Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

Well, then why did the prosecution leak the pink bathroom pictures to the British tabloids?

The prosecution never leaked pictures to the British tabloids. That idea is ludicrous. The press simply got the pictures from the investigation files, via one of the 100+ possible ways, most likely through employees from attorneys' firmas or police officers or clerks, as it always happens in Italy.

And, how is it that the HIV results and diary ended up in the Italian press? Just curious.

The HIV results never ended up in the Italian press; only Amanda's diary ended up in the Italian press: in that she wrote - herself - about an alleged HIV test result.
It ended in the italian press, primarily because she wrote it. If you think the content of her diary should be deemed prejudicial, you should also keep in mind that she had the initiative of writing it. The diary was seized and included into the investigation file, and the investigation file is accesses by a multitude of people. Nobody has obligated her to write down things about her sexual life while she was under investigation. And everybody knows that nothing of what one writes in prison is private, especially this goes for a person under investigation.
It's just crazy to call "prejudice" and point the finger to (unknown) people who may have given it to others, and not place the responsability on the person who wrote it. It's like if you are caught by a photographer while cheating on your wife, and you blame the photographer for your bad public image. You are responsible of what you declare, what you write and what you do, and you are responsible of prejudice if this information causes prejudice.

 

[Machiavelli]

Did the Kerchers submit instances? Did the kerchrs question the suspects?

Of course they did. Maresca did this in their representance.

Did the Kerchers bring their point of view to the trial? Did the Kerchers make claims at the trial, provide experts to testify?

Sure they did. They paid them and brought them to testify. They prought their arguments and their point of view.

Did the Kerchers check the prosecutions work and intervene in his case in court? Did the Kerchers seek damage awards?

Obviously yes.

If the Kerchers did any of this, to what extent are they now liable to the totaly innocent victims of the italian prosecution?

There are no prosecution victims, proescution and Kerchers didt their job, played correctly their part, are absolutely not liable.

 

[Diocletus]

The press simply got the pictures from the investigation files, via one of the 100+ possible ways, most likely through employees from attorneys' firmas or police officers or clerks, as it always happens in Italy.

The diary was seized and included into the investigation file, and the investigation file is accesses by a multitude of people.

How do you know that the press got the documents from the investigation file and not directly from the police?

Anyway, if you are suggesting that an "investigation file" is public information in Italy, then the police/prosecution are responsible if prejudicial information is placed in it--it's the same as publishing the information.

It's just crazy to call "prejudice" and point the finger to (unknown) people who may have given it to others, and not place the responsability on the person who wrote it. It's like if you are caught by a photographer while cheating on your wife, and you blame the photographer for your bad public image. You are responsible of what you declare, what you write and what you do, and you are responsible of prejudice if this information causes prejudice.

You're wrong. The prejudice derives from the publication, not from the act of writing.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>You're wrong. The prejudice derives from the publication, not from the act of writing.

Which is why the court found for Amanda in her suit against the journalist who published it.

 

[Dan O.]

The prosecution never leaked pictures to the British tabloids. That idea is ludicrous. The press simply got the pictures from the investigation files, via one of the 100+ possible ways, most likely through employees from attorneys' firmas or police officers or clerks, as it always happens in Italy.

Why is it sooo hard for you to honestly answer even the easy questions?

Perugia-Shock 2008-01-16

"Police gave out two more pictures for our bloody album."
​

The Sun 2008-01-16

Italian police yesterday released grim photographs of the flat where she had her throat cut.
Pools of blood can be seen smeared across the floor near where 21-year-old Brit student Mez’s body was found.
And bloodstains cover a sink, toilet and walls in the bathroom of the flat in Perugia, Italy.
​

Mirror 2008-01-16

"Chilling photos of the blood-stained flat where British student Meredith Kercher was found murdered were released by Italian police yesterday."​

DailyMail

This is the grim, blood-soaked scene inside the Italian apartment where British student Meredith Kercher was sexually assaulted and brutally murdered.
In chilling new photographs released by Italian police today, the full scale of the horror that confronted police when they entered the apartment in Perugia becomes clear.​

You are so wrong on everything and apparently incapable of learning the facts. So sad.

The HIV results never ended up in the Italian press; only Amanda's diary ended up in the Italian press: in that she wrote - herself - about an alleged HIV test result.

Just how did Amanda become aware of this HIV test result? Was she informed that she was being tested? Is there a signed consent form? Was she given proper consoling after being informed? I'm sure you have your own answers for each of these questions but where is the evidence beyond your personal belief?

It ended in the italian press, primarily because she wrote it. If you think the content of her diary should be deemed prejudicial, you should also keep in mind that she had the initiative of writing it. The diary was seized and included into the investigation file, and the investigation file is accesses by a multitude of people. Nobody has obligated her to write down things about her sexual life while she was under investigation. And everybody knows that nothing of what one writes in prison is private, especially this goes for a person under investigation.

Why were the police seizing her personal writings? Were they after the sex partner list or did they just want samples of her writing for their graphologist to analyze? Is it the law in italy that the police can seize writings of a suspect in custody? Could they have actually gotten a court order as they had threatened? Or is this just the Italian way?!

It's just crazy to call "prejudice" and point the finger to (unknown) people who may have given it to others, and not place the responsability on the person who wrote it. It's like if you are caught by a photographer while cheating on your wife, and you blame the photographer for your bad public image. You are responsible of what you declare, what you write and what you do, and you are responsible of prejudice if this information causes prejudice.

Crazy is as Crazy does. It was in fact the police that put Amanda's personal papers into a file they knew could be and would be accessed by the public.

 

[Swimfish]

Actually, you're just like Amanda Knox. The cops/prosecutors convinced you that something happened, which didn't really happen. Amanda was yelled at, lied to, hit and otherwise abused. What's your excuse?

+2

 

[Mary_H]

The prosecution never leaked pictures to the British tabloids. That idea is ludicrous. The press simply got the pictures from the investigation files, via one of the 100+ possible ways, most likely through employees from attorneys' firmas or police officers or clerks, as it always happens in Italy.

Barbie Nadeau disagrees with you:

"From the moment they were arrested, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were a circulation bonanza for the Italian media and a front-page staple of the British tabloids. The Italian press funneled leaks from the lawyers and prosecutors to embellish the crime story and quickly dubbed Knox 'Angel Face,' fostering a cult of morbid fascination with this most unlikely killer."

The HIV results never ended up in the Italian press; only Amanda's diary ended up in the Italian press: in that she wrote - herself - about an alleged HIV test result.
It ended in the italian press, primarily because she wrote it. If you think the content of her diary should be deemed prejudicial, you should also keep in mind that she had the initiative of writing it. The diary was seized and included into the investigation file, and the investigation file is accesses by a multitude of people. Nobody has obligated her to write down things about her sexual life while she was under investigation. And everybody knows that nothing of what one writes in prison is private, especially this goes for a person under investigation.
It's just crazy to call "prejudice" and point the finger to (unknown) people who may have given it to others, and not place the responsability on the person who wrote it. It's like if you are caught by a photographer while cheating on your wife, and you blame the photographer for your bad public image. You are responsible of what you declare, what you write and what you do, and you are responsible of prejudice if this information causes prejudice.

Why stop with the person who wrote it? Why not place responsibility on the notebook on which it was written? Or the tree from which the paper was made? Or the sun and water that allowed the tree to grow? Wait -- maybe Amanda's first grade teacher belongs in here somewhere, for teaching Amanda to write.

 

[Dan O.]

There are no prosecution victims, proescution and Kerchers didt their job, played correctly their part, are absolutely not liable.

I'm sure that will still be your position when you are on the receiving end of a false prosecution.

 

[davefoc]

At least one of Machiavelli's claims appears like it might be correct although I wasn't able to confirm it.

All over the web the claim is made that the police leaked the list of sex partners that Knox was requested to make as a result of the probably faked HIV test result.

However, I wasn't able to find an original source for this claim and the fact appears to be that the sex partner list was in the diary (compiled by Knox as the result of the false HIV claim) that was leaked to the press may have been the source. Leaking the diary seems like a pretty scummy thing to do to me, but it is different kind of scummy than leaking confidential medical histories compiled for the ostensible purpose of fighting the spread of venereal diseases.

So which was it, the diary or a list prepared by authorities that was the source for the leak? The distinction seems important to me. Were the law enforcement authorities sleazy scumballs with regard to this or were they seriously criminal sleazy scumballs with regard to this?

Note I am not commenting on the act of giving Knox false HIV results above. That by itself sounds like it might have been a criminal act by the prison authorities, however even that isn't quite a proven fact. It is at least conceivable that a false positive did actually occur and a retest was done that had a negative result. Without a formal investigation of this the truth isn't knowable. The fact that nobody seems to have initiated one and that actual details of what went on here haven't been revealed suggests that something nefarious probably went on to me.

 

[davefoc]

Why is it sooo hard for you to honestly answer even the easy questions?

...

The honestly answer part of this question seems like an unnecessary gibe to me. There is no evidence that Machiavelli intentionally misrepresented his beliefs.

He might have been wrong, as you suggest in the main part of your post, but you present no evidence that he was intentionally wrong.

 

[Mary_H]

At least one of Machiavelli's claims appears like it might be correct although I wasn't able to confirm it.

All over the web the claim is made that the police leaked the list of sex partners that Knox was requested to make as a result of the probably faked HIV test result.

However, I wasn't able to find an original source for this claim and the fact appears to be that the sex partner list was in the diary (compiled by Knox as the result of the false HIV claim) that was leaked to the press may have been the source. Leaking the diary seems like a pretty scummy thing to do to me, but it is different kind of scummy than leaking confidential medical histories compiled for the ostensible purpose of fighting the spread of venereal diseases.

So which was it, the diary or a list prepared by authorities that was the source for the leak? The distinction seems important to me. Were the law enforcement authorities sleazy scumballs with regard to this or were they seriously criminal sleazy scumballs with regard to this?

In her diary, Amanda listed the names of men she had been intimate with; several pages were publsihed, including that one. Coincidentally, the only time prison officials/police seized her prison diary was just after she had been instructed to write the list in response to the HIV test results. There is no evidence they seized her diary before or after that.

Note I am not commenting on the act of giving Knox false HIV results above. That by itself sounds like it might have been a criminal act by the prison authorities, however even that isn't quite a proven fact. It is at least conceivable that a false positive did actually occur and a retest was done that had a negative result. Without a formal investigation of this the truth isn't knowable. The fact that nobody seems to have initiated one and that actual details of what went on here haven't been revealed suggests that something nefarious probably went on to me.

I agree.

 

[Rolfe]

All over the web the claim is made that the police leaked the list of sex partners that Knox was requested to make as a result of the probably faked HIV test result.

However, I wasn't able to find an original source for this claim and the fact appears to be that the sex partner list was in the diary (compiled by Knox as the result of the false HIV claim) that was leaked to the press may have been the source.

The point is the allegation that Knox was told she had tested positive for HIV. It is certainly the case that she did not test positive for HIV. There are medical protocols governing not only who may be tested for HIV (not allowed without the patient's consent), when results may be reported (not until a final result has been produced, and positive results of preliminary tests are NEVER absolutely no exceptions released until the confirmatory test has been done), and who may access these results (medical personnel which would include the prison medical staff but not the police or the prison guards), but how a patient should be told of such a result. Absolutely definitely with a protocol involving proper counselling and support.

So, there was no HIV test. So who is lying about it? Is it likely that Amanda would make up a story about being told she was positive for HIV? (Oh wait, Machiavelli probably thinks it is! ) Or does it suggest that the cops or the prison guards simply lied to her about the test result, to get her to write that list of sexual partners?

To me, it overwhelmingly suggests that.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

It is at least conceivable that a false positive did actually occur and a retest was done that had a negative result.

No, that isn't actually possible. No laboratory would release a preliminary positive result for HIV without confirming it by a more specific test. That's absolutely hard-line.

Rolfe.

 

[davefoc]

In her diary, Amanda listed the names of men she had been intimate with; several pages were publsihed, including that one. Coincidentally, the only time prison officials/police seized her prison diary was just after she had been instructed to write the list in response to the HIV test results. There is no evidence they seized her diary before or after that....

Thanks for the response Mary_H, this sounds like the most plausible and neutral description of what went on that I found any where on the web on this and I read through more than ten articles looking for signs of original information without finding it. Everything that I read was either a copy of what had been said other places or had obvious spin that lead me to view the article with skepticism.

ETA: I just saw Rolfe's comment above. That makes sense to me and it adds credence to the idea that something nefarious went on here. However, my understanding is that the only source of information about this is Knox and it is possible that there were misunderstandings or self interest in her claims. It seems unlikely and the available facts support the notion of unethical and probably illegal action on the part of the authorities (especially considering your comment), but I continue to think a formal investigation would be required before strong conclusions can be made about what went on here.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>The HIV results never ended up in the Italian press; only Amanda's diary ended up in the Italian press: in that she wrote - herself - about an alleged HIV test result.
It ended in the italian press, primarily because she wrote it. If you think the content of her diary should be deemed prejudicial, you should also keep in mind that she had the initiative of writing it. The diary was seized and included into the investigation file, and the investigation file is accesses by a multitude of people. Nobody has obligated her to write down things about her sexual life while she was under investigation. And everybody knows that nothing of what one writes in prison is private, especially this goes for a person under investigation.
It's just crazy to call "prejudice" and point the finger to (unknown) people who may have given it to others, and not place the responsability on the person who wrote it. It's like if you are caught by a photographer while cheating on your wife, and you blame the photographer for your bad public image. You are responsible of what you declare, what you write and what you do, and you are responsible of prejudice if this information causes prejudice.

We can skip any further discussion of this because we already went over it at great length one year ago, during the last week of September, 2010 (I think it starts here, and it goes on for many, many pages).

 

[Rolfe]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6376424

This link goes permanently to that post, in the thread. Not much point linking to the post in isolation as it is intended to be read in context.

Rolfe.

 

[Dan O.]

So which was it, the diary or a list prepared by authorities that was the source for the leak? The distinction seems important to me. Were the law enforcement authorities sleazy scumballs with regard to this or were they seriously criminal sleazy scumballs with regard to this?

Who is saying that it was anything other than the list Amanda wrote in her private diary that was confiscated by the police? I am not aware of any informed source that is making the contrary claim.

I do question if the police/prosecution had acted intentionally to cause this chain of events by giving Amanda something to write about. And I also question if they had acted deliberately or negligently in making this private information accessible whether it was placed in an open file or handed directly to journalists. This type of behavior by the police/prosecution should be seriously investigated.

 

[moije2]

I am interested in learning more about cries of "shame" outside the court house after the verdict. Has anyone seen credible, extensive detailing of this? I have seen or read different versions about this reaction. Some say it was a negative reaction by some to AK and RS being acquitted. Some say it was an organized few only performing for the cameras - see recent comments by Candace Dempsey. Some have said it was a negative reaction to the prosecutors for bringing the prosecution - not to the acquittal. What was it? Who were those people? Genuine impromptue upset by random individuals or organized Mignini supporters? Or?

Surely this is a story of interest, and heaven knows there were enough cameras there to capture some info to shed light on this.

 

[Grinder]

Who is saying that it was anything other than the list Amanda wrote in her private diary that was confiscated by the police? I am not aware of any informed source that is making the contrary claim.

I do question if the police/prosecution had acted intentionally to cause this chain of events by giving Amanda something to write about. And I also question if they had acted deliberately or negligently in making this private information accessible whether it was placed in an open file or handed directly to journalists. This type of behavior by the police/prosecution should be seriously investigated.

My recollection from that time was that the "doctor" requested she list her sexual contacts so they could be alerted to any danger, but it was 4 years ago...

It seems strange that her attorneys didn't alert her to the fact that, as Mach says, these voluntary declarations are of more value than official interviews and therefore she should not write anything that could possibly be used against her. The same goes for Raffaele's attorneys, unless Mach is wrong and the taking of personal writings is not normally permitted.

I tell people not to put it in email unless they are ready to see it on the front page in the morning. And I'm not talking about murder.

 

[Grinder]

I am interested in learning more about cries of "shame" outside the court house after the verdict. Has anyone seen credible, extensive detailing of this? I have seen or read different versions about this reaction. Some say it was a negative reaction by some to AK and RS being acquitted. Some say it was an organized few only performing for the cameras - see recent comments by Candace Dempsey. Some have said it was a negative reaction to the prosecutors for bringing the prosecution - not to the acquittal. What was it? Who were those people? Genuine impromptue upset by random individuals or organized Mignini supporters? Or?

Surely this is a story of interest, and heaven knows there were enough cameras there to capture some info to shed light on this.

Well it will be hard to ever know with reporting like this from Andrea V :

As he read the sentence, Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellman faced the terrified defendants, their anxious families and rows of photographers on stepladders behind them. As he said "assoluzione per non aver commesso il fatto" — acquittal for not having committed the crime — Knox's sobs of relief broke the gravity and silence of the moment.

Outside, a restless crowd of college students checking iPhones began whispering "Acquitted" and in split seconds, astonishment had turned to anger. One man pulled out a megaphone and started a chant of "Vergona! Vergona" (Shame! Shame!). Another yelled: "They only convicted the black man," referring to Rudy Guede, 24, who was born in Ivory Coast and who was convicted of Kercher's murder in a separate trial. He is serving a 16-year sentence.

Police tightened their line around the cordoned-off cobblestone area where the media and lawyers were to exit. But a groundswell of anger erupted when Giulia Bongiorno, the high-profile Sicilian lawyer for Raffaele Sollecito, stepped outside.


Just ask yourself how the great Vogt was able to witness both the reading of the verdict and the crowd outside at the exact same time?

This is really worse than the Pisa "she guilty" story with made up quotes.

Do we believe that from inside the court house she could hear "they only convicted the black man", I don't think so.