Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Diocletus]

Absolutely not. The judiciary wiretaps phone calls of all suspects. They can bring all these conversation in court as declaratory evidence.
But they cannot bring police interrogations. Interrogations are normally useless as evidence.

This can't be right. She wasn't a suspect yet. And the judiciary wasn't involved yet.

So I repeat, how did the cops get this wiretap?

 

[Poppy1016]

Absolutely not. The judiciary wiretaps phone calls of all suspects. They can bring all these conversation in court as declaratory evidence.
But they cannot bring police interrogations. Interrogations are normally useless as evidence.

But they were wiretapping AK and RS before they were " formal " suspects correct?

 

[Paninaro]

No, Knox claimed what happened (or better described, failed to explain and also failed to claim) with a series of inconsistent statements, descritpions, clamis and explanations.
Her claims are inconsistent and contradictory; her claims were late; her explanations are also contradictory (false memory?) and changing. She has witnesses against her. There is no way. What you say is false.
And she is not innocent: she is a convicted malicious liar; she lied voluntarily, repeatedly, and her convictions deems it was proven she was never forced into doing this. And the reason why she did this is obvious if you consider her guilty.

But she is not guilty of murder. So your reasoning is backward. You have to assume her innocence and ask yourself if an innocent person should be convicted of Calunnia under those circumstances. She is currently considered innocent and all points to that this verdict will be confirmed by the supreme court.

Frank Sfarzo expresses this well here in his latest post: http://perugiashock.com/2011/10/26/amanda-knox-the-perfect-innocence/

So, the slander against Patrick can exist only if Amanda killed Meredith. Since that accusation theory collapsed, the slander as well disappears. Amanda didn’t kill Meredith, therefore that slander has no reason to exist from any point of view. Amanda did no slander.

He's right. That's the only logical viewpoint.
The verdict is logically absurd.

I am really under the impression that you actually agreed with this? For an innocent person it makes no sense to willingly defame anyone?

You don't seem to fully understand: If somebody is declared not guilty of murder it is unrighteous to condemn them with calunnia in connection with this crime they didn't commit. This has nothing to do with our belief in the actual guilt or innocence of Knox. You can't have a system that allows this to happen. Then the system is wrong. Most countries do without Calunnia and so can Italy.

But you defend this to the out most, maybe for chauvinistic reasons?

What you say is false.

Are you kidding? The police didn't put pressure on her? I agree there was no torture, but come on; no pressure?

 

[Diocletus]

I was wondering what, if any responsibility does ILE have to allow an embassy to assist its citizens in legal manners such as this case?

An international treaty--forget which--requires them to allow consular assistance to a suspect. Yeah, they violated this, too.

The Perugian cops violated just about every conceivable international treaty obligation and legal norm that could apply in this case. At least they were thorough in that regard.

 

[Machiavelli]

And BTW Mach, your statement about Italy hosting terrorists to get even with the USA was appalling, and you lost any credibility you may have had.

What I consider appalling is what the USA did on the judicial point of view against "terrorism"; if you want to talk about something shameful on the point of view of principles of justice system, what do you think about the trial of Omar Khadr? Example of a guy jailed, tortured and sentenced for a charge that doesn't exist, for violating a law that was not written yet, a deed allegedly committed on a territory on which the court has no juristiction, by a person not under the jurisdiction of that law, and with no evidence that he committed the fact.
Would you propose this as example of non-appalling or non-shameful or non third-world principles of justice?

 

[Machiavelli]

But they were wiretapping AK and RS before they were " formal " suspects correct?

Wiretappings of their conversations, of course. Not of police interrogations, as far as I know. If there are such interrogation, I would be happy to listen to them; but the defence would legitimately object.

 

[Diocletus]

A second false, imagined and illogical statement, is that some officer sold the picture to the press in order to influence public opinion.

The picture was either passed to the press for free or it was sold. If it was passed for free, then the purpose was to prejudice. If it was sold for money, then the reason it was sold was because it was deemed sensational due to the fact that it was prejudicial. No one would have bought a picture of a clean toilet.

A third imagined thing is that the picture created prejudice in Perugia population.

I agree that the Perugians do seem like rubes, so maybe they don't have the internet. Personally, I don't get the UK tabloids, but I have seen the picture many times because I do have the internet.

A fourth imagined thing is that a (imagined) prejudice among Perugia polupation had an effect on the person's civil rights or on judges decision.

What are you talking about? The judges were Perugian. If the Perugian population was prejudiced, then so were the judges, unless you want to prove to the contrary.

 

[Machiavelli]

This can't be right. She wasn't a suspect yet. And the judiciary wasn't involved yet.

So I repeat, how did the cops get this wiretap?

Why not? It is forbidden to bring recordings of police interrogations of witnesses in court (art. 514 cpp).

 

[Diocletus]

Wiretappings of their conversations, of course. Not of police interrogations, as far as I know. If there are such interrogation, I would be happy to listen to them; but the defence would legitimately object.

We don't usually speak of "wiretapping" a police interrogation. A wiretap is an interception of a telephone call.

What we are asking is how did the police get the authority to intercept Knox's phone calls before she was declared a suspect and arrested? What did the police have to prove to get this authorization?

 

[Swimfish]

[Major Snip]In the courtroom she puts in a "maybe" as if it was a joke and does not deal with the actual words she had actually signed and with what Anna Donnino testified. She also places the police in a spontaneous statement when she previously never claimed they took part.

Amanda treated the statements she made under police interrogation as a joke because she knew then what your postings here make so very very clear. From the moment she walked into that room to assist the police she didn't have a chance. Moreover, it was all a big joke. The police could have pretty much done anything short of physical injury that left a mark and she would be accused of a crime for reporting it because there would be no "evidence" they had commited misconduct.

You are right, in Italy "police interrogations are not evidence" because they are meaningless. Nothing from nothing means nothing. The police lied to her about the "evidence" they had regarding her whereabouts on November 1st. Amanda lied to them about what happened that night. Neither statement has any basis in truth. Yet only one person is facing charges related to their conduct that night and you want us to beleave that there is only one guilty party. The truth is not on your side and you are going to have to do much better.

 

[Diocletus]

What I consider appalling is what the USA did on the judicial point of view against "terrorism"; if you want to talk about something shameful on the point of view of principles of justice system, what do you think about the trial of Omar Khadr? Example of a guy jailed, tortured and sentenced for a charge that doesn't exist, for violating a law that was not written yet, a deed allegedly committed on a territory on which the court has no juristiction, by a person not under the jurisdiction of that law, and with no evidence that he committed the fact.
Would you propose this as example of non-appalling or non-shameful or non third-world principles of justice?

I don't know much about this guy, but he does sound like somebody we should send to Italy. His own country won't take him back, and we know that you guys are really interested in hosting terrorists.

 

[Paninaro]

Absolutely not. The judiciary wiretaps phone calls of all suspects. They can bring all these conversation in court as declaratory evidence.
But they cannot bring police interrogations. Interrogations are normally useless as evidence.

What do you mean? The interrogations of Amanda Knox isn't used as evidence against her?

If recordings had been made and Knox have had a lawyer the ridiculous question of whether or not Knox slandered the Perugian police would be a non-issue that wouldn't have wasted Italian tax payers money.

Why do you support this waste of time, energy and money? Let's just record the interrogations and treat suspects correctly and let them have lawyer present. A murder investigation is not the place for tricks and bad amateur psychology, as used by Edgardo Giobbi.

I think that if Knox was really guilty and should have been convicted, this unjust police scare tactics might very well have been an obstacle and not a help to do so. So why support it either way?

Do you think that Lumumba is lying about what the police did to him, Machiavelli? Or do you think Hoyle is lying about her interview?

 

[Malkmus]

Did you ever here of the movie Troll 2? I didn't until recently. Aparently it has a large cult following and considered to be one of the worst movies of all time.

a clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyophYBP_w4

Anyway, I watched a documentry last night on the movie called "The Best Worst Movie". It was pretty funny.

Anyway, my point is that the movie (Troll 2) had this Italian director that was featured in the documentry. He refused to admit that the movie was bad and any short comings of the film were blamed squarely on the actors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDblLBLXu0c

I'm not sure if it is an Italian thing (or more of an Italian thing) to be able to easily detach from reality. But the whole time I obseved him I kep thinking to myself, this must be what Machiavelli is like.

Whoa, a Troll 2 reference! Nice. And well put

 

[Poppy1016]

Swimfish,
I saw you mention Giobbi, and it made me wonder what BS that piece of work is spewing these days.

 

[Machiavelli]

Amanda treated the statements she made under police interrogation as a joke because she knew then what your postings here make so very very clear. From the moment she walked into that room to assist the police she didn't have a chance. Moreover, it was all a big joke. The police could have pretty much done anything short of physical injury that left a mark and she would be accused of a crime for reporting it because there would be no "evidence" they had commited misconduct.

You are right, in Italy "police interrogations are not evidence" because they are meaningless. Nothing from nothing means nothing. The police lied to her about the "evidence" they had regarding her whereabouts on November 1st. Amanda lied to them about what happened that night. Neither statement has any basis in truth. Yet only one person is facing charges related to their conduct that night and you want us to beleave that there is only one guilty party. The truth is not on your side and you are going to have to do much better.

I think the police did not lie, I think they indeed had actual evidence as they said because I think there is evidence of staging, moreover Sollecito had withdrawn her alibi, this is further evidence, and anyway you have no proof they lied.

Knox repeated her false testimony in a spontaneous statement and in a hand written note. Then she had a chance to give a true account of facts and a consistent explanation for why she lied. She failed in providing a version both of what she did during the murder night, and of what happened during her interrogation and statements. She has always been inconsistent. She also has Anna Donnino as a witness against her. Knox has always lied, yes she is the only guilty party. It's self-evident.

 

[Swimfish]

This can't be right. She wasn't a suspect yet. And the judiciary wasn't involved yet. [Snip]

I propose we take a page from quantum physics and declare that on November 5th Amanda was a "Machiavellian Person" who had the quantum state of being both a suspect and a witness to a crime at the same time. Under quantum Italian law Amanda changes state and becomes an actual suspect or witness only when the PM or ILE or Machiavelli need her to be in that state.

To an outside observer who is not honorable or schooled in quantum Italian law this all seems weird and impossible. But to Machiavelli who is an honorable seeker of the truth and well schooled in the unassailable logic in quantum Italian law, it all makes perfect sense.

Or in other words I'm "speechless".

 

[Diocletus]

I think the police did not lie, I think they indeed had actual evidence as they said because I think there is evidence of staging, moreover Sollecito had withdrawn her alibi, this is further evidence, and anyway you have no proof they lied.

They told her they had evidence of a staging? Then she was a suspect already and entitled to a lawyer.

 

[Rashomon fan]

first post here

I've been lurking on a few sites for a few weeks trying to understand the murder and trial as objectively as possible. I think I have the beginning of a basic grasp of things. Recently the good folks at PMF and TJMK (yes, I believe there are a lot of good folks "over there") have been gushing about a new book by John Follain. I don't have a copy (the only book I've got is BLN's, though I've read a lot of the English Massei Report and LOTS of posts.)

Peter Quennell posted an article by John Follain a couple of weeks ago and it's been bugging me. JF says Meredith suffered "43 knife wounds and bruises" but someone at PMF said recently that particular (deliberating) misleading description was cleared up a long time ago. But there it is again for the October 9 Sunday Times readership.

Overall the article tries to appear even-handed but he keeps slipping. I decided to mark up some of his article as if I were a hypothetical editor looking for something a little more "fair and balanced." [Okay, very hypothetical.]

This is what I have, using Peter Q's headline, skipping Peter's intro and commenting on some of the first half of the article:

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Excellent <Recent> Sunday Times Report On The Many Killer <Key>Questions <That We Hope> The Second Appeal Next Year Might Answer

Posted by Peter Quennell

...​

KILLER QUESTIONS; The acquittal last week of Amanda Knox only deepens the confusion surrounding the murder of the British student Meredith Kercher. John Follain, who has investigated the case for four years, unpicks the evidence How could one man pin Meredith down and inflict those injuries?

By John Follain in Perugia.

They may have been coached to hide their true feelings, but the expressions of the judges and jurors were an open book. Surprise and shock registered on the faces of the appeal tribunal in Perugia as they watched a video taken by the forensic police who searched the whitewashed cottage where Meredith Kercher was murdered.

That summer’s day in the medieval, vaulted Hall of Frescoes was the pivotal scene of the 10-month appeal trial of Amanda Knox, 24, and Raffaele Sollecito, 26 — the moment that freedom suddenly became possible, if not probable, for the former lovers.

The rotund, bespectacled Stefano Conti, one of two specialists in forensic medicine appointed by the court to review two crucial traces of DNA evidence, gave a sardonic running commentary on the behaviour of the Roman scientific squad searching for clues in the cottage. They failed to use clean protective gloves to handle each item of evidence or biological sample, Conti pointed out. They passed Meredith’s bra clasp to one another before placing it back on the floor where they had found it. The officer who picked up her bra wore no gloves at all.

As the senior appeal judge, Claudio Pratillo Hellmann, recalled last week after acquitting Knox and Sollecito of sexually abusing and murdering Meredith, the DNA review was “the most difficult moment” of the trial.

“The prosecutors understood that their case was at risk, and it was at that moment that the trial became a battle with no holds barred,” he said.
The courtroom fight over this international cause célèbre ended with a sobbing Knox being rushed out by guards and flown home to a heroine’s welcome in Seattle.

But, far from resolving the mystery of how and why Meredith died, the acquittal has fuelled the unanswered questions over her fate. Are we “back to square one”, as Meredith’s brother Lyle said after the verdict? What are the mysteries still to be resolved? And will we ever know what truly happened? MEREDITH, a 21-year-old language student from Coulsdon, Surrey, was found lying virtually naked, her throat cut, in her bedroom in the house she shared with Knox and two other young women on the afternoon of November 2, 2007. “Case closed,” an overoptimistic police chief proclaimed just four days later.

The investigators thought Knox had handed them the keys to the mystery. Under questioning she placed herself at the crime scene on the night before the body was found. She had been in the kitchen, with her hands over her ears, she said, while Patrick Lumumba, a Congolese bar owner for whom she worked as a waitress, killed Meredith.

Police promptly arrested Lumumba, Knox and her boyfriend. But Knox later went back on her testimony, insisting she had been with Sollecito at his flat all night.

Investigators were forced to release Lumumba after witnesses testified he had been working at his bar on the night of the murder. Knox and Sollecito stayed behind bars.

Forensic evidence then prompted the arrest of another African immigrant, Rudy Guede, an Ivory Coast drifter. Part of his palm print was on a cushion under Meredith’s body, his DNA was in her body where he had apparently groped her sexually, and his DNA was mixed with hers in drops of blood inside <on> her shoulder bag.

The prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini, accused Guede, Knox and Sollecito of killing Meredith when she resisted their attempts to force her into a sex game.

Certainly, there appeared to be compelling evidence that Knox was lying. She had tried to frame Lumumba. The defence now claimed that an intruder had broken into the cottage and attacked Meredith; but <Italian investigators believed> the break-in had clearly been staged. Amateurishly [if staged?], a room had been <appeared> ransacked before the window into it was smashed — the glass lay over the strewn clothes instead of under them. Was this to cover Knox’s tracks? There were mixed traces of Knox’s <DNA> and Meredith’s blood in the bathroom and another room. Bloody footprints had been left by Knox and Sollecito in the bathroom and in the corridor. Knox had behaved bizarrely at the police station after the murder, kissing and caressing Sollecito and doing yoga exercises. Sollecito had said he spent much of the murder night on his computer, but this was disproved by experts. [JOHN: Are these the same experts who destroyed 4 hard drives in the course of the examination? Perhaps mention? ~ your hypothetical editor.]
Still, this was all circumstantial evidence rather than proof. The Rome forensic police came to the rescue of the prosecution team. They reported that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade of a kitchen knife found at Sollecito’s flat — and Knox’s was on the handle. This was believed to be one of the murder weapons.

Forensic pathologists <for the prosecutor> said Meredith’s wounds had been caused by two knives, pointing to more than one killer. The team from Rome also reported that Sollecito’s DNA was on Meredith’s bra clasp. (Only much later would it emerge that the police had retrieved this from the bedroom floor a full 46 days after first spotting it.) The case rapidly became a sensation. The prime suspect was an intelligent and alluringly pretty American, only 20 at the time, who, reporters joyously discovered, had been nicknamed “Foxy Knoxy” back home in Seattle. That this was for her skills on the soccer pitch was lost in the rush to find out more.

Dozens of witnesses and expert consultants passed through Perugia’s Hall of Frescoes during the first trial, which lasted for much of 2009.
Knox was portrayed by the lawyer for the bar owner, Lumumba, as an unscrupulous and manipulative she-devil, and by her defence team as “a wholesome girl” wrongly accused.

The prosecution case was that Kercher, a hard-working young woman from a modest background, had become exasperated by Knox’s slovenly and promiscuous behaviour as a housemate.

She had remarked to her father that “Amanda arrived only a week ago and she already has a boyfriend”. She told friends that Knox left a vibrator and condoms in the bathroom and brought “strange men” to the cottage. Investigators leaked Knox’s diary, in which she had listed seven sexual partners, three of whom she had slept with after her arrival in Italy, including a man she had met on the train on her way to Perugia. On Facebook she had put down as her interests: “Men.” [Relevant? Don't a majority of young woman say the same?] [JOHN, you start by saying “the prosecution case”; didn’t the defence present substantial evidence to refute this depiction? If so, wouldn’t it go here? ~ ed.]
Unable to prove exactly what had happened on the night of the murder, Mignini offered a plausible scenario based on Meredith’s 43 knife wounds and bruises <4 knife wounds and multiple bruises>.

He suggested <asked the court to visualize> that an argument between Meredith and Knox escalated when Guede and Sollecito joined the American “under the influence of drugs and maybe of alcohol” in trying to force Kercher into a heavy sex game that ended in murder. <The court rejected that hypothesis but decided that Knox and Sollecito probably came from Amanda’s room to join Guede after they heard Meredith refuse his, imagined, advances.>
The sensational 11-month trial ended in guilty verdicts and jail sentences of 26 years for Knox and 25 years for Sollecito.

...​

Anyone care to comment? Did I leave out anything significant or get anything wrong? I frankly haven't gotten to the bottom of the computer hard drives/forensic analysis.

The whole case boggles my mind. I'm not sure the truth can ever be known. Emotionally rigged reporting doesn't help. The only thing I find certain is that a lot of people are absolutely certain of their p.o.v. Hence, "Rashomon."

 

[Diocletus]

I propose we take a page from quantum physics and declare that on November 5th Amanda was a "Machiavellian Person" who had the quantum state of being both a suspect and a witness to a crime at the same time. Under quantum Italian law Amanda changes state and becomes an actual suspect or witness only when the PM or ILE or Machiavelli need her to be in that state.

To an outside observer who is not honorable or schooled in quantum Italian law this all seems weird and impossible. But to Machiavelli who is an honorable seeker of the truth and well schooled in the unassailable logic in quantum Italian law, it all makes perfect sense.

Or in other words I'm "speechless".

Agreed.

Need a wiretap? Then she's a suspect.
Need to scare her? Tell her she's a suspect because evidence of staging.
Need a lawyer? Not a suspect.
Right to remain silent? Not a suspect.

 

[Swimfish]

Knox repeated her false testimony in a spontaneous statement and in a hand written note. [Major Snip] It's self-evident.

What should be self-evident even to you is that persons, even Machiavellian Persons, who have been subject to an overnight police interogation while in police custody can never ever provide spontanious statements. The overnight police interrogation makes spontenaity absolutely impossible. Please, please spare me your quantum Italian law excuses regarding Amanda's legal state. They do not serve the truth in this matter.

Oh by the way, that the break-in was staged is not "evidence". That there was a broken window and a rock on the floor is evidence. That this evidence showed a staged break in is a "theory" proposed by the PM and ILE to fit evidence that also clearly fits a theory that an actual break in occured. I somehow suspect that ILE or the PM failed to share that truth with Amanda that night or the following morning.