Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[smkovalinksy]

You see, I don't think AK is lucky to be home in the "justice" sense of lucky, I think she's lucky to be home right now in the sense of what was originally lined up against her: the Tabloid media and a prosecutor who (I believe) really does believe Hallowe'en is real.

Not to mention an original court who sees nothing wrong with collecting KEY EVIDENCE 6 weeks after the fact, and only then finding the most miniscule of low-copy DNA on a bra-clasp in a room which resembled a war-zone... you get the drift.

If it were me, I'd pay the fine owing to Lumumba, and get on with my life. If all we're arguing about is the calunnia conviction, then saints be praised.

Considering what could have been a slap on the back of the head is the best cure for naivety anyone in that position ever had.... considering what could have been.

Pay the fine. Settle accounts, even the outstanding unfair-accounts. By the time she's 50, this will be long since deemed as history. The sooner it's put behind her the better. The fine is only money. Compared to what could have been...... you get the drift.

Yes, I do. And I think for the most part I have to agree with you.

 

[LondonJohn]

If I were the store manager, I'd go to the security people and ask them if in fact no merchandise had been found on the person. When the answer was no, I'd ask if they told the person that in fact they had found merchandise and the answer was yes, I'd tell to release the person and fire the lot of them.

Not only that, but the original so-called analogy was massively flawed to start with. A proper analogy would be one where a bunch of store detectives hauled a young woman into a back room, and told her that they knew that she had been the companion of another person, Mr A, who had done the shoplifting while she stood by and browsed DVDs or something. They would then tell her that they had solid evidence (perhaps CCTV evidence) showing her and Mr A entering the store and her standing by knowingly while Mr B shoplifted. They would then tell her that it was important that she gave a statement to this effect, in order to help them apprehend Mr B. And when she said that she didn't remember any of this happening - that she and Mr B were in fact sitting in McDonald's eating chicken nuggets at the time of the alleged shoplifting - the store detectives would tell her that she had suffered traumatic memory loss, and that since they had hard evidence of "the truth", she would be better off "remembering", otherwise she might get hit with a shoplifting charge herself.

 

[Osterwelle]

This is js2's conclusion, and the only possible consistent picture if you want to believe that the calunnia conviction was not justified. You have to believe Hellmann is not sincere as he praises the public ministers and calls them blameless, and that he was disingenuous or wrong as his court handed the calunnia conviction.

I think it's much about politics and face saving and this might be the reason. Or not. I actually don't care as it doesn't really matter.
If the calunnia conviction is wrong depends on how you see it. From my personal understanding of justice the whole law is complete and utter bullcrap, but that's how it is.

However, this view of things is also an expression of xenophobic prejudice.

Aw, don't flatter yourself. The view of these things came from the way the case was handled and nothing else.

In fact it is equivalent to picturing a society where everything is corruption and fraud.

Hellmann buttering up the public ministers is a little politics, nothing more. Not very brave but probably necessary and far from being corrupted or a fraud. The world is not only black or white...

That their decisions and rules after all don't matter and don't deserve to be given any weight any meaning, everytning is sullied and there is no right or wrong, the only thing that matters is that "your" kid comes back to the civilized world.

Yeah, keep dreaming, Machi. The reason I believe AK and RS are innocent is that there's simply nothing that convinced me they were even a wee bit involved in the murder.

This is very much related to a perception that I have about innocentisti's belief as racist. Where the terms "racist" does not refer to skin colour or etnicity, but define a set of prejudicial beliefs and attitudes.

So it's "prejudice", "bias" or "jaundice" then?
Why do you throw in such a buzzword? It certainly doesn't help your argument.

On one hand, Amanda Knox deserves a special "innocent" bias (consious or unconsciously) not because just white and American but because familiar, similar to yuo, to your normality, to what you value and what you understand and wish to trust, someone who just represents your own normality and values.

I don't know her personally so I can't say if her values represent me. From what I heard and read about her, this is rather unlikely though as it seems she was a naive, quirky kid who studied languages, did drugs and had an unhealthy attitude towards sex.

The idea that evil comes from within - your sister, your trusted normality, your home values - is something istinctively repulsive, disturbing, unacceptable; innocence of a familiar person who represents positive things represents in a degree the confirmation of an equilibrium of identity, of self trust.

Hm, no. That idea is something I know and accept as a fact. I don't believe that humans are naturally "good" and if there'd be any reliable evidence of Amanda's active involvment in the murder I'd also accept that she's guilty. I probably wouldn't even know her because there wouldn't be such big discussion about the case anyway.

On the other hand, to balance this need you project a generous load of prejudice on people and worlds which you don't know anything about.

Again, that's wishful thinking on your side. I've read a lot of what happened in Perugia and while I don't know that "world" personally, these events certainly left a very bad impression which led to my attitude. This is not prejudice, this is judging them by their deeds. But since you think Mignini & Co. are competent and truthful persons I don't expect you to understand that.

The idea you just expressed about Hellmann throwing a bone is fed – even in the metaphoric language - by this prejudice and moral stance.

No...

You are not even interested in whether his decision was honest or dishonest,

Maybe you should leave the thinking to the horses, they've got bigger heads.

they are a kind of morally lower species after all,

That's what you said.

and you are ready to change your view on them in function of Amanda's innocence: if he speaks against he is part of the coterie, while at the same time his decision is reliable as evidence that the defendant was innocent....

Why is Hellmann's decision evidence of innocence?
I believe in Amanda's and Raffaele's innocence because of my own investigation of what is available about the case. I think he made the right decision regarding the murder charge and thus at least corrected the most shameful wrongdoings.
I don't know why he upheld the calunnia conviction, that will hopefully become clear from the motivation report.

You understand something of what I see going on, or not?

I understand it must be hell in your head. You have to assume a lot of things to be able to make other people's opinions and actions compatible with your own thought menagerie. I can't speak for others, but there simply was no "racism", "prejudice" or "innocent bias" required. I just see things differently compared to you and come to completely different conclusions albeit having the same information you have.

-
Osterwelle

 

[raz0rama]

Being someone who "writes her way to understanding" is in 99.99999% of human endeavours a good thing.....

Wow, that's a whole order of magnitude different! I take back my subsequent post.

 

[curi0us]

If I was accused of shoplifting, and I wrote to the store manager, "They say they have evidence against me that I stole from your store. I stand by my statement with your store security that I was in your store, and that I had your stuff - even though they in fact did not find any of your stuff in my possession...." Then added, "But I am confused on this point and to be honest I admit that what I am writing is contradictory, but I was stressed by the behaviour of your store security, and now that I remember, I now know it is a fact that I didn't take any of your stuff..."

....I think the store manager would be grossly suspicious that I had, in fact, taken some stuff, and was .... well, you get my drift.

Absolutely, but if I were a cop investigating the theft and I were to discover you only started saying you were maybe involved after an illegal extended interrogation where you were screaming and crying and claimed to be hit when you didn't agree you were guilty then I would also be suspicious of the interrogators. If I was presented with signed confessions in a language you didnt speak I would be very annoyed. If the signed confessions implicated someone I knew couldn't have been at the store at the time I would be alarmed. If I asked for the interrogation tape and was told security forgot to turn on the recorder the shoplifting case would be on hold while I investigated store security.

If I discovered that your "translator" had suggested to you that you were repressing memory of the theft I would ask if any of the interrogators were at all familiar with of false internalized confessions or false memories. If the answer was no then they are incompetent. If the answer was yes I would really like to know why they think they just didn't psychologically brutalize an innocent person into thinking they did something they didn't.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli
You understand something of what I see going on, or not?

I understand it must be hell in your head. You have to assume a lot of things to be able to make other people's opinions and actions compatible with your own thought menagerie. I can't speak for others, but there simply was no "racism", "prejudice" or "innocent bias" required. I just see things differently compared to you and come to completely different conclusions albeit having the same information you have.

-
Osterwelle

I think this is what has puzzled me the most. How so many intelligent people can spend energy bending the facts to their overarching ideal of what ought to be the truth of the case.

And yet, I suppose we all do this from time to time, in various areas of life. An illustration: when my husband got cancer, I read an alternative medicine site that said a diagnosis of cancer is often not cancer at all. Against my better judgment, I clung to this, on and on, against all doctor reports, all sonograms and x-rays, against my husband's obvious deterioration - until in the end I had to admit that I was repressing the truth , which was fatal.

Of course, I had a definite and obvious motive: I did not want to lose my beloved to death, nor did I want my life to change. In the end, both occurred. But I keep wondering what the motive of pro-guilt people would specifically be.

 

[Dougm]

I may be oversimplifying, especially due to some of the long, well thought out posts that people have done on the topic of the calumnia charge. However, to me it boils down to something simple.

Since when has it been a lie, or a crime, to tell police that you are confused, and that you are not sure if what you are saying is true? Seems to me I could tell the police that Amanda Knox just flew over my house just by flapping her arms, but I am really confused, and I think that maybe what I said before is really more true, and that she didn't.

Now, I might be being annoying, and wasting the police's time, but if I am explicitly telling the police that I am not sure that what I am saying is accurate, that is the truth, is it not? Did I just say that Amanda flew over my house? No, I said that she might have, and I am not sure. And then, I tell them that they really should not use my statements as testimony against anyone, because I am not sure if what I just said is really accurate, due to my confusion.

So why is that a clear statement of anything? The only thing I am stating clearly is that I am confused, and that they need to go find some other facts or someone that actually knows what happened before they take any firm action.

The reason is was "the best truth" she "was able to think", was that she was not sure what to think, if you know what I mean.

 

[Bill Williams]

I may be oversimplifying, especially due to some of the long, well thought out posts that people have done on the topic of the calumnia charge. However, to me it boils down to something simple.

Since when has it been a lie, or a crime, to tell police that you are confused, and that you are not sure if what you are saying is true?

Oh that she had done that!

Yet she also, in her own hand, said, "But I stand by what I said last night...."

I told myself I wasn't going to respond any more. I lied.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I may be oversimplifying, especially due to some of the long, well thought out posts that people have done on the topic of the calumnia charge. However, to me it boils down to something simple.

Since when has it been a lie, or a crime, to tell police that you are confused, and that you are not sure if what you are saying is true? Seems to me I could tell the police that Amanda Knox just flew over my house just by flapping her arms, but I am really confused, and I think that maybe what I said before is really more true, and that she didn't.

Now, I might be being annoying, and wasting the police's time, but if I am explicitly telling the police that I am not sure that what I am saying is accurate, that is the truth, is it not? Did I just say that Amanda flew over my house? No, I said that she might have, and I am not sure. And then, I tell them that they really should not use my statements as testimony against anyone, because I am not sure if what I just said is really accurate, due to my confusion.

So why is that a clear statement of anything? The only thing I am stating clearly is that I am confused, and that they need to go find some other facts or someone that actually knows what happened before they take any firm action.

The reason is was "the best truth" she "was able to think", was that she was not sure what to think, if you know what I mean.

I think from their point of view (law enforcement in Perugia) they were suspicious of her, and thought she was being sly, or trying to confuse them, or stoned and hence probably no good and perhaps guilty. Not saying they were correct to leap to this, but I think she rubbed them the wrong way, and it colored their view of what she was saying. Not fair, not professional, on their part at all.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes, I do. And I think for the most part I have to agree with you.

Ack! I may have convinced one person! I've been at this for the last 5 weeks, and only one convert! Billy Graham I am not!

Anyway, thanks for the kind words.

 

[Grinder]

Oh that she had done that!

Yet she also, in her own hand, said, "But I stand by what I said last night...."

I told myself I wasn't going to respond any more. I lied.

Off with his Calunnic head, I say!!!!

She was in custody and had been told that if she didn't remember what they told her was the truth, she would be thrown in jail for 30 years. She could legitimately have feared for her safety as the mistreatment could escalate.

Up-thread is a link to the police killing a suspect.

She wasn't in the waiting room of her lawyer when she made the statement.

"I won't change the statement so don't hit me anymore, but I'm not sure it was the truth"

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Methinks the thread has run its course.

This is the thread that will never end. Every time it looks like its run its course, it gets up for another round.

 

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams
You see, I don't think AK is lucky to be home in the "justice" sense of lucky, I think she's lucky to be home right now in the sense of what was originally lined up against her: the Tabloid media and a prosecutor who (I believe) really does believe Hallowe'en is real.

Not to mention an original court who sees nothing wrong with collecting KEY EVIDENCE 6 weeks after the fact, and only then finding the most miniscule of low-copy DNA on a bra-clasp in a room which resembled a war-zone... you get the drift.

If it were me, I'd pay the fine owing to Lumumba, and get on with my life. If all we're arguing about is the calunnia conviction, then saints be praised.

Considering what could have been a slap on the back of the head is the best cure for naivety anyone in that position ever had.... considering what could have been.

Pay the fine. Settle accounts, even the outstanding unfair-accounts. By the time she's 50, this will be long since deemed as history. The sooner it's put behind her the better. The fine is only money. Compared to what could have been...... you get the drift.

Yes, I do. And I think for the most part I have to agree with you.

Ack! I may have convinced one person! I've been at this for the last 5 weeks, and only one convert! Billy Graham I am not!

Anyway, thanks for the kind words.

I think many of us may agree with how to move forward but not that she was guilty of Calunnia.

 

[Dougm]

Oh that she had done that!

Yet she also, in her own hand, said, "But I stand by what I said last night...."

I told myself I wasn't going to respond any more. I lied.

I understand what you are saying. I think it depends on which part a person chooses to emphasize. She says she stands by what she said last night, but what did she say? She made a confusing statement, and now she stands by it? Which part? The part about "confusedly remembering"?

I have noticed that, if people are on the "pro-guilt" side, they stop with the statement, "But I stand by what I said last night ...", and ignore the rest of what she wrote. But you can't ignore the rest, because she is trying to explain why she told them something that really doesn't make sense.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Ack! I may have convinced one person! I've been at this for the last 5 weeks, and only one convert! Billy Graham I am not!

Anyway, thanks for the kind words.

Most welcome.

 

[Poppy1016]

This may be grossly oversimplifying, but the court found her not guilty. So if she is not guilty of murder or as an accessory, how can she be guilty of calunnia? If she wasn't there she would have no idea who did it. The only reason she mentioned Patrick is because the police told her to.

 

[Bill Williams]

I have noticed that, if people are on the "pro-guilt" side, they stop with the statement, "But I stand by what I said last night ...", and ignore the rest of what she wrote. But you can't ignore the rest, because she is trying to explain why she told them something that really doesn't make sense.

Lumumba's lawyer most certainly stopped at that point. Even I think that is taking the statement out of context. My point is that AK gave the police no reason to stop. I was tempted to say no clear reason to stop.

At some point she eventually did. Kudos to her.

So, yes, I am "pro-guilt" on the calunnia charge. Not on the others.

Am I the only one in the universe who thinks Hellmann and his crew got it right, meaning "got it right" on ALL the charges?

 

[smkovalinksy]

Lumumba's lawyer most certainly stopped at that point. Even I think that is taking the statement out of context. My point is that AK gave the police no reason to stop. I was tempted to say no clear reason to stop.

At some point she eventually did. Kudos to her.

So, yes, I am "pro-guilt" on the calunnia charge. Not on the others.

Am I the only one in the universe who thinks Hellmann and his crew got it right, meaning "got it right" on ALL the charges?

As I told you initially the other day, my first reaction at the verdict was that Hellmann got it right, all the way. *harumph*

 

[Bill Williams]

This may be grossly oversimplifying, but the court found her not guilty. So if she is not guilty of murder or as an accessory, how can she be guilty of calunnia? If she wasn't there she would have no idea who did it. The only reason she mentioned Patrick is because the police told her to.

My point is that when she voluntarily asked for pen and paper, and wrote in English without provocation, she fudged. She put her confusion down on to paper. It did not give the police a reason to stop.

An interesting point would have been if she HAD right from the git-go said, "Don't be silly, Lumumba's never been to our house," and simply repeated it through all the stress, the outcome for Lumumba may have been the same.

The police had the SMS messages in AK's phone, between AK and PL. It may have been the same outcome, except that there definitely (even I would admit) be no reason for a calunnia charge against AK.

 

[Grinder]

This may be grossly oversimplifying, but the court found her not guilty. So if she is not guilty of murder or as an accessory, how can she be guilty of calunnia? If she wasn't there she would have no idea who did it. The only reason she mentioned Patrick is because the police told her to.

I think the way Mach and maybe Billy think is that she did tell an untruth and that's that. It might be a little like someone that had been drinking and was over the allowable BAC but was found not to have anything to do with a fatal accident but would still be guilty of driving drunk.

I would not agree because it our case the analogy would have to include the police pouring alcohol down the throat of the "drunk" driver.

Somehow those that maintain she should have held up, called a lawyer, or fully recanted; don't seem to be able to feel what it would be like to be thrown in hole in a foreign country at a fairly young age.