Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Machiavelli said:
Believe me, I understand the concept of aggravating factors.
What here might be seen by you as aggravating factor, it is not only a factor but also a fact, or a series of facts. A fact can be considered evidence, besides having a (possible) value of aggravating factor.
Massei, rather thant considering those aggravating factors - he does not, as far as I know - he may well consider them as evidence. And Hellmann could do that too.
Click to expand...

An aggravating factor, by itself, is not evidence of anything if the person did not actually commit the crime. So, before you go talking about subsequent statements/omissions being actual crimes, you need to figure out whether Knox's 1:45 and 5:45 statements were voluntarily made at the time she made them. If they were not, i.e., they were coerced, then subsequent conduct doesn't mean anything. Using subsequent conduct to show that a completed act was or was not voluntary is like trying to pull yourself up by the bootstraps.
 
Machiavelli said:
There has been a formal inquiry. Maybe you are not well informed.
But there is something to say: the Italian law says an inquiry for this crime must be formally asked and claimed by the victim. There is no prosecutable claim of "beating" if there is no formal complaint to an authority. And the formal complaint must be filled by the victim of her defemse attorney within 90 days from the event.
Click to expand...

Oh really? What was the inquiry? Mignini consulted a soothsayer? Comodi asked Napoleoni if the cops behaved? Please.

And ok. So I guess the cops won't be prosecuted for their misconduct. But that doesn't mean that Knox's statements were voluntary or the results of the interrogation are valid.
 
Fine said:
Update on the Sarah Scazzi murder case.

Sabrina: "I feel like Amanda Knox." (HERE and HERE)

///
Click to expand...

Thanks! I'm also interested in this one as there's so many spooky parallels to the Amanda Knox case. I ran these through google translate and a couple links I came across in looking for something else I couldn't find. As I recall this whole debacle went critical when Michele admitted to the murder after many hours of intensive interrogation but the cops weren't satisfied with that, they were suspicious of his daughter in part because she wasn't acting the way they thought she should. So they got him to 'admit' she'd helped and they played it on TV, which he recanted as soon as he could to no avail.

Sarah Scazzi, Sabrina: "I feel like Amanda Knox"
The innocent Misseri back to say: my mother and I want it back the freedom

From the web "I feel like Amanda." Sabrina Misseri thus returns to profess his innocence in the murder of Sarah Scazzi. The 15 year old cousin killed August 26, 2010 talks to 'Republic' and makes rferimento to Knox, the American student acquitted on charges of murdering Meredith Kercher, after four years in prison.
"I am an innocent man in prison - Sabrina says - but four years here I can not resist."
The young Misseri, however, is confident and continues to believe that one day will return to the house on Via Deledda in whose garage was killed Sarah.
"The television, the newspapers, I have deceived even when the ruling came out, but my mother and I are still in this cell - he continues - now, instead, we want to be set at liberty." The woman asks for his release if and to the mother because, he repeats: "We have killed Sarah."

In this context, a few days ago, the Supreme Court filed the reasons for the decision with which, on September 26, the court annulled by order of the Court of Review of Taranto on 20 June, which upheld the custodial measures in prison for Sabrina and Cosima. For the Supreme Court, clues about the serious allegations of murder and kidnapping would be 'non-existent'. It remains, however, the circumstantial evidence on the severity of the charge of suppression corpse.

In the meantime, is expected today the decision of the Supreme Court riuardo referral process the request - which would be transferred from the Court of Taranto to another location - advanced by the lawyers of Sabrina.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court upheld the appeal of lawyers based on the incompatibility of Sabrina Misseri environment and decided to move the trial court in Potenza. The decision was announced by Deputy Attorney General, Gabriele Mazzotta, after the hearing in closed session just ended. The Supreme Court issued a favorable opinion accepts the grounds and taking note of intimidation that occurred against people involved in the proceedings, for example in throwing stones at the time of the arrest of Cosima Serrano, the mother of Sabrina Misseri, and against his father, Michele Misseri, forced to barricade themselves at home because of repeated threats.

According to the Supreme Court, the excessive emotionality in Taranto environment may affect the admission of evidence incriminating the accused to defend, so the process will take place outside of the people involved, then power.

The same Deputy Attorney Mazzotta said: "According to Article 45 of the Criminal Code, the rimissione must have a strict interpretation, but in this case there are a number of elements that highlight the unsuitability of the proven process that contributes to the alteration of legal activities. "Not to be overlooked, according to the Supreme Court, the participation of people involved in the investigation as witnesses, to several protests against the people currently in prison, however, suspects, and additional episodes of intimidation and Cosima Misseri Michele Serrano.

Sabrina Misseri lawyers have expressed satisfaction over the fact that the Attorney Taranto has given approval to the transfer of the proceedings.
Click to expand...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...der-mystery-unfolding-live-on-italian-tv.html

http://perugiashock.com/2011/01/15/truth-emerging-for-sarah-scazzi/
 
Ganong on .org has just demonstrated not only her ignorance but also her overriding stupidity and lack of reasoning skills, with this stunner of a post:

I think Hellmann had persuaded himself that the two were probably involved but in some unspecified way, and that the four years they had served behind bars was enough to teach them both a good enougl lesson. He won't say this in his report, but he certainly hints that they may have been involved and he says straight out that the prosecution was right to bring charges. How do these statements impact - if at all - any attempts to claim damage awards for wrongful detention?
Click to expand...


She's actually attempting to rationalise that Hellmann decided to go outside judicial processes, and "teach Knox and Sollecito a lesson" - her astonishingly stupid "reasoning" for this is that Hellmann thought that Knox and Sollecito "were probably involved but in some unspecified way", and decided off his own bat that four years in prison was suitable punishment for his hunch on their involvement. He therefore - according to Ganong's idiocy - decided that the "fair" course of action was to acquit Knox and Sollecito, while judging that their four years of incarceration was somehow equitable punishment for their "involvement" in the murder.

I can't begin to describe just how bone-headed this scenario is, and how instructive it is of the mindset, intellect and objectivity of the idiot who dreamed it up. Does Ganong still not know that Hellmann acquitted Knox and Sollecito on the 530.1 version of the code - i.e. that there was no evidence pointing to their involvement in the murder? Does Ganong not know that judges simply cannot go "off-piste" - as per her little fantasy scenario - and administer their own brand of justice via the back door? Her crazy fantasy is simply stunning in its stupidity and is a pathetically desperate attempt to rationalise the Hellmann verdict.

Oh, and Peggy: I realise that you don't know much about Italian law, but it's not prosecutors who bring criminal charges in Italy: it's judges. That's why Hellmann said it was appropriate for prosecutors to bring the case to the courts. It was up to the GIP and GUP judges to assess the case placed in front of them, and to decide whether charges were warranted. It was they who made the biggest errors of judgement in continuing to press charges, along with Massei - as the Hellmann motivations report will amply illustrate. And Hellmann does not "hint that they (Knox and Sollecito) may have been involved". He stated in press interviews after the verdict that no court will ever know exactly what happened. And in response to a specific question, he said that of course it was possible that Knox and Sollecito were involved. It's possible that half the population of Perugia was involved if they don't have a solid alibi for the night of the murder. It's possible that George Clooney was involved, if he doesn't have a solid alibi for the night of the murder. But there's no evidence pointing towards anyone in Perugia, and there's no evidence pointing towards George Clooney. And there's no evidence pointing towards Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. I don't know if you know this, Peggy, but in a civilised democracy, you can't go round accusing people unless you can prove your accusations. You're a bona fide idiot.
 
Machiavelli said:
Not at all. There is radical disagreement here. You interpret this issue as it was a zero sum game between two sides. But it is not. The defendants' position needs to be intrinsically credible. This requirement never goes away. It is never shifted on someone else.
Click to expand...

It is a zero-sum game: if the police hit her, then interrogation was illegal and the results are useless.
 
Kaosium said:
Thanks! I'm also interested in this one as there's so many spooky parallels to the Amanda Knox case. I ran these through google translate and a couple links I came across in looking for something else I couldn't find. As I recall this whole debacle went critical when Michele admitted to the murder after many hours of intensive interrogation but the cops weren't satisfied with that, they were suspicious of his daughter in part because she wasn't acting the way they thought she should. So they got him to 'admit' she'd helped and they played it on TV, which he recanted as soon as he could to no avail.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...der-mystery-unfolding-live-on-italian-tv.html

http://perugiashock.com/2011/01/15/truth-emerging-for-sarah-scazzi/
Click to expand...

Glad to see a common sense ruling from the court, thanks for quoting that ruling on the change of venue. This case is falling apart. I wonder how long the prosecution will cling to their crazy theories. For Frank, the truth has been emerging almost a year now, for others they are just now beginning to see something is not right about this case, yet from what I have seen the majority of Italians still think they are guilty.
 
RoseMontague said:
I would have asked her if she had found the real killers yet.

I noticed it says the new e-book version will have an asterisk. My question is if it will still have the bleach receipt? Maybe she could also include those interviews with dozens of forensic scientists on the mixed-blood issue.
Click to expand...

I would like to very much know the names of those 'forensic scientists,' at least one of which is probably Gen. Garofano. I'd also like to know the names of the numerous 'biologists' Andrea Vogt consulted on this issue, in part to know how they pulled one over on her, not as much because I want to see their heads broken.

I could put together an argument that would look like it verified the likelihood of those samples being mixed blood, using scientific papers and everything. It would even look like Halides1 and Dr. Hampikian and Dr. Krane (?) were 'lying' about something. It would be fraudulent though, but to a person who didn't know better and never saw it rebutted it might be convincing. I'd never get away with it on this thread though!

I sometimes wonder if something like that happened. They heard the prosecution say it, they had it 'verified' by someone credentialed like Gen Graofano, and sought further verification from someone living in Italy posting on a website with the same basic education and experience as <Dr. Stefanoni herself. It probably seemed convincing. It might even have suggested to them those that had been disputing it were deliberately deceiving them, maybe because they were entranced by Amanda's flashing blue eyes. :p

They had it backwards.
 
Can anyone tell me what's the status of Amanda's police slander trial and what is the worst case scenario?
 
snook1 said:
Can anyone tell me what's the status of Amanda's police slander trial and what is the worst case scenario?
Click to expand...

In my opinion, the worst that could happen is that some dumb person actually pays Maresca for any work he has done. The reality is that Amanda will never set foot in an Italian prison again nor ever pay a dime to the cops that put her there.
 
RoseMontague said:
In my opinion, the worst that could happen is that some dumb person actually pays Maresca for any work he has done. The reality is that Amanda will never set foot in an Italian prison again nor ever pay a dime to the cops that put her there.
Click to expand...

Those slander charges had their effect. Those false charges kept the Knoxes from suing the Italians that kept her and Raffaele in jail for four years and cost their family millions in legal expenses. Isn't the legal system wornderful; it protects the idiots that run the system so well.
 
Machiavelli said:
No actually I have never been a marxist. Nor I meant to be a hero.
Click to expand...
Of course I used it figuratively. The point is, you were facing them with antagonistic intentions and the beating was a goal itself, not a means to get any kind of confession and jail you for life.
Thus, your personal anecdote is in no way contradictory to the fact that Amanda's false confession was forced. Neither does it allow you to dismiss the scientifically proven reality of internalised (and other) false confessions.

In fact, it only shows that Italian cops are no more immune to misconduct and using unlawful methods and brutality then any other police force. This, in connection with the mystifying lack of any recording of the interrogation strongly indicates that Amanda's version of the events - extreme pressure, stress, exhaustion, cops yelling and hitting her on the head, others telling her that she has traumatically induced amnesia etc. - is the truth.
 
RoseMontague said:
In my opinion, the worst that could happen is that some dumb person actually pays Maresca for any work he has done. The reality is that Amanda will never set foot in an Italian prison again nor ever pay a dime to the cops that put her there.
Click to expand...


I suspect that a number of things will happen. Firstly, I think there will be a further adjournment in the police slander trials against Knox and her parents pursuant to the publication of the Hellmann motivations report, and any appeal to the Supreme Court. Then, if the Supreme Court upholds the entirely of the Hellmann verdict (including the Lumumba slander conviction), I think that the police slander trial will go ahead, but that judges will agree to hear the cases in absentia. If, however, the Supreme Court sends the Lumumba slander charge back to the appeal court, there will be a further adjournment of the police slander trials. And if Knox is ultimately acquitted on the Lumumba slander charge, I suspect that a judge will dismiss the police slander charges against Knox and her parents.
 
RoseMontague said:
In my opinion, the worst that could happen is that some dumb person actually pays Maresca for any work he has done. The reality is that Amanda will never set foot in an Italian prison again nor ever pay a dime to the cops that put her there.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

That, actually, made by evening better. ;)
 
snook1 said:
Can anyone tell me what's the status of Amanda's police slander trial and what is the worst case scenario?
Click to expand...

The worst case scenario is that she's convicted in absentia and sentenced to a gazillion years in prison. Which won't matter because the US will never extradite someone to go to jail for slander.
 
LondonJohn said:
I suspect that a number of things will happen. Firstly, I think there will be a further adjournment in the police slander trials against Knox and her parents pursuant to the publication of the Hellmann motivations report, and any appeal to the Supreme Court. Then, if the Supreme Court upholds the entirely of the Hellmann verdict (including the Lumumba slander conviction), I think that the police slander trial will go ahead, but that judges will agree to hear the cases in absentia. If, however, the Supreme Court sends the Lumumba slander charge back to the appeal court, there will be a further adjournment of the police slander trials. And if Knox is ultimately acquitted on the Lumumba slander charge, I suspect that a judge will dismiss the police slander charges against Knox and her parents.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this. It's not as easy, as I would expect it to be, but at the same time, not as bad as I thought.

Anyway, if somehow, the police slander trial ends with guilty verdict(at any level), what punishment will there be for Amanda?

What do you think about the Lumumba slander charge and its final decision in the Supreme Court? I'm not afraid of overturning the not guilty verdicts (murder charges), since you and many others made it clear that the verdicts of the appeal will stand, but these slander trials are worrying me.
 
Last edited:
RoseMontague said:
I believe your words were:


The statement you were disagreeing on was:


And my response was:
Click to expand...

Ok.
And I said that topic has not to do with the case.
I didn't say that you are ugly because you mentioned it, but since you addressed the concept, which itself may be valid, to avoid any confusion let's put in clear that has not to do with the case.


I think also CDhost's wording addressing a reality as a social construction, is inappropriate to the matter.
There are socially constructed realities (for example Amanda Knox is innocent and the police are bad, Berlusconi goes for minors). There are cases of brainwashing exploiting various techniques, but let's not confuse this with science fiction.

Your memory about that you were at home yesterday night, is not a social construction.
There isn't a known technique by which I can convince you to this memory against your will. There isn't even a methid to convince oneself. There isn't a way by which you can be "convinced" by the fact that someone thinks that who has a uniform, if you are an average normal person.
And if a persuasion for any reason occurs, this is not limited in its effects to the kind of symptoms shown by Amanda Knox. When one suffers from a false memory, which is anyway rare and peculiar, its effect is permanent, and the person has no means to go back and to distinguish the wrong from the false memory any more. So if Amanda actually had a false memory, she could not claim any alibi.
It would be very interesting, from a scientific viwpoint, to know how and when she recovered her true memory and how she was able to distinguish it from the false one.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom