Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

Alas, it was destroyed by her lie.

Plain specious and hypocritical.

Justice is not a Kosher dish.

 

[Bill Williams]

If she made her statements from the cozy confines of her home, then maybe.

You keep ignoring the fact that she was in solitary confinement in a jail in Italy with no access to anyone.

She voluntarily asked for pen and paper. She shouldn't have. I'm not ignoring anything.

Isn't clear as day that she was trying to recant but was worried they would put back figuratively on the water board and therefore didn't undo the statement in unconditional terms because that statement had finally released her from the interrogation.

Why do you think she "fudged" if she is innocent? Do you think she accused Patrick because she is just mean and evil?

No, I actually don't think she accused Patrick. I think she did what she did because she was scared and didn't know what else to do.

What I am saying is that I take her notes at face value. This was a tough circumstance, the most tough thing she'd experienced and probably ever experience. It is far tougher than anything I've experienced.

That doesn't get anyone off the hook to tell the clear truth, as she was obviously struggling, and failing, to get at.

I think she's like the rest of us. I know ordinary people who have risen to do extraordinary things, like stare at a room full of accusers and tell them to go to hell.

This is not about AK being evil, this is not about AK being good. This is not about AK being a fragile almost-teen at the hands of brutes, this is not about AK as a master manipulator, or a she-devil, or a slut, or a virgin, or a hippy or someone who couldn't keep a bathroom clean to save her life.

She wrote what she wrote and Lumumba has a legitimate action against her. And more so against the police - if he had the guts I'm claiming AK should have had when the going got rough.

And jsut to cut you off at the pass, yes, if it were me, I'd be a weeny too.

 

[JREF2010]

But Calumnia as a crime does not exist in the US. Suspects accuse others all the time, to try to throw the cops off the trail. The police check it out, and if the evidence is weak or proves that the suspect is really guilty, they get convicted of that crime. The person accused could sue in civil court, but I don't think this happens too often.

I can't help but wonder, why has Rudy not been charged with Calumnia? He claimed Amanda and Raffaele killed Meredith, and that is false. Does it shield him that he wrote it in a letter that Mignini read in court? I don't see why.

What about Patrick? He has stated in public awful things about Knox, and his attorney made all sorts of charges about her in court, which are proveably false. He called her "sex obsessed", and a "witch". Is that OK?

This law seems to be selectively applied.

As I understand it, Luca Maori -Raffaeles lawyer, did ask that charges be put against Rudy and the other so called "witnesses", to Judge Hellman.
Thats my greatest interest in this case at the moment. I wonder when Hellman will decide on this? Actually, I'm not clear on how this works in Italy.

 

[Machiavelli]

But Calumnia as a crime does not exist in the US. Suspects accuse others all the time, to try to throw the cops off the trail. The police check it out, and if the evidence is weak or proves that the suspect is really guilty, they get convicted of that crime. The person accused could sue in civil court, but I don't think this happens too often.

But this does not make the action go away.
The US is another country anyway, and sovereign countries have different laws. Selling cocaine is not a crime in some countries. If you do it there.

I can't help but wonder, why has Rudy not been charged with Calumnia? He claimed Amanda and Raffaele killed Meredith, and that is false. Does it shield him that he wrote it in a letter that Mignini read in court? I don't see why.

Maybe because it's not false. Who established it was false? Nobody, by now. On the contrary, there is a verdict confirmed by the supreme court saying Rudy killed with Amanda and Raffaele: he was not alone, and he is totally innocent of a breaking into the apartment and burglary. How can he be accused of calunnia as long as this verdict is valid?

What about Patrick? He has stated in public awful things about Knox, and his attorney made all sorts of charges about her in court, which are proveably false. He called her "sex obsessed", and a "witch". Is that OK?

Well, calling someone a which (which was not exactly what Pacelli said btw) is not a calunnia. Saying awful things is not calunnia. The calunnia is a false testimony. Alessi and Aviello, the defence's witnesses, committed a calunnia.

 

[Machiavelli]

I've located the best version of the Nov 7 memorandum I can find. It is from direct examination from Lumumba's lawyer at trial. Perhaps someone else has a more full copy of the memorandum in question:

...

I'm afraid Pacelli is just mistaking the day (or the day appears mistaken in the trial file). He is not reading any new memorandum, he was just speaking about the memorandum of the 6th.

 

[Dougm]

But this does not make the action go away.
The US is another country anyway, and sovereign countries have different laws. Selling cocaine is not a crime in some countries. If you do it there.

I didn't say it makes it go away, or that it is relevent to her conviction. I was responding to your post that this same thing would be criminal in the US.

Maybe because it's not false. Who established it was false? Nobody, by now. On the contrary, there is a verdict confirmed by the supreme court saying Rudy killed with Amanda and Raffaele: he was not alone, and he is totally innocent of a breaking into the apartment and burglary. How can he be accused of calunnia as long as this verdict is valid?

I would agree with you based on the premise that AK and RS's trial is not over yet, until it goes to the SC. However, it is my understanding that the Supreme Court did not rule that Rudy killed Meredith the Amanda and Raffaele, but that he killed her with others, and that it was not their role to determine who those others were, given that there is a separate trial for that. How can Amanda and Raffaele be convicted in a court proceeding they had no presence at?

Well, calling someone a which (which was not exactly what Pacelli said btw) is not a calunnia. Saying awful things is not calunnia. The calunnia is a false testimony. Alessi and Aviello, the defence's witnesses, committed a calunnia.

So calling her whatever Pacelli called her is fine, he could have called her Satan himself (what was it from the first trial, "luciferina"?), and that seems to be fine. And Rudy claimed they killed Meredith, but has no more evidence than there was against Patrick. But that is OK too. I don't get it. And I am really glad I don't.

 

[Paninaro]

The calunnia conviction is not right or wrong depending on how you see it: the calunnia is a crime, a felony, that means something objective. People who commit it must objectively pay. To say it's subjective is like saying that theft is subjective: some people do make these claims "I steal a public object or evade taxes" and this is wrong or right depending what you think: if you think it's wrong to pay taxes you may think it's right to unlawfully evade them. It's a theft or not, depends who you think is the owner of the object.

A Calunnia conviction may be right in the context of Italian justice. The problem is that Italian justice in this instance is medieval and unjust. An person accused of but innocent of murder should never have to serve time for a crime like this under any circumstances.

To point this out is no more racism than criticizing Italian politics. Why should it be?

 

[Machiavelli]

I would agree with you based on the premise that AK and RS's trial is not over yet, until it goes to the SC. However, it is my understanding that the Supreme Court did not rule that Rudy killed Meredith the Amanda and Raffaele, but that he killed her with others, and that it was not their role to determine who those others were, given that there is a separate trial for that. How can Amanda and Raffaele be convicted in a court proceeding they had no presence at?

It is the Rudy Guede's trial which is over, and this rules out the chance to charge him for calunnia: you just cannot prove his testimony was false. His verdict is evidence. And his verdict says he did not rape and kill Meredith and he did not commit any burglary. There is a motivation about this. You cannot claim his accusation against Knox is false beyond doubt, especially not in the light of his sentencing report.

So calling her whatever Pacelli called her is fine, he could have called her Satan himself (what was it from the first trial, "luciferina"?), and that seems to be fine. And Rudy claimed they killed Meredith, but has no more evidence than there was against Patrick. But that is OK too. I don't get it. And I am really glad I don't.

I did not say "it's fine", I said it's not a calunnia. I criticized Pacelli's language at the time of the first trial, but not only Pacelli's, but this issue is about whether things are appropriate, respectful. The calunnia is a crime against the state, insulting someone is certainly not a crime against the state.

 

[Machiavelli]

A Calunnia conviction may be right in the context of Italian justice. The problem is that Italian justice in this instance is medieval and unjust. An person accused of but innocent of murder should never have to serve time for a crime like this under any circumstances.

Well it's not a problem for those who don't chose to stay in Italy. Let be the residents who discuss alone about their problems.

To point this out is no more racism than criticizing Italian politics. Why should it be?

Pointing this out is not what has been done for example by Osterwelle: what she/he said instead is that maybe judges wre just saving face, but anyway if this was true or not did not matter. This is not like criticizing Italian politics. In fact it is not even a criticism at all.

 

[Dougm]

I did not say "it's fine", I said it's not a calunnia. I criticized Pacelli's language at the time of the first trial, but not only Pacelli's, but this issue is about whether things are appropriate, respectful. The calunnia is a crime against the state, insulting someone is certainly not a crime against the state.

So it's about "respectful" vs. "false"? I would certainly say that many of the things that Pacelli, Maresca, and Miginini said about Knox in court are proveably false. And they were said in an attempt to keep her in jail. So lies were said, in court, with malice in an attempt to cause harm.

But I guess that is OK.

 

[Machiavelli]

So it's about "respectful" vs. "false"? I would certainly say that many of the things that Pacelli, Maresca, and Miginini said about Knox in court are proveably false. And they were said in an attempt to keep her in jail. So lies were said, in court, with malice in an attempt to cause harm.

No it is not just respectful versus false. It must be a false testimony. A false information about a crime, a fabricated evidence. And must be given to a judicial authority or to an authority with specific obligations towards the judiciary. And the person falsely accused must be proven innocent of the crime (not just "not guilty").

I think you cannot state anyway that Mignini, Maresca no anyone else fabricated evidence nor brought false evidence with malice.

 

[Poppy1016]

Does anyone know of any ongoing investiations going on to find who the others were that heped Rudy kill Merideth? Since the Supreme Court thinks others are involved, it seems as though the investigation should be ongoing.

 

[Poppy1016]

Mach, if AK is innocent, how could she know who killed Merideth? IMO,if she wasn't there, she couldn't have "knowingly" committed calunnia.

 

[Dougm]

No it is not just respectful versus false. It must be a false testimony. A false information about a crime, a fabricated evidence. And must be given to a judicial authority or to an authority with specific obligations towards the judiciary. And the person falsely accused must be proven innocent of the crime (not just "not guilty").

I think you cannot state anyway that Mignini, Maresca no anyone else fabricated evidence nor brought false evidence with malice.

If Knox had just told the police that Lumumba was a sex-obsessed warlock, who is dirty inside and out, would that have been OK?

 

[Machiavelli]

Justice, fairness and truth are universal.

Justice is absolutely not universal. Nor fairness.

Truth might be universal as an ideal concept (maybe). But not in human practice: nobody has "the Truth", only aspects of it. Foremost, the paths and rules to search and come to the truth can be very different.

 

[Dougm]

Does anyone know of any ongoing investiations going on to find who the others were that heped Rudy kill Merideth? Since the Supreme Court thinks others are involved, it seems as though the investigation should be ongoing.

Too bad OJ is locked up. He could help them find "the real killers".

 

[Machiavelli]

If Knox had just told the police that Lumumba was a sex-obsessed warlock, who is dirty inside and out, would that have been OK?

If she said only that, it would not be a calunnia. She has to give false information to commit a calunnia. Opinions such as judgements do not count. Take away the word "ok", we are talking about whehter something is a calunnia, not whether it is "ok", "ok" doesn't mean anything.

 

[Poppy1016]

If she said only that, it would not be a calunnia. She has to give false information to commit a calunnia. Opinions such as judgements do not count. Take away the word "ok", we are talking about whehter something is a calunnia, not whether it is "ok", "ok" doesn't mean anything.

One of the synonyms for colunnia is smear. I suppose you think Ak's character was not smeared.

 

[Paninaro]

Maybe because it's not false. Who established it was false? Nobody, by now. On the contrary, there is a verdict confirmed by the supreme court saying Rudy killed with Amanda and Raffaele: he was not alone, and he is totally innocent of a breaking into the apartment and burglary. How can he be accused of calunnia as long as this verdict is valid?

When the non guilty verdict is confirmed and Knox and Sollecito are declared not guilty, the Guede will have lied and will have committed Calunnia for accusing them of murder in court.

Lumumba and his lawyers have slandered Knox in court calling her a witch. They may not be convicted of this, but it's true anyhow. Lumumba has even after the non guilty verdict called her guilty on Italian TV, without being pressured by the police and without knowing anything about Knox's guilt other than his own feelings about her. Obviously for his own gain. He has lied about how the police treated him, either by saying they hit him or by later denying this.

The supreme court have committed a grave injustice to Knox and Sollecto if they have declared Knox and Sollecito guilty of murder without testing or considering the evidence against them. If you have two conflicting verdicts both upheld by the supreme court, then your judicial system is a total mess, regardless of the guilt or non guilt of Knox and Sollecito.

A suspect is either to be declared innocent or guilty. Everyone who is not guilty is automatically to be assumed innocent. This is in the European Convention of Human Rights and the difference between different kinds of acquittals in Italian law is a breach of this convention and a bad joke, further underlining the need for reform of Italian justice.

 

[Dougm]

If she said only that, it would not be a calunnia. She has to give false information to commit a calunnia. Opinions such as judgements do not count. Take away the word "ok", we are talking about whehter something is a calunnia, not whether it is "ok", "ok" doesn't mean anything.

I personally think that calling someone "sex-obsessed" with no evidence of this is a false accusation, delivered with malice.