Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

The acquittals for charges A, B, C, D and E were on 530.1 grounds: for A, B, C and D because there was no evidence pointing towards the guilt of the accused, and for E because the crime was not committed by anyone.

You'll figure it out when you read the Hellmann motivations report (or maybe you're too personally over-invested in a guilt position to see the wood for the trees, I don't know).

(PS A little research into 530.2 acquittals where the verdict contained the phrase "per non avere commesso il fatto" reveals that they appear to exclusively concern political malfeasance, terrorist actions or mafia-related crimes. I find it very reasonable to conclude therefore that the inclusion of the phrase in a 530.2 verdict for such crimes is nothing more than a product of judicial-political expediency. But if you can find any non-political, non-terrorist, non-Mafia acquittals where "per non avere commesso il fatto" married with a 530.2 acquittal, I'd be interested to see them.....)

There are only five formulas for acquittal.
Any acquittal *must* contain one of these formulas.
The formulas are:

Per prescrizione del reato
Perché il fatto non costituisce reato
Perché il fatto è commesso da persona non imputabile
Per non avere commesso il fatto
Perché il fatto non sussiste

The latter two formulas are those specified in article 530, and they must contain a reference to the paragraph 1 or 2.

Every 530.2 acquittal would contain one of those two formulas: either "per non avere commesso il fatto", or "perché il fatto non sussiste".
There can't be a 530.2 acquittal without one of those two formulas.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm wondering why you found it necessary to point out that you were not the man with the megaphone. Did you make a special trip to Perugia in order to be part of the baying mob outside the courthouse? Were you one of the aggressive men leading the rabble, or were you standing at the sidelines?

Interesting how some people choose to spend their evenings. You should have invited crime tourist SA over to share in the evening's "entertainment".

I pointed out that I was not the man with the magaphone because I guessed that, had I just posted the video and said nothing, you (I mean in particular LJ and Mary H) would have insinuated that I was the man with the megaphone.
So, now that you don't have the man with the megaphone among your charachters, I bet you will insinuate that I was someone else in the crowd. Don't worry I don't mean to frustrate entirely your right to ad personam insinuation.

 

[Machiavelli]

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?

It does not make a difference on the ethical point of view: it makes a difference on the logical point of view, since if the Italian newspaper did not publish any bloody bathroom picture and did not mention any bloody bathroom, this implies, and it makes it evident and obvious, that the police never gave them this information. If they were given such information together with the photo, they would have published it and would have written about it.

They did not report such false information: this demonstrates that the police did not give them the false information.

 

[davefoc]

It does not make a difference on the ethical point of view: it makes a difference on the logical point of view, since if the Italian newspaper did not publish any bloody bathroom picture and did not mention any bloody bathroom, this implies, and it makes it evident and obvious, that the police never gave them this information. If they were given such information together with the photo, they would have published it and would have written about it.

They did not report such false information: this demonstrates that the police did not give them the false information.

That strikes me as a valid point. At this point it is not knowable whether the people that leaked the photos provided any commentary with them or there was any commentary in other data leaked at the same time as the photos. I can see several possibilities with regard to the leak of the photos and I am not sure there is any evidence to sort them out:
1. The leaker intended for the photos to be misinterpreted as showing a bloody bathroom that would have made Knox's story of taking a shower without involvement in the crime implausible but did not provide supporting commentary to that effect.
2. The leaker intended the photos to be misinterpreted and provided supporting commentary to the photos to that effect.
3. The leaker was uninvolved with the content of what was leaked and just provided the photos to the press perhaps for financial or other compensation.

What I would like to understand is what is generally agreed on here.

1. Who released the photos to the press?

The consensus seems to be that it was done intentionally by the police since they were in control of the evidence associated with the case. But can other possibilities be eliminated?
​

2. Did the prosecution approve of the release?

It seems like the consensus here is that it did and it does seem unlikely to me that they didn't but is there any proof or circumstantial evidence they did?
​

3. Did the prosecution make any effort to investigate the source of the leak?

I don't know of any public information to the effect that the prosecution investigated the source of the leak. This suggests, at least to me, that the prosecution was part of the process that led to the release of the photos.
​

4. Did the prosecution or the police play any public active role in supporting the false interpretation of the crime scene photo of the bathroom?

I don't know of any information to the effect that they did. If they didn't publically support the misinterpretation, it seems like Machiavelli's interpretation of events that the misinterpretation of the photos was not part of a conscious prosecution plan seems at least plausible to me.
​

I think, at least, on some of this it might be more important to look at the motivation of the press more than the prosecutors. The press had no story if this was just a simple case of rape and murder. Unfortunately that story is fairly routine as far as humans go. But the unique crime the prosecutor claimed happened was a very newsworthy story and it is reasonable to expect that the biases of some reporters would leap on any available information that supported that story. In the end the reporters that promoted the sensationalistic version of this story have been well compensated even though what they wrote was almost certainly false.

 

[Kid Le]

How is that even a rebuttal of what LJ said? Read his post again, especially the penultimate sentence.
LJ: It is very well possible that Mignini/police chose to leak to UK press, so no difference that Italian press did not publish.
Mach: The Italian press did not publish so they were not leaked to.

Cant you really see why this fails to address the logic behind the assertion? If so, Im afraid I have to agree with LJ's ultimate sentence ...

 

[davefoc]

How is that even a rebuttal of what LJ said? Read his post again, especially the penultimate sentence.
LJ: It is very well possible that Mignini/police chose to leak to UK press, so no difference that Italian press did not publish.
Mach: The Italian press did not publish so they were not leaked to.

Cant you really see why this fails to address the logic behind the assertion? If so, Im afraid I have to agree with LJ's ultimate sentence ...

I assume this is addressed to me.

First I don't think that the fact that the Italian press chose to not publish is proof of anything.

But it suggested to me that the person who leaked the photo did not accompany it with information that supported a false interpretation otherwise the people probably closest to the leak, the Italian press, would have said the same thing the English press did about the photos. It's weak evidence at best, but it supports the notion that the people who wrote the false interpretation of the photos did it on their own. As a non-police investigator type person the photo makes it look like the bathroom was covered with blood and I needed some explanation as to what it actually represented before I realized what it was so I find it plausible that the English press just dreamed up the false interpretation on their own.

This doesn't, of course, preclude the possibility that the prosecution engineered the release of the photos with the idea that they would be misinterpreted. I just think the evidence for that claim is not conclusive.

 

[Kid Le]

I assume this is addressed to me.

Apologies dave, my post was addressed to Machiavelli. Typing on a less than handy mobile phone, I was too lazy to use the quote function. My post originally appeared directly below Machiavelli's so I thought that would be clear. Not sure how you managed to sneak your, admittedly well-reasoned, post in between.

 

[Dan O.]

He was killing Meredith. Rudy was freaked out by the brutal murder and took a dump. The killer being a sophisticated criminal left no evidence behind. Rudy fears this man and his associates and therefore will not come clean.

I don't buy it. It might work better with Rudy and associates enter through Filomena's window, Rudy immediately heads for the bathroom while the associates search the appartment for cash. Meredith enters and is immediately attacked. But this too falls apart because the associates leave little if any evidence behind while Rudy's evidence is all over and in the victim.

The simplest explanation consistent with the known facts is still that Rudy acted alone. There may have been associates waiting outside but nothing draws them in.

 

[RoseMontague]

I pointed out that I was not the man with the magaphone because I guessed that, had I just posted the video and said nothing, you (I mean in particular LJ and Mary H) would have insinuated that I was the man with the megaphone.
So, now that you don't have the man with the megaphone among your charachters, I bet you will insinuate that I was someone else in the crowd. Don't worry I don't mean to frustrate entirely your right to ad personam insinuation.

I could care less if you are the man with the megaphone or the man behind the curtain.

I am still waiting on a cite for your claim that Hellmann rejected the defense submission on the computers. Since I have already asked you twice with no response, I'll throw that out to the rest of the group, has anybody seen anything on this?

You also promised a post detailing your argument that the break in was staged.

 

[Fine]

In January, 2008, it looks like the cops sold the "bloody bathroom" photograph to Barcroft Media, which purchases newsworthy images. Barcroft Media then sold the rights to use it to the Daily Mail newspaper.

See lower right hand corner of the composite photograph HERE. Was it the cops or Barcroft Media who fused the two photographs together, to suggest blood present in both photographs? Certainly a sordid trick. The copyright might explain why the photograph didn't appear in the Italian media.

///

 

[LondonJohn]

I could care less if you are the man with the megaphone or the man behind the curtain.

I am still waiting on a cite for your claim that Hellmann rejected the defense submission on the computers. Since I have already asked you twice with no response, I'll throw that out to the rest of the group, has anybody seen anything on this?

You also promised a post detailing your argument that the break in was staged.

Yeah, I couldn't care less either! What intrigues me is quite why Machiavelli thought that anyone would jump to the conclusion that he was the man with the megaphone: it reveals rather more about him (his attitude, not his identity) than he might realise. I've never seen any ongoing obsession with "outing" people on this board: it's not like Perugia Murder Fail. Besides, rather ironically Machiavelli has already answered his own semi-question:

I bet you will insinuate that I was someone else in the crowd

in a previous post of his, in which he stated (in response to how Vogt managed to experience both the verdict and the crowd reaction outside):

She witnessed the reading before a video, as I did. Thus, I too witnessed both the reading and the crowd.

And he's already made numerous references to being in the crowd outside the courtroom on the night of the verdict. So quite why he might now appear to be pretending that he wasn't there is frankly a little mystifying...

And no, I've never seen any other reference to Hellmann dismissing the Sollecito appeal computer log evidence. I suspect that this might be wishful thinking (and/or outright dissembling) on behalf of Machiavelli, but I'm perfectly willing to see evidence to support his claim.

PS: Allez les Bleus! I'm no Francophile, but you can't ignore odds of 6.5 (5.5:1) on a two-horse race. However, the ABs have just scored a try, so my bet looks a bit flimsy at this point.....

 

[Machiavelli]

How is that even a rebuttal of what LJ said? Read his post again, especially the penultimate sentence.
LJ: It is very well possible that Mignini/police chose to leak to UK press, so no difference that Italian press did not publish.
Mach: The Italian press did not publish so they were not leaked to.

Cant you really see why this fails to address the logic behind the assertion? If so, Im afraid I have to agree with LJ's ultimate sentence ...

LJ's reasoning has two major flaws.

First, you have to figure out that there was a press conference where the police (ad the Daily Mirror calls their source) shows the bloody bathroom picture and gives false information while only British tabloid press is present.
Is that a plausible scenario? A press conference in Perugia where only British tabloids are invited? Or the "Police" who send documents only to Britis tabloids via a trackable mea (as an e-mail)?
As any absurd claim could be teorathically true, this could be true in the abstract as any other. But whoever claims such a scenario has to bring elements of evidence. LJ uses an implausible and unsupported assumption as a basis for a conclusion.

Second, LJ has quitely abandoned the first theory due to failure and is changing the claim and the topic. The original claim was about an alleged purpose to build prejudice among jurors and local population by disseminating false iformation; the claim was that the police (and the prosecution ) had leaked falese information to the press in order to influence the judges and maybe - for some reason - the perception of the case by the locals. And this is what is obviously absurd, given that the locals never saw the bloody picture of the bathroom nor ever read about it in any Italian newspaper; this meaninig, the alleged source in fact skipped the direct and only way to give of telling the Italian people (aka: obviously the source did not mean to prejudice the opinion of local people by releasing false information). The trial takes place in Umbria, Italy, and this the only context in which prejudice would possible influence the ongoing of the trial.
But given he realizes this obvious contradiction in the original claim, LJ simply has changed the claim: the police and prosecution are no longer blamed of organizing a manoeuver to produce prejudice, no longer to influence the ongoing of the trial; now he blames them of waging a branch of "propaganda war" exclusively in the UK media.
This is a different claim. Attempt to influence the jurors by releasing information in the local environtment, and waging a propaganda in the UK media which the Italians don't know about, are two different things. You have changed the topic of the accusation without admitting it. And the second allegation, media propaganda in the UK, is something something not related to a prejudice in the local environment and judges, it is not something related to the ongoing of the trial at all.
On the point of the bloody bathroom, this second allegation simply contradicts the first. Also the other allegations of leaking false information are nonsense and contradictory in their arguments; but this one about the bathroom picture is contradictory even as a claim iteself. Either you claim a media operation aimed at creating prejudice in Perugia, and that was determinant to the locals' perception of the case, or not.

 

[Diocletus]

LJ's reasoning has two major flaws.

First, you have to figure out that there was a press conference where the police (ad the Daily Mirror calls their source) shows the bloody bathroom picture and gives false information while only British tabloid press is present.
Is that a plausible scenario? A press conference in Perugia where only British tabloids are invited? Or the "Police" who send documents only to Britis tabloids via a trackable mea (as an e-mail)?
As any absurd claim could be teorathically true, this could be true in the abstract as any other. But whoever claims such a scenario has to bring elements of evidence. LJ uses an implausible and unsupported assumption as a basis for a conclusion.

Second, LJ has quitely abandoned the first theory due to failure and is changing the claim and the topic. The original claim was about an alleged purpose to build prejudice among jurors and local population by disseminating false iformation; the claim was that the police (and the prosecution ) had leaked falese information to the press in order to influence the judges and maybe - for some reason - the perception of the case by the locals. And this is what is obviously absurd, given that the locals never saw the bloody picture of the bathroom nor ever read about it in any Italian newspaper; this meaninig, the alleged source in fact skipped the direct and only way to give of telling the Italian people (aka: obviously the source did not mean to prejudice the opinion of local people by releasing false information). The trial takes place in Umbria, Italy, and this the only context in which prejudice would possible influence the ongoing of the trial.
But given he realizes this obvious contradiction in the original claim, LJ simply has changed the claim: the police and prosecution are no longer blamed of organizing a manoeuver to produce prejudice, no longer to influence the ongoing of the trial; now he blames them of waging a branch of "propaganda war" exclusively in the UK media.
This is a different claim. Attempt to influence the jurors by releasing information in the local environtment, and waging a propaganda in the UK media which the Italians don't know about, are two different things. You have changed the topic of the accusation without admitting it. And the second allegation, media propaganda in the UK, is something something not related to a prejudice in the local environment and judges, it is not something related to the ongoing of the trial at all.
On the point of the bloody bathroom, this second allegation simply contradicts the first. Also the other allegations of leaking false information are nonsense and contradictory in their arguments; but this one about the bathroom picture is contradictory even as a claim iteself. Either you claim a media operation aimed at creating prejudice in Perugia, and that was determinant to the locals' perception of the case, or not.

The British tabloids tell us that the cops were the leakers. So, why would this particular picture, showing what might be mistaken for a bloody bathroom, be the one among all others that is leaked? Because the leaker intended it to cause prejudice. Once the leaker leaked the picture, they obviously lost control of where it was published. So, if you say it was not published in the Italian press, then that might be true unless you are wrong, but if true, it's merely an accident from the perspective of the leaker.

 

[Dan O.]

In January, 2008, it looks like the cops sold the "bloody bathroom" photograph to Barcroft Media, which purchases newsworthy images. Barcroft Media then sold the rights to use it to the Daily Mail newspaper.
///

With that, I'll make the call that it was a single cop that sold those photos to Barcroft Media. And we even have video of this person.

In the crime scene videos we see the official photographer (is this Fabio Palmieri) with his big Nicon camera and then we see someone else with a little point and shoot camera. How much would Barcroft Media have paid for those photos?

I'm sure that if the Italian authorities were at all interested in tracking down who that person was they would have absolutely no difficulty. I guess taking personal photos of crime scenes while on duty is not a crime in Italy.

 

[Machiavelli]

The British tabloids tell us that the cops were the leakers. So, why would this particular picture, showing what might be mistaken for a bloody bathroom, be the one among all others that is leaked? Because the leaker intended it to cause prejudice. Once the leaker leaked the picture, they obviously lost control of where it was published. So, if you say it was not published in the Italian press, then that might be true unless you are wrong, but if true, it's merely an accident from the perspective of the leaker.

But where is concistence in this theory, and where is corroboration?
How can an incident occur on the release of material from "the police" (who?) to the Italian press? How is it that no Italian press source received it?
Were they physically incapacitated to reach the press conference room? Whas there a mail server breakdown in the whole country?
How can you realistically claim that no Italian paper spoke about it just by accident?
This accident would be coincidentially incredible.
If one piece of information only appears into British tabloids and nowhere else, just any person of common sense would think, as first thought, that the source was probably in the UK, Italian or British, or at best was a British person in Italy. This is the normal thing you would think first.
"Prejudice" - not even your idea of prejudice - in Perugia cannot be produced by the publishing of false information in the UK media. Italians don't read UK press. The interest of Italians for English tabloids is not low, it is zero.

But I also want to remark, that the point of evidence in your theory (the lack therof) and its contraditcion with basic facts as the absence rom the Italian press, to me is not even the worse and most nonsense part in your idea.
The most important point to me is against your very idea of "prejudice", your idea about diffusing prejudice among the local polupation, and your linking it to "the prosecution" and "the police" (and, without even distinguishing people), it is that this concept of disseminating prejudice is intrinsically nonsense.

 

[Machiavelli]

With that, I'll make the call that it was a single cop that sold those photos to Barcroft Media. And we even have video of this person.

In the crime scene videos we see the official photographer (is this Fabio Palmieri) with his big Nicon camera and then we see someone else with a little point and shoot camera. How much would Barcroft Media have paid for those photos?

I'm sure that if the Italian authorities were at all interested in tracking down who that person was they would have absolutely no difficulty. I guess taking personal photos of crime scenes while on duty is not a crime in Italy.

But that day - dec 17 - the phenophtalene had not been used in the bathroom.
Anyway there is no proof that the person selling pictures was one of the photographers. There is actually no reason to assert this.
And there is even less evidence that the picture have anything to do with a purpose of creating "prejudice" in the court. This is in fact against the obvious and self-evident fact that there no such photos in the local press.

 

[snook1]

The interest of Italians for English tabloids is not low, it is zero.

How do you know that? Is this your personal opinion, or maybe, there were some studies regarding the issue?

You seem to be convinced that whole Italy shares your view that the police didn't do anything wrong, the prosecution didn't do anything wrong and that AK and RS are guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The thing is, it's not the way you would like it to be.

 

[snook1]

But that day - dec 17 - the phenophtalene had not been used in the bathroom.
Anyway there is no proof that the person selling pictures was one of the photographers. There is actually no reason to assert this.
And there is even less evidence that the picture have anything to do with a purpose of creating "prejudice" in the court. This is in fact against the obvious and self-evident fact that there no such photos in the local press.

But it did create "prejudice". Simple as that(hint - convicting AK and RS in the first trial for murder of MK without evidence, unless you call double DNA knife and bra clasp evidence).

 

[Dan O.]

See lower right hand corner of the composite photograph HERE. Was it the cops or Barcroft Media who fused the two photographs together, to suggest blood present in both photographs? Certainly a sordid trick. The copyright might explain why the photograph didn't appear in the Italian media.

///

The photos are not actually fused but just placed side by side. I also note that only the mail showed that copyright, the sun and Perugia-Shock had the same photo without the copyright stamp. The Mirror also had those photos but no longer displays them. Does the mail perhaps own Barcraft and this is their way of advertising the photos for sale?

 

[Diocletus]

The most important point to me is against your very idea of "prejudice", your idea about diffusing prejudice among the local polupation, and your linking it to "the prosecution" and "the police" (and, without even distinguishing people), it is that this concept of disseminating prejudice is intrinsically nonsense.

Why so? Most countries have laws designed to prevent this. Are they nonsense, too?

As to this thing with prosecution/police. First, the British papers state that the cops provided the photos. Why cares if one person's name is mentioned? It's enough to know that it was the cops. Anyway, we can guess that it was Napoleoni.

As to the responsibility of the prosecution? Mignini is not absolved as you suggest. He bore some responsibility for the fairness of the trial and for investigating illegal leakers. He was delinquent because he was blinded by hate.