Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

precautionary detention

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,

Thanks. Babelfish gives for one paragraph, "The Criminal procedure is clear. The precautionary guard in jail is one of the possible measures, and the judge in estimating the single case must adhere to the principles of adequacy and proportionality. The jail is the extreme and exceptional measure, to which resorting when every other measure turns out inadequate. How to say it better?"

 

[RoseMontague]

RoseMontague,

Thanks. Babelfish gives for one paragraph, "The Criminal procedure is clear. The precautionary guard in jail is one of the possible measures, and the judge in estimating the single case must adhere to the principles of adequacy and proportionality. The jail is the extreme and exceptional measure, to which resorting when every other measure turns out inadequate. How to say it better?"

It goes on to say:

The custody was established as a tool to protect the investigation. To apply there must be evidence of the serious (not suspicious!) Of guilt and at least one of the interim requirements (danger of escape, tampering with evidence, re-offending).

Now, according to the preliminary hearing judge in the case of Sabrina and Cosima we would all three requirements. Do you see them, right, both ready to flee to Brazil in the footsteps of Baptists? Sabrina has not fled after the arrest of his father. . Cosima was arrested seven months after the discovery of the body, and yet she remained there in that house when the news of his arrest circulated for days already. And the prison is really the only remedy? There's arrest, the obligation of residence, the electronic bracelet (!). The control of the spouses may act on alternative, less afflicted. The judge goes on to say that the "hype" of the story could cause "possible associates and admirers" of the two (presumed innocent) to facilitate the run. Of course, to Brazil in the footsteps of Baptists.

And the evidence for guilt has already been pointed out by the SC as inadequate for detention, this is a redo:

Who of you knows that the Supreme Court has already canceled by reference, twice, the order for custody against Sabrina and Cosima? In other words, the Supreme Court has rebuked the Attorney Taranto: "As it is justified, the order is unlawful. Motivatela meglio”. Motivate them better. " Indeed, the Supreme Court has put on paper that the serious indications of guilt borne by the two are non-existent.

 

[Grinder]

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.

I completely agree. Even if she were guilty, it would make no sense for her to tell the Patrick story unless she was forced into it.

 

[Grinder]

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.

Yes. The fact that defense lawyers in Italy are on strike because the system sucks seem to fall on the side of those of us that have been arguing the system sucks. Are the Italian lawyers racist?

 

[Osterwelle]

I completely agree. Even if she were guilty, it would make no sense for her to tell the Patrick story unless she was forced into it.

Exactly, it wouldn't make any sense either way.

If she's not guilty (and wasn't at the scene of the crime), accusing anybody out of free will would be just dumb and accusing Patrick even dumber. She knew he was most likely still working in the bar that evening, despite the fact that he told her she didn't have to come.
Also, putting herself at the crime scene by telling the police such nonsense like "I was in the kitchen covering my ears" doesn't even remotely make sense. She just could've told something like "I saw him on my way to Raffele" or whatever. Almost any story would've been better.

Same applies to the scenario if she actually were guilty (or at least at the scene of the crime).

In addition, in this case there's also no convincing reason why she shouldn't have accused the guy who left the bloody handprint on the wall. After all the effort she and Raffaele must've put in the "clean-up" (removing all of their traces and leaving only Guede's) and of course the "staged break-in" which meets Guede's modus operandi.
It wouldn't have made sense to even wait until the first interrogation, they could've called the cops right after the "clean-up" or at least the next morning. Nobody with an even remotely clear mind would tell something like "I went to the cottage, noticed blood in the bathroom and then went back to my boyfriend's for breakfast" if that person were indeed guilty.

To round it up, I can think of these possible scenarios why she wouldn't accuse Guede, but none of them makes sense:

1. She wanted to protect him for some reason. Certainly not, especially when it means to put herself behind bars. That would even be hard to comprehend if it were Raffaele.

2. Fear of him killing her if she talked? Doesn't make sense either. She's been to the police a lot in the following days but still went to the university and everything. No way would she have done either of that out of free will if she had to fear Guede getting rid of her because he was afraid that she would talk. She would've left the country on the next plane, that's for certain.

3. Last scenario: She was involved and didn't want to accuse him so he wouldn't in return accuse her? Also hard to understand, but maybe the most likely option. However, in the end it would've been Amanda's and Raffaele's word against his.

-
Osterwelle

 

[Grinder]

3) To object, and connect the victim's father, John, and his long past employment with a newspaper that now prints pictures of a previously declared guilty murderess is a stretch longer than even the usual here.
Any unbiased, non agenda blinded person would:
a) Understand newspapers print what their readers want to see
b) If one personally finds what they print to be objectionable *to them*. a sensible person would inform the paper.
And not connect a long retired and totally unconnected grieving father

The article linked below titled It's utterly despicable that the girl jailed for killing my daughter has become a celebrity
By JOHN KERCHER on 2nd December 2010

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...father-passionate-attack-cult-Foxy-Knoxy.html

Then the same tab:Without a care in the world: Amanda Knox walks arm-in-arm with her boyfriend as the pair shop for veg in Chinatown
By LEON WATSON 16th November 2011

The very same "paper" that John wrote for and was published criticizing the world for making Amanda a celebrity is the leading edge of printing pictures of her now.

I'm not criticizing Kercher. I'm criticizing the tab and the hypocrisy of following her around taking pictures of her trying to live a quiet life and then commenting that she is insensitive by going to a party on Oct. 30 dressed as a Sounder player. I believe Mr. Kercher has voiced complaints in this regard and had "his" paper not paid for the pictures and published them he wouldn't know what she was doing.

I can't imagine the hue and cry you would be emitting if the West Seattle Herald was publishing these pictures on a daily basis.

You believe it's okay to publish anything the readers want? Really?

 

[Didaktylos]

Quite frankly, Kercher is befouling his daughter's memory with his whining.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Quite frankly, Kercher is befouling his daughter's memory with his whining.

I would agree. I think even moreso now when he makes disparaging remarks and complaints after the acquittals. And of course the worst of it is that it is the same paper in which he voiced all of his earlier complaints which is keeping this whole thing with Knox alive. But I think this is all to a purpose, and no accident, as has been said.

 

[Machiavelli]

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

What do you mean exactly by emotionally invested?

At the beginning of my participation in forums about the case, I used to write comments on Candace Dempsey's blog. Those who followed my posts at the time (in 2008) know that I was not convinced about guilt and very skeptical about guilty theories. My convincement about guilt became certain only in 2009 during Masseis' trial.

However, my opposition to the innocentisti community grew faster than my convincement in the defendant's guilt.

 

[el buscador]

What do you mean exactly by emotionally invested?

At the beginning of my participation in forums about the case, I used to write comments on Candace Dempsey's blog. Those who followed my posts at the time (in 2008) know that I was not convinced about guilt and very skeptical about guilty theories. My convincement about guilt became certain only in 2009 during Masseis' trial.

However, my opposition to the innocentisti community grew faster than my convincement in the defendant's guilt.

So, what keeps you interested now, the guilt of Amanda/Raf or the innocentisti community?

 

[smkovalinksy]

What do you mean exactly by emotionally invested?

At the beginning of my participation in forums about the case, I used to write comments on Candace Dempsey's blog. Those who followed my posts at the time (in 2008) know that I was not convinced about guilt and very skeptical about guilty theories. My convincement about guilt became certain only in 2009 during Masseis' trial.

However, my opposition to the innocentisti community grew faster than my convincement in the defendant's guilt.

I think this may be the crux of the problem. I had already discerned this about you.

 

[Machiavelli]

...
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.

I think that's more or less correct.

I have moral beliefs and moral feelings and opinions, personally, beyond the letter of the law. But they are mine, they have a context, and they are not universal. I think it's possible to discuss the philosophical principles by which we organize our judgement and sense of morality. But I think it would make no sense to just start from the assumption they are universal. To start, it's just better base reasonings only on the facts expressed by bri1 above.

 

[Machiavelli]

So, what keeps you interested now, the guilt of Amanda/Raf or the innocentisti community?

Definitely the second topic. I'm interested in arguments and reasonings, cultures and media. I'm also interested in the funcioning of the justice system. I consider Knox and Sollecito two disturbed or disgraced individuals, I'm not really interested in chasing disturbed individuals to punish them. And in this case the focus of my concern in the definition of justice is the Kerchers' family, not Knox or Sollecito.

 

[Osterwelle]

1) I agree that the crime of calunnia is found only in Italy.
But must wonder why anyone would suggest that callunia not appearing in Penal codes of any other nations proves much except Italians wrote their Penal Code 368 in their Italian language.
That hardly can be stretched to argue innocence...can it ? ?
(plz note 368 fact check, Doc, and also case not poster specific topic)

There are similiar laws in other countries but usually nobody will be condemned on such shaky grounds like it was done in the AK case.

For example, in Germany alone the way the police handled the "interrogation" would most certainly render all "confessions" void.

§136 StPO states:

(1) The freedom to make decisions and to manifest the will of the accused may not be affected by abuse, fatigue, physical interference, the administration of drugs, torment, deception or hypnosis. Coercion may be used only if the criminal law permits. The threat of a prohibited action according to the law and the promise of a non-statutory benefit is prohibited.
(2) Measures that affect the memory or the capacity of discernment of the accused are not permitted.
(3) The prohibition of paragraphs 1 and 2 shall apply without regard to the consent of the accused. Statements that are in violation of this prohibition shall not be disposed even if the accused agreed to their use.

And even if the "confession" was permissable, the false accusation of someone who was appearently suggested by the police would not be punishable anyway.

-
Osterwelle

 

[Osterwelle]

I consider Knox and Sollecito two disturbed or disgraced individuals,

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...

-
Osterwelle

 

[Machiavelli]

"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.

....
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?

....

Thanks for showing my statements are correct, and for showing everybody your shortcomings in logic.

If one knowingly gives false information, implies she gives false information.
So if "she has to knowingly give false information to commit a calunnia" is correct, this implies "she has to give false information to commit a calunnia" must be correct (the first set in fact is a sub-set of the second: hence, it's correct to state that the second contains the first: if an animal is a white cat, it is correct to say the animal is a cat).

Your basic failure in distinguishing elementary logical functions does not require comments.

 

[el buscador]

Thanks for showing my statements are correct, and for showing everybody your shortcomings in logic.

If one knowingly gives false information, implies she gives false information.
So if "she has to knowingly give false information to commit a calunnia" is correct, this implies "she has to give false information to commit a calunnia" must be correct (the first set in fact is a sub-set of the second: hence, it's correct to state that the second contains the first: if an animal is a white cat, it is correct to say the animal is a cat).

Your basic failure in distinguishing elementary logical functions does not require comments.

What if she didn't know it was false?

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

No, in the original Italian questioning I didn't see a quoting of text not contained in the first memoriale. Pacelli doesn't really make any quoting; unfortunately I don't have the original video any more. But I recall it was not a quoting of text.
About the alleged second memorandum, as you see Pacelli says she repeats her accusation on Patrick. From this and other elements I tend to think he is always talking about the written memorandum of the 6th as opposed to the spontaneous statement. He says she repeats her accusation on Patrick: we should at least see this alleged memorandum to assume its existence, since it is not cited in the trial documentation.

 

[Matthew Best]

Thanks for showing my statements are correct, and for showing everybody your shortcomings in logic.

If one knowingly gives false information, implies she gives false information.
So if "she has to knowingly give false information to commit a calunnia" is correct, this implies "she has to give false information to commit a calunnia" must be correct (the first set in fact is a sub-set of the second: hence, it's correct to state that the second contains the first: if an animal is a white cat, it is correct to say the animal is a cat).

Your basic failure in distinguishing elementary logical functions does not require comments.

So in your view it would also be correct to say "she has to give information to commit a calunnia".

Well, it's correct, but it's not really very helpful to the discussion, is it?

 

[davefoc]

Machiavelli's point is one of logic.

A necessary condition to be guilty of calunnia is that one provides false information.

Another necessary condition is that one must know that the information is false to be guilty of calunnia.

So Machiavelli's point is that he wasn't wrong because he stated the first fact and he just didn't state the second fact which he concedes is also true.


I think Machiavelli is wrong over all about this because:
1. The false accusation was too ambiguous to serve as the basis for a crime.
2. Even if one saw the false accusation as sufficiently clear to be the basis of a crime I think the conditions that it was made under prevent proof beyond a reasonable doubt of intent.
3. If he is hanging his argument that Knox is guilty of calunnia on what Knox wrote in her voluntary statements after the police interrogation he is just bizarrely wrong. Putting the best face on his argument, perhaps there is some sort of language issue here, but I have a hard time even seeing that. Knox is not guilty of calunnia in those statements because she doesn't say anything that can remotely be interpreted as a false accusation when the statements are considered as a whole by somebody that understands English.

I also think Machiavelli's characterization of the law was misleading and it would have been simpler and reasonable for Machiavelli to just concede the point that the crime of calunnia requires knowledge that the accusation is false. But I suspect Machiavelli doesn't agree with that.