Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Bruce Fischer]

Bruce, "the folks of which those on PMF are examples," need something to do while their board is shut down for the weekend.

I think its hilarious that PMF is upgrading their site now. Its like a family living with 6 kids in a 2 bedroom house, with the parents waiting for the day that all the kids move out so that the two of them can then move into a 5 bedroom house.

 

[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.

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

I don't know, but there is no proof.

So was Machiavelli stating a lie in the first quote or is he trying to split the goal post by substituting "prosecution" when every source clearly says the pictures were released by the police?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Meredith is dead. Things happened cannot be changed. But this does not prevent people from pursueing the truth.

May I suggest taking a look at Rudy Guede? You know who I am talking about right? Let me fill you in on some truth; Rudy Guede is the guy that killed Meredith. Guede is the actual forgotten one in this tragedy.

 

[davefoc]

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.

I looked at 10 articles or so on this issue trying to pin down whether Machiavelli's claim was correct or not. Almost all of them said something like the authorities told Knox she was HIV positive and then asked her to make a list of her sex partners and they then leaked the list to the press. The thing that made me think that Machiavelli might be right was that all the articles sounded like they were just derived from a single source and that source might not have been correct. I finally found something more along the lines of what Machiavelli said on one of the guilter sites (TJMK I think).

Based on Mary_H's post I think I understand what the situation is with regard to this. It seems like the available information still points to some serious ethical violations by the authorities but it does not suggest that they actually leaked information from private data formally collected for the purpose of identifying other HIV infected individuals. And I believe you when you say that most people that are familiar with the case understood that, however I suspect that most people that have a passing interest in the case would be surprised about some of this because of the reporting which was at least ambiguous if not just wrong about all this.

Based on posts by you, Rolfe and Mary_H I now see how unlikely it is that there is any innocent explanation for what has gone on here and even if private medical records weren't leaked very serious ethical violations probably took place.

 

[snook1]

Well . . . for starters, there's the whole Hellmann thing.

I bet, he forgot about that one.

 

[RoseMontague]

So was Machiavelli stating a lie in the first quote or is he trying to split the goal post by substituting "prosecution" when every source clearly says the pictures were released by the police?

Yes, he even said:

most likely through employees from attorneys' firmas or police officers or clerks, as it always happens in Italy.

This is similar to his argument on the satanic ritual thing. He always says Mignini never used the word satanic, ignoring other ritualistic type murders, like masonic.

 

[Mary_H]

Here is an excerpt from a letter sent by Judge Michael Heavey on August 12, 2008 to the L’On Nicolo Mancini (PMF translation). The information about the diary may have been obtained from the investigation file.

On June 16, 2008, Judge Giuliano Mignini, The Public Minister of Perugia, closed his investigation concerning the horrific murder of Meredith Kercher. In the 10,000 pages of material were about 80 pages of Amanda Knox’s prison diary.

On June 24, 2008, the press in Italy, England and to a lesser extent America reported on only one diary entry. It was reported that Amanda, while in prison, was told she had a sexually transmitted disease and she wondered which of her seven Italian lovers she had gotten it from. It was also reported she had only been in Italy for 60 days. On June 24, 2008, Nick Pisa writing for the UK’s Daily Mail wrote,

“in the diary Knox, who calls herself Foxy Knoxy, lists seven lovers she had in Italy (in 60 days). She was told by prison doctors she had a sexually transmitted disease.”

This information came to the press via the prosecutor’s office, the police and prison officials. Even if the press accounts were true, which they are not, this is character assassination of the accused. It is aimed at inflaming public and judicial opinion against the accused. This is improper.

The statement is false and misleading. Below is the November 22, 2007 diary entry of Amanda Knox. The original was in English and it has been translated into Italian.

“November 22, 15th day? Last night before I went to bed I was taken down to see yet another doctor I haven’t yet met before. He had my results from a test they took - which says I’m positive for HIV. This is by far the worst experience of my life. I’m in prison for a crime I did not commit and I might have HIV. I don’t want to die. I want to get married and have children. I want to create something good. I want to get old. I want my time. I want my life. Why why why? I can’t believe this.”

She then wonders from whom she could have possibly gotten HIV. She lists seven people with whom she has had sexual contact “in general”. The first five are obviously not Italians, number 7 is Rafaele Sollecito and number 6 also appears to be Italian. Her diary entry concludes with “Oh please please let it be a mistake. Please oh please let it not be true. I don’t want to die.” A week later she is informed she had a false positive and she does not have HIV. I have attached a copy of the real diary page.

The real diary entry is considerably different than the reports of Nick Pisa. She had seven Italian lovers in 60 days? No. She had a sexually transmitted disease? No, but she was told she was HIV positive.

The character assassination of Amanda Knox is improper. The information is false.

Prosecutors in the United States are prohibited by law from making statements to the press:

1) That have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused;

2) Prosecutors are further required to exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extra judicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making.

It is my understanding that Italy has similar duties of prosecutors.

 

[RoseMontague]

Here is an excerpt from a letter sent by Judge Michael Heavey on August 12, 2008 to the L’On Nicolo Mancini (PMF translation). The information about the diary may have been obtained from the investigation file.

2) Prosecutors are further required to exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extra judicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making.

No amount of weasel-wording from Machiavelli is going to change the fact that what was done was wrong. The other part of his argument is the "as it always happens in Italy" phrase. This was one of my kids favorites. Everybody does it, it is therefore OK. LOL.

 

[Rolfe]

Based on posts by you, Rolfe and Mary_H I now see how unlikely it is that there is any innocent explanation for what has gone on here and even if private medical records weren't leaked very serious ethical violations probably took place.

Based on the information currently available, I don't believe she was even tested for HIV. I think the police or prison authorities simply made up the story either to frighten her or to elicit that list of sex partners. (I note the diary speaks of "possibly" being HIV +ve, and more testing being needed. It doesn't work like that. All the tests are done on the original sample, and nobody tells the patient until the result is definite.)

If there was a test, I don't believe there was ever any false positive, I believe the police or prison authorities simply made up the story either to frighten her or to elicit that list of sex partners. Bear in mind that false positives on the preliminary HIV test are not common. What's the chances?

It's interesting that the suit cited privacy laws about doctor-patient confidentiality. We assume it was not the doctor who gave the journalist the information about the HIV test. It sounds like journalists in Italy are bound by doctor-patient confidentiality laws, too.

If Knox reveals any more detail about what happened then I may revise my opinion, but at the moment I don't see any reference even to medical personnel being involved in any of this. She does say that a blood sample was actually collected from her, but I imagine that might be in order to carry out drug testing. She doesn't say she was asked or even told it would be tested for HIV. And as I said, so far the whole HIV thing doesn't seem to have involved any doctors at all.

I think it was a fairy-story. Of the Grim[m] variety.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

“November 22, 15th day? Last night before I went to bed I was taken down to see yet another doctor I haven’t yet met before. He had my results from a test they took - which says I’m positive for HIV. This is by far the worst experience of my life.

OK, there is a mention of a "doctor". Someone she never saw before. My BS detector is going off very loudly on that one.

Rolfe.

 

[Mary_H]

It's interesting that the suit cited privacy laws about doctor-patient confidentiality. We assume it was not the doctor who gave the journalist the information about the HIV test. It sounds like journalists in Italy are bound by doctor-patient confidentiality laws, too.

<snip>If Knox reveals any more detail about what happened then I may revise my opinion, but at the moment I don't see any reference even to medical personnel being involved in any of this. She does say that a blood sample was actually collected from her, but I imagine that might be in order to carry out drug testing. She doesn't say she was asked or even told it would be tested for HIV. And as I said, so far the whole HIV thing doesn't seem to have involved any doctors at all.

I think it was a fairy-story. Of the Grim[m] variety.

Rolfe.

According to the article I cited, the doctor-patient confidentiality/sexual history laws in Italy sound stringent, if they can be applied to a case like the one with the journalist. Yet Machiavelli seems ADAMANT that Amanda had no right to expect privacy, either because she was in prison, or possibly because, as he believes, everyone is responsible for what they write regardless of who gets a hold of it later on and runs with it. I am wondering why his expectations of privacy rights are so low.

 

[Machiavelli]

So was Machiavelli stating a lie in the first quote or is he trying to split the goal post by substituting "prosecution" when every source clearly says the pictures were released by the police?

What lie? First. nust be clear that the prosecution and the police certainly have split responsibilities. You cannot pin on a judicial office responsabilities of possible actions by employees from a governmental office. And responsibilities are personal, they do not even belong automatically to directives. This is basic.

Second, there i no proof the prosecution leaked files, and there is not proof the police leked files. There is no proof on an agency, not on single officers. Not only there is no proof, but there is no element of evidence and there is nothing that would make it logical to believe that there is a prejudicial intent by a police officer: the simple idea makes no sense, not only because there is no interst in spreading lies but also given that the file you are talking about was not even published in the Italian press.

 

[Teddy2007]

The crowd was about 1000 people. They didn't look less, but they probably they were not more than that, or not much more, because in that section of that street they won't fit in larger numbers.
They were mostly students, who walked down there from Corso Vannucci as they heard about the incoming verdict. But there was also a number of adults. There was a man with a loudspeaker (it's is not me) who later also spoke to the camera of Umbria 24.
If you listen to the videos, especially the third, you can hear a lot of people's comments. They are very esplicit, and they are all guilters. You can hear many of them are voices of students girls. You see and identify quite a number of people in these videos.

http://youtu.be/HFIZPzWL2gs

http://youtu.be/OknqPGJwNZE

http://youtu.be/hOItZM_kJJ0

Interesting videos. A bit like being at a Lazio Roma match, no? Those videos do not paint an endearing picture of Perugia. It's your typical lynch-mob mentality - something which Italians seem to be very good at these days considering also the Sarah Scazzi case and the arrest of Cosima. I doubt many of those people have a real grasp of the details of this case. What matters is that Judge Hellmann, Zanetti, and the 6 jurors, did know the details of the case. Not something to be proud of, Perugia, although I did notice that at least half of the people there were looking on in bemusement at all the shouts of "Vergogna".

 

[Machiavelli]

Well . . . for starters, there's the whole Hellmann thing.

The "whole Hellmann?" I gave no wrong information on anything.
I made one wrong prediction. But not really that wrong, as I believed in conviction as obvious but put in account the possibility of acquittal (I did not wnt to take in account a possibility of a corruption of Hellmann, but then I had to re-consider the issue in the light of new information). And also my only "wrong" expectation was only partially wrong, because even by Hellmann I am right on Knox's malicious lies and calunnia.
And this is only expectation, not information.
But you used the word "often", to say I am often wrong. Where is the wrong information. And where is the demonstration, the source of your correct information..

 

[Machiavelli]

Interesting videos. A bit like being at a Lazio Roma match, no? Those videos do not paint an endearing picture of Perugia. It's your typical lynch-mob mentality - something which Italians seem to be very good at these days considering also the Sarah Scazzi case and the arrest of Cosima. I doubt many of those people have a real grasp of the details of this case. What matters is that Judge Hellmann, Zanetti, and the 6 jurors, did know the details of the case. Not something to be proud of, Perugia, although I did notice that at least half of the people there were looking on in bemusement at all the shouts of "Vergogna".

The people have no "lynch mob mentality", the people believe the defendants are guilty, they think they should have ben convicted, and think they were acquitted for mafous reasons. You can say many look bemused maybe because some are smiling after all, but you should listen to their comments.

 

[Machiavelli]

According to the article I cited, the doctor-patient confidentiality/sexual history laws in Italy sound stringent, if they can be applied to a case like the one with the journalist. Yet Machiavelli seems ADAMANT that Amanda had no right to expect privacy, either because she was in prison, or possibly because, as he believes, everyone is responsible for what they write regardless of who gets a hold of it later on and runs with it. I am wondering why his expectations of privacy rights are so low.

A journalist should not publish medical information nor personal writings out of copyright laws. Since the diary was later taken off the investigation file, the diary is not public. But violations of copiright rules are not crimes, and the privacy rules about medical information only applies to the publication by the press.

But my point is not really about whether Knox should expect privacy: as I told you, I split the issue of her expectations about privacy, from the objective responsability of what she writes and from her actual situation of suspect under custody and under investigation. I have my opinion that in fact she did not expect privacy, but responsibility does not depend on whehter she expected privacy or not.

 

[Diocletus]

The "whole Hellmann?" I gave no wrong information on anything.
I made one wrong prediction. But not really that wrong, as I believed in conviction as obvious but put in account the possibility of acquittal (I did not wnt to take in account a possibility of a corruption of Hellmann, but then I had to re-consider the issue in the light of new information). And also my only "wrong" expectation was only partially wrong, because even by Hellmann I am right on Knox's malicious lies and calunnia.
And this is only expectation, not information.
But you used the word "often", to say I am often wrong. Where is the wrong information. And where is the demonstration, the source of your correct information..

OK. So you were wrong about that little issue. Here is some other wrongness/issues/questions that you can respond to:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7685957#post7685957

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7685930#post7685930 (third point)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7670079#post7670079

 

[Machiavelli]

If the judge shared your attitude, Amanda Knox would have been found responsible for the damage caused by the publication of her diary, instead of the author of the illicit book that contained what Amanda wrote.
...

That is a different issue. As I explained in another post.
The book by Sarzanini was damaging as a publication since the diary was taken off the trial file. But it is a damage, not a crime, and it is made by the press not by the police or prosecution. Its damage is not due to prejudice in her trial: it is due to violation of copiright and (maybe) of privacy. But Sarzanini was not accused of producing negative prejudice against Knox.
This does not affect the issue of Knox's responsibility in writing potentilally prejudicial material. The violation of copyright and privacy related to personal documents is committed only by the press that publishes the material (the damage does not consist in having the material or showing it to someone, but just in publishing it).
But the fact that the material may have a prejudicial effect, this is a different issue and this is only responsability of Knox, not of the journalist nor anyone else. Sarzanini is not responsible of that part of the damage.

 

[LondonJohn]

The "whole Hellmann?" I gave no wrong information on anything.
I made one wrong prediction. But not really that wrong, as I believed in conviction as obvious but put in account the possibility of acquittal (I did not wnt to take in account a possibility of a corruption of Hellmann, but then I had to re-consider the issue in the light of new information). And also my only "wrong" expectation was only partially wrong, because even by Hellmann I am right on Knox's malicious lies and calunnia.
And this is only expectation, not information.
But you used the word "often", to say I am often wrong. Where is the wrong information. And where is the demonstration, the source of your correct information..

Tell us all a bit more about this nebulous "new information" that leads you towards a ridiculous conspiracy theory involving the "corruption" of Hellmann. I'm looking forward to hearing this one.....

 

[LondonJohn]

Obviously I was not there when the police - allegedly - made a press conference and showed pictures about a "bloody" bathroom. But the most important thing that is worth notice, to me, is that no Italian newspaper reported about such bathroom completely dirty with blood, nor reported the picture. Not a single one.
Apparently, not a single Italian source (except maybe Frank) "understood" that the pink paint was blood. And no one reported it.
The question is: how do you think the press would influence some Italian preliminary judge (that will look at the case a year later) or how do you think would influence the italian public, if they do not publish the photo and do not talk about it?

Why on earth does it make a difference what the Italian press chose to publish? Does that make it somehow OK that the police leaked the bathroom photo to the press (which was not only unethical and possibly unlawful in any case, but it was also clearly intended that the photo would be misinterpreted - as indeed it was in the Daily Mail and other newspapers)? Can you not see that Mignini and the police might have thought it useful to fight a propaganda war in the UK and US media, not just in the Italian media? Or do you have the blinkers firmly attached?