likely sound quite a bit different from a Massachusetts inmate, and both would sound different from someone who only studied English in a college classroom. Or would an American accent be more prominent than anything else? If you didn't know who she was and only heard the way she speaks Italian, what might you conclude about her home, education, class etc.?

 

[Machiavelli]

(... nonsense snipped..)

So, why do you think, Machiavelli, that the Kerchers and their lawyer were so adamant about keeping this stuff quiet instead of having it fully and completely examined in court during the first trial? And why do you think they suddenly changed their minds during the second trial?

(...)

Whetehr you like it or not, the Kerchers have appointed a legal representative. He represents their interests and their will. It's not difficult to grasp. It is a basic principle of civilty.
Any allegation about the work of their representative, is an allegation against them.

The Kerchers never kept this stuff quiet: they examined it in court both during the first and the second trial. In the second trial they discussed before the same series of photos in two hearings. They never changed their mind. They have been fully and completely examined in court even for longer in the first trial. The autopsy discussion has always been a main point in Maresca's arguments.
The only difference is, in the last session, there were journalists allowed to stay in the room who were not allowed to take pictures were allowd to report about it (however, I also saw the session of the day before). This is the only difference.

 

[icerat]

The only difference is, in the last session, there were journalists allowed to stay in the room who were not allowed to take pictures were allowd to report about it (however, I also saw the session of the day before). This is the only difference.

Could you please clarify? This sounds like you remained in the court room when journalists and public were asked to leave?

You've already indicated you are a journalist, but this makes it sound like your involvement in the case was something more?

 

[Machiavelli]

.... if the evidence tended to show the accused were guilty, why resort to naked appeals to emotion without even making reference to the evidence? Why spend your entire closing insulting the experts and calling the accused a "she-devil" and a "witch," instead of explaining how the evidence shows the defendant committed the crime?

....

These are Carlo Pacelli's buisness. He serves the interest of his client. Moreover he is not talking about the murder, he is not supposed to show evidence of guilt of murder. He only brings srguments about the crime of calunnia. The crime of calunnia has an important psychological element, the charge rests entirely on malice.

 

[CDHost]

Oh no, let's not bend things to hypocritical judgemental attempts.
First, Maresca has the right to show pictures, as legal representative of the victim, and his action fully represent the will of her family; ...
Third, it's you [Freddy] who are insulting the Kercher; as their legal representative, Maresca has to be identified with the will of the family, and he had also declared - during the rebuttals - that he had an explicit authorization and approval to showing the pictures from the Kerchers; and the Kerchers never criticized him for doing that. Hence, you are insulting the Kercher family, since you are stating that the Kerchers don't care ("don't give a crap") about Meredith.

I agree with you in identifying Maresca with the Kerchers. I should say we are in the minority however. I hold the Kercher's at least partially responsible for Maresca's unethical behavior and most people refuse to do so. What I will say is not defendable is to give Maresca the freedom to act as a proxy for Meredith, because of his connection to the Kerchers while not holding him to be a proxy for the Kercher's when it comes to in court actions.

So for example it is then fair to say that the Kerchers were interested in preventing an analysis if the DNA results.

 

[Machiavelli]

Could you please clarify? This sounds like you remained in the court room when journalists and public were asked to leave?

You've already indicated you are a journalist, but this makes it sound like your involvement in the case was something more?

I have not indicated anything. Others did. I saw the pictures a peson in the public. It is just not true that the public was sent out even in the first session. The public just stood up and simbolically made three o four steps towards the atrium, but were in fact allowed to remain; and the courtroom in fact has no "door". Their never went away. Their "walking out" was merely a simbolical gesture. Judge Hellmann was even reluctant to letting the public leave their chairs. It was Maresca who invited them to do do so.

 

[Freddy]

These are Carlo Pacelli's buisness. He serves the interest of his client. Moreover he is not talking about the murder, he is not supposed to show evidence of guilt of murder. He only brings srguments about the crime of calunnia. The crime of calunnia has an important psychological element, the charge rests entirely on malice.

Ah. So how does "she's a witch" indicate malice? Malice is all about motive/intent. Which, now that I think of it, explains why it was necessary to resort to nonsense about witchcraft.

And why with regard to the murder charge did the prosecutors resort to insulting the independent experts instead of appealing to evidence? And threaten them not to say anything they would regret? Could it be because the experts explained in great detail that the prosecution's case had no merit?

 

[Justinian2]

Read about all the lies in Knox's account before her false accusation. Everything she says in her e-mail is false: that is a false and fictional story. This can be proven.

The police "built" no false story.

I was at my daughter's wedding, and thus not able to reply during the weekend.

Firstly, I do not know the email about which you refer. Please provide a link. Secondly, how does what she said in an email get called a lie? You weren't supposed to see that email, you know. If you weren't supposed to see something, how can you be lied to? Thirdly, you seem to forget that people are terribly confused at times; Amanda wasn't the super genius with a perfect memory and an all knowing intellect.

We know Amanda was confused and the police were confused. Furthermore, all lawyers recommend certain lies to their clients. I was lucky enough to get off of a case by ignoring the recommended lawyer lie and told the more plausible truth. But that is not always the case. I don't know what your beef is until I see the link.

You said:

Amanda realized that an unknown stranger had been in the house (her admission). He also knew that there was blood in the bathroom, that the front door was left open but no one was around, that Meredith didn't answer and her door was closed. She felt a sense of disconfort by her own admissio as she realized these things, she felt this sense of worrying as an urge to leave immediately the house.
If she had been innocent, she would have had anyway all reaons to worry, to consider possibility of danger.
She did not even call Meredith or check if she was there in that moment. Her behaviour would be in any case unacceptable. This failure to give alarm is also a crime. This person is dangerous and deserves no trust.

Getting 'spooked' is a common characteristic of all animals. It's a survival thing. Before the Indonesian tsunami, all the animals were spooked and ran to higher ground where they survived. The humans that were not spooked died. I can't connect the impulse to leave and the sense of danger and forboding to guilt or innocence. I believe in a sixth sense. I also believe in pattern recognition. Nothing can or should be read into this.

Do you know why we get startled? It's because you have a premonition of something unusual happening. Startle responses are preceeded by subliminal perception(s).

You wrote:

Sollecito changed entirely his story, withdrew her alibi, and accused her of having asked him to lie. You are missing the detail.

Police lies and threats preceeded this. This was very well explained in the three books I read. What is your source?

You wrote:

Nonsense. This is false. There was no black man's hair. There was a long blonde straight hair instead. Moreover "black man's" hair do not exist: a hair does not say anything about skin colour. All this makes no difference.

You wrote:

Black man hairs, again. Ludicrous. They "might": are you speculating this on your own? where did she report about this "offer"? There is no claim of this, there is no evidence: this never happened.

The following quote is from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...t-a-question-who-killed-meredith-2365623.html

The entry of the hapless Congolese into the picture was crucial to the investigation. Hairs belonging to a black person had been found in the victim's left hand. Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito's innocent embraces, her innocuous exchange of text messages with Lumumba, and the strands of black hair were now put together to indicate an orgy involving all three.

You wrote:

Amanda refused to speak before the judge and then decided not to speak for weeks. She could have made spontaneous declarations and chose not to make them. She admitted her confession was a false accusation only later, after Guede's arrest.

Amanda didn't say anything but lies.

I disagree. Give an example.

Almost everything the police told Amanda was a lie like: "You have HIV"

See: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ison-guard-obsessed-Foxy-Knoxys-sex-life.html

 

[Diocletus]

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.

Are you suggesting that it might be more difficult for cops to collect evidence if they actually have to respect the interogee's human rights? I agree, but that's the cost of freedom.

Moreover, what is the "inquisatorial system" nonsense? It seems to have no real meaning. All I hear is the term "inquistorial" being used variously as a sword and a shield to justify illegal and outrageous conduct.

Machiavelli: "she doesn't get her human rights until the cops say so, because the system is inquisatorial."

Comodi: "they can only have the DNA records that we say they can have, because the system is inquisatorial so the prosecution gets to decide."

Castalogia: "you must convict because the system is inquisatorial, and therefore the prosecutors and their experts are neutral."

Just more lies that are deemed acceptable because they help save face.

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.

"Full freedom to speak"? She had a right to remain silent. So you are saying that in order for this system to correct a human rights violation that has already occurred, a suspect is compelled to reliquish her right to remain silent? Absurd.

 

[Diocletus]

Well, this comment is based on ignorance. Luciano Aviello, before testifying at this trial, had already got a conviction to nine years for lying in other occasions.

Was Aviello coerced?

Why haven't the police and Stefanoni been punished for their lies?

 

[icerat]

I have not indicated anything. Others did.

Yes you did -

I talked to Mignini; tens of other journalists and writers did the same

In english that pretty clearly states you are part of the group "journalists and writers", and most likely journalists. If that is incorrect then please clarify and I'll put it down to english as a second language.

I saw the pictures a peson in the public. It is just not true that the public was sent out even in the first session. The public just stood up and simbolically made three o four steps towards the atrium, but were in fact allowed to remain; and the courtroom in fact has no "door". Their never went away. Their "walking out" was merely a simbolical gesture. Judge Hellmann was even reluctant to letting the public leave their chairs. It was Maresca who invited them to do do so.

I thought it was you who said the public was sent out, my apologies if I have that incorrect. Are you saying they were simply warned by Maresca and invited to leave?

 

[Kaosium]

____________________

The Telenorba video is HERE. Warning: Graphic Content.


///

Thank you!

It sure is a lot different than the description used by the likes of TJMK to condemn the Sollecitos and Telenorba for showing it.

 

[Dan O.]

I have not made any "blatant" accusation.
I hae not made any actual accusation at all.

Yes you did and now you lie about it.

There are facts, which are ascertained

Where are these facts ascertained? This hasn't been argued in court. How can you say anything before it's been argued in court and a judge has given a ruling?

whether these facts are illegal or not there will be a judge to decide. These facts actually happened.

So you presume to override the authority of the judge by declaring what the facts are before the case has been heard? Who do you think you are, an apprentice prosecutor? Mignini would be so proud.

But this is not my point: I was not talking about if the activities actually took place or not, about these allegations being true or not their being a crime or not.

Of course you weren't. You were simply declaring that they had taken place.

I was talking about their being or not comparable with Maresca showing pictures in court.

And what was Maresca doing showing those pictures in court? Isn't Maresca supposed to be protecting the family's interest? Was the family interested in seeing those pictures? Do they need those pictures to remember Meredith by?

 

[Teddy2007]

Trivial side issue for Italian-speakers: Amanda spent the last four years learning to speak Italian in prison, and spoke for herself quite fluently at her appeal. This is not your ordinary language school course. I wonder whether she picked up a regional accent or distinctive colloquial expressions? Chances are her teachers were not professorial types. Someone who learned to speak English in a Texas prison would likely sound quite a bit different from a Massachusetts inmate, and both would sound different from someone who only studied English in a college classroom. Or would an American accent be more prominent than anything else? If you didn't know who she was and only heard the way she speaks Italian, what might you conclude about her home, education, class etc.?

To me, she does not have a strong US accent while speaking Italian, like many US people in Italy do. Her Italian was not at all vulgar like you'd expect to learn in a prison, and I did not notice any particular influence of Umbria, Tuscany, etc. Fairly neutral, I'd say. Of course she was very emotional while speaking, but spoke a correct Italian without using colloquial terms.

 

[madrigal]

Whetehr you like it or not, the Kerchers have appointed a legal representative. He represents their interests and their will. It's not difficult to grasp. It is a basic principle of civilty.
Any allegation about the work of their representative, is an allegation against them.

The Kerchers never kept this stuff quiet: they examined it in court both during the first and the second trial. In the second trial they discussed before the same series of photos in two hearings. They never changed their mind. They have been fully and completely examined in court even for longer in the first trial. The autopsy discussion has always been a main point in Maresca's arguments.
The only difference is, in the last session, there were journalists allowed to stay in the room who were not allowed to take pictures were allowd to report about it (however, I also saw the session of the day before). This is the only difference.

It is a welcome change to read the facts calmly presented rather than biased opinion.

Well done!

 

[LondonJohn]

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?

In fact, popular judge selection in Italy is arbitrary to the degree of being random. As I understand it, there is a random selection of local citizens between the ages of 30 and 65 who have previously elected to place themselves on a "registry of popular judges" - this means that by not opting in, one can eliminate the possibility of ever being a popular judge. No judges, police officers, members of the armed forces or religious personnel (e.g. priests, rabbis etc) are allowed to place themselves on the list. All people on the list must have good moral character, and there is also a minimum educational requirement: "GCSE-level" (UK) or "junior high school" (US) equivalent for the first trial, "A-level" (UK) or "senior high school graduation (US) equivalent for the appeal trial.

Once an individual has placed himself/herself on the registry of popular judges, (s)he is obliged to serve on the judicial panel if selected. I am guessing that exceptions are made for things such as illness, advanced pregnancy or unavoidable work commitments. But in general, those selected randomly from the list are those who serve on the panel.

It seems to me that there is both a fundamental strength and a fundamental flaw in the Italian system of popular judge selection. The strength is that there is no opportunity for prosecutors or defence lawyers to attempt to shape the jury (which is potentially contrary to natural justice, and which is very often a very time-consuming and costly process). The flaw is twofold: firstly, the jurors selected randomly may be totally unsuitable for the particular trial (they may, for example, have known the victim or the defendents); and secondly, the very process of opting in to to registry of popular judges is open to suggestions that those who elect to opt in are not properly representative of the population (for example, many people in regular employment probably consciously choose not to place themselves on the registry, and the registry likely attracts a disproportionate number of individuals who are actively attracted to the idea of judging people).