Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Ammonitida]

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.

I don't think so. Pacelli speaks multiple times of two memorandums, one from the 6th and one from the 7th. And the one from the 7th contains text not found in the one on the 6th.

CP: In the memorandum of the 6th you name Patrick. On the 7th you write another
memorandum confirming that Patrick is the assassin. But on the 10th, you tell
your mother that you feel terrible because you got him put in prison and you
know he is innocent. Do you confirm this?

 

[TruthCalls]

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.

Except it's not just a fine. She spent four years in jail on a trumped up charge/conviction. The Italian courts absolved themselves of any wrongdoing for three of those four via the calunnia conviction and subsequent three year sentence. If I were Amanda, yeah, I would be relieved the nightmare is mostly over but I would still be damn pissed with this conviction and the three years I lost because of it. Yes, she can't get the years back but she could seek restitution for them.

 

[Dougm]

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.

What do you mean, "his verdict says he did not rape and kill Meredith"?? What is he in jail for then? He was convicted of the murder, wasn't he? And his DNA was found inside her??? And his bloody handprint on the pillow case under her??

What was he convicted of then?

 

[RandyN]

Originally Posted by Dougm
"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."

I see Yummi is being extra ignorant lately. That usually means he is losing the argument ...although I haven’t seen any winners from him lately at all.

In my bolding above YummiMach says an incorrect statement...big surprise.

In order to be correct it should read as the following... "She has to KNOWINGLY give false information to commit a calunnia." …….see the difference?

Just as in today’s (15th) adjourned case where the lying, abusive, girl hitting police who have the nerve to bring a slander case against the person they abused will soon find out. There must be knowledge and there must be intent.

In the above case the fool Mignini and his office of idiots (the prosecutors) failed to investigate Knoxs claims. Mignini thinks it is good enough to bring a case against Knox for what she said in her own defense during her trial (which was fraudulently brought BTW)

Migninis office was questioned by a reporter about this slander case he was bringing for the police. It seems this reporter repeatedly asked his office if they intended to investigate the case. NO…says the prosecutor Comodi…What’s to investigate? She said the slander in court. Said what? That the police hit her… Well did they?

I think everyone but the prosecution is smart enough to realize that Mignini had a duty to investigate the accusation. And it is clear from the reporters story (Frank Sfarzo BTW) that the prosecution not only failed to investigate, but refused to do so.

What kind of law man refuses to even run an investigation? He simply makes charges. In any civilized country this would seem outrageous…but for Mignini this is business as usual. While it is clear to the whole modern world that Mignini has a duty to investigate if Knox was hit…perhaps ask the interrogators…Giobbi did head a scream after all…NO? How about checking the interrogation tape? NO? Check with the interrupter…NO?
Maybe have Stefanoni (lol..ya I know) check Rita F hands for DNA cells from Knoxs head…NO?

Lots of investigation that Mignini could have and should have done. But he did NONE OF IT!

Did he forget? No…impossible…he was reminded to do his job by this reporter. And when he knew the interrogation tape was missing did he hesitate because this certainly makes the police look foolish if not incompetent? No…no hesitation at all…because that is how one in power abuses his office. He brings charges without probable cause.

He likely ordered the destruction on the interrogation tape himself…who can know? But to have the ball$ to even bring this case is extraordinary…and they don’t bother to even pretend to investigate. That’s illegal and abusive prosecution. Mignini failed in his obligated duty to protect evidence that could help a defendant in her case….yes he is required by law to do it.

I don’t understand why the dumb defense lawyers aren’t filing charges yet. Perhaps they wait for the Supreme Court to uphold the rightful appeal trial finding after they toss out the calunnia charge of course. Any fool can understand that Knox had no knowledge if Lumumba was innocent or guilty. He acted quite suspicious the morning of Nov 5th 2007 after all. What with approaching Knox as she came out from her morning class. Why did Lumumba question Knox about the case? I’m certain that had alarm bells going off in AK head…Is he the one? And then the police tell her later that they know Patrick is involved. (can there be any doubt still?)

So it is impossible for Knox to commit calunnia…first against Lumumba (who could have very well been the killer…who knows maybe he was Rudys lookout) and so without knowledge. And it is impossible for Knox to slander the police because the prosecutor refused to investigate her claims.
He refused to do his job because of the blind hate and vendetta he had against Americans because one had already shown him to be a fool to the world. Doug Preston first revealed Mignini to be an idiot. Then Mignini set out to prove to the world that Preston was right all along.

What a freakin genius Mignini….lol You too Yummi.

 

[RandyN]

What do you mean, "his verdict says he did not rape and kill Meredith"?? What is he in jail for then? He was convicted of the murder, wasn't he? And his DNA was found inside her??? And his bloody handprint on the pillow case under her??

What was he convicted of then?

Come on Doug...

You know Rudy was just a poor black man who only tried to help. Black man found and all that.

Rudy played those idiots like the fiddle Nero used while he watched Rome burn.

No rape? Nope.. just DNA from Rudy inside the dead girls vagina. (psssttt and semen on the pillow under her)

You have to watch Mach...he will try to trip you up with a technicality like… no Rudy did not rape and kill....

Rudy killed and then raped...see the difference? Stop listening to this guy...he’s a waste of brain power and words.

I’ve heard better debate on a playground

 

[Kaosium]

No, acquittal on fast track trial is not that extraordinary. For example the most recent high profile case was the Garlasco murder, where Alberto Stasi was acquitted on grounds of insufficient evidence in first instance with a short trial. His appeal is starting now.
For short trial (or fast trial) maybe to avoid confusion we should just use the Italian term rito abbreviato (abbreviated procedure). That is the legal option we are talking about.

Yay! More words to learn how to spell and put into italics! Rito abbreviato (fast track) --I think I've got it.

I think most time the rito abbreviato is opted because of a likely conviction, but it is not always so; sometimes the defendant chooses the option to exploit some basic shortcoming in the preliminary investigation, or because doesn’t expect to find further evidence in their defence, doesn’t have witnesses or experts.
It is not frequent, but not really something extraordinary. And it is not a matter of weak case versus strong defence, it is rather a technical strategy that may depend on the kind of evidence that the defence deems available. It is a strategy that exploits timings and time limitations in evidence collection.

OK, thanks! There's tactical reasons for choosing it as well.

The media are usually much more sober and less judgemental than you may think. However, reporters on main newspapers are specialized in murder investigations and usually perceive – and convey - the correct findings and the state of investigation/trial. There are no British – style tabloids, in fat there are some weekly magazines with this styles (like Oggi) but are marginal.

From reporting on this case and others I've come across, notably the Scazzi case, it seems sometimes 'sober and less judgmental' amounts to simply accepting whatever inane theory which the prosecution comes up with at face value. Sometimes laughter is the best medicine, a little ridicule in the papers at times for really silly theories might have value. That's something the diffamazione and calunnia laws seem to prevent.

What do you mean for “good cause”? Franzoni was certainly guilty.

I was referring to the Monster of Florence case. As for the other, I am unaware of the facts of the case.

I have really no idea, but at the end of the Pacciani – Vanni trial there was an acknowledgment that the Monster was not a lone person, and possibly there was a higher level, a mastermind.

However was that 'acknowledgment' created in the same way additional killers were 'added to' the Kercher murder case? In other words they had (or would have) 'evidence' against multiple people, and of course prosecuted them, thus on some (legal) level it was 'acknowledged' there were multiple killers, when in fact all that really amounted to was justifying bogus theories and botched investigations?

The Monster of Florence was actually suspected of being a series of ritual murders of a satanic sect, resembling other cases of serial ritualistic murders that were later discovered in Italy, committed by sectarian groups. Mignini did not produce a satanic ritual theory on the Monster of Florence: the theory already existed, had been put forward officially. Moreover, doctor Narducci had fallen in suspicion since prior to Mignini entry in the story.

Yes, it all seemed like a Michele Giuttari police thriller, didn't it?

The convictions, I don’t know. I only know something in detail about the Franzoni acquittal: this was annulled on several reasons, among them because the Cassazione found that the concept of “reasonable doubt” had not been not applied properly, the doubt as motivated was not reasonable.

Sorry, brain-fart, I meant acquittals.

Unfortunately I find quite difficult to make predictions on Supreme Court's decisions. I lack specific competence, and there is an intrinsic unpredictable element. The grounds can be very technical and reasons may appear exhoteric and bizarre to the normal observer taking in account only facts and evidence.

So far Mignini is hoping for something about the DNA experts report not be requested on time and that thing Lanetti (?) said regarding the 'only thing we know is that Meredith Kercher is dead' as prejudicial?

It’s always rito abbreviato, always the same thing. The term “fast” is relative, given that the Cogne process lasted 8 years.

Jumbo shrimp!

Yes. Although this is a very unusual case of “partial modification”. Partial modification usually is something minor like Rudy Guede’s sentence reduction. Technically however also the Sollecito-Knox verdict is only partly changed, not overturned. Knox technically still lost, she was found guilty on one of the charges.

Thanks what I figured. Thanks for the input btw.

What I anticipate as most likely, is that the charges of calunnia and murder won’t be quashed or confirmed each one standing itself. A separate decision won’t be just seen as logically and procedurally possible; I think instead the verdict with the two charges will just be assessed as good or bad as a whole. The cassazione will only decide if the verdict can stand together as it is, if it’s consistent logically and procedurally, or not. If the supreme court doesn’t like it, they will send back the verdict and order a new trial on all charges.

So they would separate the murder charges from the slander charge and strike down everything and order two new trials? Could Mignini theoretically attach himself to that prosecution? Are those prosecutions traditionally done by any of the same prosecution teams that worked on the previous trials?

For some reason I can see this happening. They might be that out of touch!

 

[Osterwelle]

This is something I call racism.

Please spare me your gross redefinition of "racism", will you?

And the action of calunnia is defined as a voluntary action, a false accusation or a voluntary release of false evidence against a person whom is known to be innocent, to an authority, in order to obstruct justice. The key of this criminal action is the acknowledgment that it was done voluntarily, deliberately, maliciously, not as a result of force, not in state of incapacity or limitation of free will. You might be skeptical on the proof of this. But the action is objective, proof of voluntariness can only be verified or disproven, it does not depend on how you see it.

Well and that's the main problem I have with this silly calunnia charge. I don't believe it was voluntarily, deliberate or maliciously but it was as a result of force and I don't believe Amanda would've ever accused Patrick if she weren't pushed into it by the police. It just doesn't make sense, regardless if she's guilty or not.
She never would have been convicted in many other countries, at least not in mine and certainly not for three years. Instead the police officers would've gotten themselves in serious trouble by a) arresting someone (Patrick) on such a vague "accusation", b) not recording the interrogation, c) not providing/denying a lawyer, etc.
You will have to accept the fact that I see this calunnia conviction and the whole concept as it is executed in Italy as false and unjust. And this has nothing to do with "racism", my own country also has a couple of laws I find unjust. It's my right to disagree and even to fight against it if I want to. That's democracy for you.

-
Osterwelle

 

[Osterwelle]

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

[SARCASM]But they have Amanda's "lovers-list", that's proof, innit?[/SARCASM]

-
Osterwelle

 

[bri1]

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.

OK, for everyone who engages with Mach on this forum:

Mach clearly believes that as long as what happened in this case happened in accordance with the letter of Italian Law, then it is just.

He is a moral relativist, and thinks that morality is 'made' or decided by custom or law. Those of us who think that there are objective moral principles of justice that custom or law can come close to, or fall short of are talking past him.

Of course, therefore, any criticism of the Italian Justice system will be met with a (figurative) blank eyed stare, and muddled accusations of racism.

It is a very confused position, relativism. You might as well have a completely arbitary set of laws and customs, with the only parameters being pragmatic concerns such as whether people will (generally accept and abide by them).

The only topics of conversation with Mach, then are:
1. What exactly is Italian law
2. How exactly has this law been applied
3. What the facts of the case are

That's it.

 

[RoseMontague]

I don't think so. Pacelli speaks multiple times of two memorandums, one from the 6th and one from the 7th. And the one from the 7th contains text not found in the one on the 6th.

Yes, Machiavelli is wrong about this. There are clearly two different writings on two different days. Personally, I believe the memorandum of the 7th is referring to what we call the first 7 pages of her prison diary. Page 6 reads similar to what we have quoted here considering they are talking in Italian about an English memorandum and we are translating that again back into English.

 

[RoseMontague]

But I have no motive. I have nothing to loose and to gain from a conclusion or another.
It's just that I see one thing as true and the other as false: I am not bending things to theories. I don't even have a theory about this murder.

Seriously, do you really think anybody is believing you are not emotionally invested in the case for guilt.

 

[RoseMontague]

Federico's mother got actually charged - a criminal lawsuit - when she stated that judge Marieamanuela Guerra did not investigate on Federico's death (which is in fact the truth). Because of this statement, she is currently under trial for defamantion.

She is charged for telling the truth? Another Wow, just Wow moment.

 

[RoseMontague]

This is something I call racism.

This is something I call a false accusation.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

diary and memoriale

Yes, Machiavelli is wrong about this. There are clearly two different writings on two different days. Personally, I believe the memorandum of the 7th is referring to what we call the first 7 pages of her prison diary. Page 6 reads similar to what we have quoted here considering they are talking in Italian about an English memorandum and we are translating that again back into English.

RoseMontague,

Candace Dempsey discussed the second memoriale on pages 184-185 of Murder in Italy. I get the impression that the diary was begun right after the second memoriale.

 

[RoseMontague]

RoseMontague,

Candace Dempsey discussed the second memoriale on pages 184-185 of Murder in Italy. I get the impression that the diary was begun right after the second memoriale.

You may be right about that, Candace says that in her diary she says she is happy she wrote the second memoriale. Interesting.

 

[Fine]

RoseMontague,

Candace Dempsey discussed the second memoriale on pages 184-185 of Murder in Italy. I get the impression that the diary was begun right after the second memoriale.

___________________--

Halides + Rose,

I don't think her Memorandum of November 7th could be a part of Amanda's Diary. Amanda's attorney introduced the Memorandum into the court record, saying explicitly that Amanda had given it to the authorities on November 7th. From the trial trasscript.....

"LG: I accept the reproof. He asked why she didn't tell the penitentiary
police. May I object to this question? She wrote it in the memorandum of
the 7th, on the following morning, to the police that were around her.
She wrote it, it is in the dossier of this trial!"

Amanda's Diary was confiscated much later. Month's later, as I recall.

///

 

[smkovalinksy]

But I have no motive. I have nothing to loose and to gain from a conclusion or another.
It's just that I see one thing as true and the other as false: I am not bending things to theories. I don't even have a theory about this murder.

I guess I just do not see how the facts add up for you. Aren't you uncomfortable without a theory of the murder?

 

[RoseMontague]

Detention order for Sabrina and Cosima attached in this article appropriately called Presumed Guilty.

http://www.thefrontpage.it/2011/11/15/presunte-colpevoli/

http://www.lavocedimanduria.it/wp/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2011/11/rigetto-carriere-20111114.pdf

 

[RoseMontague]

___________________--

Halides + Rose,

I don't think her Memorandum of November 7th could be a part of Amanda's Diary. Amanda's attorney introduced the Memorandum into the court record, saying explicitly that Amanda had given it to the authorities on November 7th. From the trial trasscript.....

"LG: I accept the reproof. He asked why she didn't tell the penitentiary
police. May I object to this question? She wrote it in the memorandum of
the 7th, on the following morning, to the police that were around her.
She wrote it, it is in the dossier of this trial!"

Amanda's Diary was confiscated much later. Month's later, as I recall.

///

I believe both you and Prof. Halkides are correct.

 

[RoseMontague]

Here is a quick Google translation of that detention order:

And a quote:

The adequacy of the measure

In view of above, and so serious, poignant and aliarmanti precautionary needs, the less afflictive precautionary measure of house arrest still appears manifestly inadequate in all the three aspects mentioned above, already significant peril that, in general, in the face of facts of such extreme gravity forces the Judges to adopt a yardstick marked with absolute prudence and caution. But, specifically, this inadequacy and, so to say, almost in re ipsa with regard to risk of flight (because of the cogency of the factors that determine it), and equally evident with refer to the risk of recurrence (given the importance of primary goods that are to be protected), and overt, and with reference to the danger of suppression of evidence, since, alia lucdella infrequency of physiological controls related to the regime of house arrest, the relative ease (with the help of modern technologies) to evade any prohibition of communication, de!I'eventuale support from family or others "sympathizers", there are sufficient guarantees that, even from home, the charges can not work successfully in order to try to pollute the sources of evidence, and in order to obtain (nell'eventuate trial proceeding ) statements or complacent!Gold favorable.

Anyone under suspicion for a serious crime can be kept in jail based on this yardstick, regardless of the paucity of evidence. Incredible.