Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Machiavelli said:
Well, whenever the innocentisti claimed this theory, I was addressed by them to scientific literature which it happened to say the opposite.
Click to expand...

Have you been slapped on the back of the head a few times recently? I ask because you seem to have developed some false memories.
 
accountability and transparency

Machiavelli said:
All this is correct, but has nothing to do with the Meredith case, specifically nothing to do with the Knox statements.
Click to expand...
Machiavelli,

I disagree. When a system does not have the right incentives built into it, it should not be expected to function correctly. I do not see sufficient negative incentives to check out-of-control actions by law enforcement. Having a police complaints body would put some accountability into the system.

With respect to the present case, there have been several junctures where I received the strong impression that ILE was not used to being scrutinized and questioned. Without transparency, increased accountability might be only partially successful.
 
RoseMontague said:
Well if there were an independent body she could have filed a complaint with somebody might have actually seriously investigated her treatment at the hands of the cops, including the hitting.
Click to expand...

She could have filled a complaint in any case.
She did in fact complain of the hitting immediately after. Nobody prevented her from doing that.
Idependently from how seriously others would investigate the police, the judge (and the prosecutor) would have had her claim.

She could actually have retracted her false accusation even without accusing the cops, merely stating she had lied because she was scared.

Had she done any of these things, I would have considered the possibility that she was not guilty of a malicious calunnia against Patrick.
 
Machiavelli said:
She could have filled a complaint in any case.
She did in fact complain of the hitting immediately after. Nobody prevented her from doing that.
Idependently from how seriously others would investigate the police, the judge (and the prosecutor) would have had her claim.

She could actually have retracted her false accusation even without accusing the cops, merely stating she had lied because she was scared.

Had she done any of these things, I would have considered the possibility that she was not guilty of a malicious calunnia against Patrick.
Click to expand...

Have you considered that just possibly, one of the reasons she was scared was because she was hit?
 
Machiavelli said:
She could have filled a complaint in any case.
She did in fact complain of the hitting immediately after. Nobody prevented her from doing that.
Idependently from how seriously others would investigate the police, the judge (and the prosecutor) would have had her claim.

She could actually have retracted her false accusation even without accusing the cops, merely stating she had lied because she was scared.

Had she done any of these things, I would have considered the possibility that she was not guilty of a malicious calunnia against Patrick.
Click to expand...

And if there had been a department to deal with such complaints, it's possible she would have been heard and those claims investigated. Instead we have a member of the police force scoffing at the idea of an investigation. Thus it became her word against theirs.
 
Machiavelli said:
She could have filled a complaint in any case.
She did in fact complain of the hitting immediately after. Nobody prevented her from doing that.
Idependently from how seriously others would investigate the police, the judge (and the prosecutor) would have had her claim.

She could actually have retracted her false accusation even without accusing the cops, merely stating she had lied because she was scared.

Had she done any of these things, I would have considered the possibility that she was not guilty of a malicious calunnia against Patrick.
Click to expand...

The thing is, she never makes an unqualified claim that Lumumba was there. She is explicit in her statement that she is very uncertain and that she doesn't think her hazy supposed "memories" of being there (and of Patrick being there) were real. She says in the same statement that they seemed less real than her (true) memories of being with Raffaele. What kind of rank amateur keystone cop would take that for a solid accusation against Lumumba that could form a reasonable basis for arresting him? If it was not a reasonable basis for arresting Lumumba, then it is the cops who are responsible for his wrongful arrest, not Amanda Knox. Please explain to me, quoting the statement directly, which words of Knox's gave the police a reasonable basis for arresting Lumumba.
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
The thing is, she never makes an unqualified claim that Lumumba was there. She is explicit in her statement that she is very uncertain and that she doesn't think her hazy supposed "memories" of being there (and of Patrick being there) were real. She says in the same statement that they seemed less real than her (true) memories of being with Raffaele. What kind of rank amateur keystone cop would take that for a solid accusation against Lumumba that could form a reasonable basis for an arrest?
Click to expand...

The lack of a direct accusation of Lumumba in the note is the elephant in the room that guilters have a difficulty reconciling with his arrest.
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
Machiavelli,

I disagree. When a system does not have the right incentives built into it, it should not be expected to function correctly. I do not see sufficient negative incentives to check out-of-control actions by law enforcement. Having a police complaints body would put some accountability into the system.

With respect to the present case, there have been several junctures where I received the strong impression that ILE was not used to being scrutinized and questioned. Without transparency, increased accountability might be only partially successful.
Click to expand...

Even this has nothing to do with Knox's statements.

In any case, the "right" incentives are decided by a democratic society, I suppose. I too think that several powers in Italy don't have enough controls and chacks for my personal taste, and probably I am aslo more acknowledged than you on the details of these issues. But it seems maybe I don't see the role of powers and agencies of the state in the same way you see them.
I don't se any zero-sum game between police credibility, state incentives and criminal suspects. I see police forces as a tool, and the question whether a tool is good or bad, itself is pointless: it is a relative factor; will not refrain from using the tool that I have just because it is not perfect enough. I will use the tool in any case. It may work or fail, but the result will never depend *directly* just from from the tool (or from the possibility to check the quality of the tool). Maybe the police are idiots or the tool is flawed, but I will never "wait" for a better tool and refrain from pursueing justice meanwhile.
I also think talking about "incentives" in this kind of reasonings is very dangerous as the argument is never in only one directions. There are negative incentives that may be useful for police and for powers and agencies or anything you want, but ther may be the same need for negative incentives on anything and anybody. There are also incentives on individual behaviours.

Knox's statements don't have anyway anything to do with the abstract potential of the "system" of Law enforement in general. Nor with Diaz, nor with Bolzaneto, nor with Aldrovandi or Bianzino. The Italian system is not based on trust for authorities. It is instead based on argumanta a contrariis, on the quality of your opposing claim. All evidence and proof about Knox treatment must come from Knox, from within the element in the case, not from your distrust in the system based on reading about the Diaz.
 
Freddy said:
The thing is, she never makes an unqualified claim that Lumumba was there. She is explicit in her statement that she is very uncertain and that she doesn't think her hazy supposed "memories" of being there (and of Patrick being there) were real. She says in the same statement that they seemed less real than her (true) memories of being with Raffaele. What kind of rank amateur keystone cop would take that for a solid accusation against Lumumba that could form a reasonable basis for arresting him? If it was not a reasonable basis for arresting Lumumba, then it is the cops who are responsible for his wrongful arrest, not Amanda Knox. Please explain to me, quoting the statement directly, which words of Knox's gave the police a reasonable basis for arresting Lumumba.
Click to expand...

For the arrest of Lumumba, Amanda relesed her spontaneous statement before a magistrate and an interpreter. After a chamomille tee, without being hit or yelled at. Such statement compells the police and the judiciary to arrest him immediately.

But the arrest of Lumumba does not really matter. Because if they hadn't arrest him, she would be guilty of calunnia nonetheless, also for her written note. You don't need a "solid" accusation, you don't need evidence usable in court, in order to have a calunnia. A false accusation may be any kind of false statement placing false evidence of any kind. Even a false memory with no "name" clearly indicated, a memory about an unknown in the place of Patrick, would have been a crime (not calunnia, but a crime of a similar kind). Any false evidence given maliciously, anything which that may open a false track of investigation, is a crime. Any false track given maliciously containing a name is a calunnia. Also the "blood on Raffaele's hands" would be a calunnia, if he was not guilty.
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
However, some things are different.
One person who assaulted Meredith was holding a knife. And Meredith was not only suffocated and stabbed, but also suffered a sexual violence. And, she was also stripped of her clothes by force, and they were stripped off in a peculiar way.
She was also found in the same room where she was killed.
Click to expand...

You've got to be kidding me.:sebaffled:
 
In addition, if the false "accusation" was a malicious attempt to divert suspicion onto Lumumba, why would she couch it in such uncertain terms? Why would she say that she at all wasn't sure, and that she doubted it was true? That's a terribly weak "accusation."
 
HumanityBlues said:
The hilarious thing is, deductions like this make you resident chief prophet on PMF. You get medals (ok, just stupid dancing emoticons) for ridiculous statements like these.
Click to expand...

I noticed immediately that Machiavelli had left out the fact that it was dark outside off the list. Complete and utter convincement fail, quite telling, and very significant.
 
Machiavelli said:
For the arrest of Lumumba, Amanda relesed her spontaneous statement before a magistrate and an interpreter. After a chamomille tee, without being hit or yelled at. Such statement compells the police and the judiciary to arrest him immediately.
Click to expand...

Only if the statement contains an actual accusation. I asked you to quote the words that constitute an accusation, rather than speculation at the request of the police to speculate. If she didn't actually assert that he was there, she didn't accuse him, and the police would not have been "compelled" to do anything. That's why I asked you to quote the statement directly. I repeat my request.

But the arrest of Lumumba does not really matter. Because if they hadn't arrest him, she would be guilty of calunnia nonetheless, also for her written note.
Click to expand...

Only if she actually accused him, which is precisely the question at issue here.

You don't need a "solid" accusation, you don't need evidence usable in court, in order to have a calunnia.
Click to expand...

But you do need an actual assertion. An accusation is, by definition, an assertion that the person accused did something. Please quote one from the statement.

A false accusation may be any kind of false statement placing false evidence of any kind. Even a false memory with no "name" clearly indicated, a memory about an unknown in the place of Patrick, would have been a crime (not calunnia, but a crime of a similar kind). Any false evidence given maliciously, anything which that may open a false track of investigation, is a crime. Any false track given maliciously containing a name is a calunnia. Also the "blood on Raffaele's hands" would be a calunnia, if he was not guilty.
Click to expand...

All I meant by "solid" is that it has to be a statement that actually accuses someone of something. What we have here is pure speculation, at the request of the police, that comes with an explicit qualification that she didn't think it was real. She said she could picture it (according the the interpreter, they asked her to picture it), but that it doesn't seem real. So again, please quote the accusation verbatim from Amanda's statement.

If I were to say, "I confusedly remember X, but X doesn't seem real, and I also remember mutually exclusive alternative Y, which does seem real," is it really your position that I have asserted X? Especially if I said this as a result of prolonged hostile interrogation (perhaps even involving physical abuse), during the course of which I was told I must have repressed memories of X because the police know X is true, and during the course of which I was asked to picture X happening?
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
She could have filled a complaint in any case.
She did in fact complain of the hitting immediately after. Nobody prevented her from doing that.
Idependently from how seriously others would investigate the police, the judge (and the prosecutor) would have had her claim.

She could actually have retracted her false accusation even without accusing the cops, merely stating she had lied because she was scared.

Had she done any of these things, I would have considered the possibility that she was not guilty of a malicious calunnia against Patrick.
Click to expand...

I think this whole thing is YOUR fault, Machiavelli. YOU should have filed a complaint when the police roughed you up. But you didn't and nothing changed. So, the cops felt like they could smack Amanda Knox around with impunity. Now all of Italy is embarrassed. Shame!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom