• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bruce Fisher's update book is out today:

Finding Justice in Perugia:
a follow-up to Injustice in Perugia: a book detailing the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito [Kindle Edition]
Bruce Fisher (Author)

http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Justi...B89C/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1321430505&sr=8-1


"Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were wrongfully convicted for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy, becoming trapped in a nightmare that would drag on for 1427 days. During that time a movie was made, books were written, Wikipedia went haywire, online blog wars raged on, journalists were harassed, a rogue prosecutor remained on the job, an Anti-Knox hate group was formed, a grass roots effort became a force to reckon with, a retired FBI Agent raised eyebrows, even Italian politicians chimed in, all while Amanda and Raffaele sat in a prison cell never losing faith that their nightmare would eventually end.

Discover the truth about the grass roots movement that helped to free Amanda and Raffaele. Read heartfelt messages from contributors that gave selflessly to help two complete strangers that had been wronged by many.

"Finding Justice in Perugia" picks up where "Injustice in Perugia" left off, following the case throughout the appeal, detailing the side shows along the way, leading up to the day that Amanda and Raffaele finally found justice in Perugia."
 
Last edited:
Question. Are journalists charged with calunnia if they accuse politicians or prosecutors of wrong doing?
 
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.

Whoa! You're commenting on logic shortcoming and can then state;

"she has to knowingly give false information to commit a calunnia"

is a subset of

"she has to give false information to commit a calunnia"

What in the world are you smoking? Your logic is flat out broken. Providing information based on information provided by trusted sources or providing information 'suggested to me' as a result of brainwashing or hypnosis are but two examples of why the first statement is entirely different from the second. One can not be guilty of calunnia if they honestly believed, for whatever reason, that the information was correct.
 
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.

There's everything on PMF:

AMANDA KNOX TRIAL TESTIMONY said:
Giuliano Mignini: I am interrogating. I am interrogating. Now I'm distracted. Now, the difference between a suspect and a witness -- a person informed of the facts. You said: "I made these declarations so that I could leave, so I could be--" but instead, you were arrested. And you wrote the memorandum after you had been arrested. And you wrote two sentences: I'll read them. "I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that events that could have taken place in my home with Patrick." [In Italian: "I confirm..."]

.
.
.

Giuliano Mignini: I see. All right. I take note of what you're saying. Now, let's talk about your memorandum from the 7th, still written in total autonomy, without anyone around you. You wrote: "I didn't lie when I said that I thought the murderer was Patrick. At that moment I was very stressed and I really did think that it was Patrick." Then you add "But now I know that I can't know who the murderer is, because I remember that I didn't go home." Can you explain
these concept to me?

AMANDA KNOX TRIAL TESTIMONY said:
Luciano Ghirga: 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!
.
.
.
Carlo Pacelli: It's there, Knox's defense produced it, the memorandum from the 7th.

Giancarlo Massei: The 7th.

Luciano Ghirga? Yes, we acquired also the 7th.

Giancarlo Massei: So we have it. Go ahead.

Carlo Pacelli: On the 7th you wrote "I didn't lie when I said the murderer might be Patrick." Why did you write that in your memorandum of the 7th?
.
.
.
Carlo Pacelli: 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?
Amanda Knox: At the moment when I named Patrick, I didn't know if he was innocent or not. I only said it because I was following the suggestion of the police. But when I wrote in the memorandum that I couldn't accept the things I had said in the Questura, for me that meant I couldn't know whether he was the murderer or not, I could only know that I wasn't there.

Is this enough for you?

I really don't know why the full text of 2nd memorandum is nowhere to be found.

-
Osterwelle
 
Was this written by a lucid mind?

Here is a quick Google translation of that detention order:

And a quote:


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

It goes on to say:



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


I realize this is google-translated Italian, but this is some of the worst I've seen, I can barely make sense of it at all. However what I think I've been able to decipher suggests...well...someone explain this to me:

That Ia worth mentioning, for example, the interception in prison environment dell'08 .11.2010 frail Michael Messer, then held, and Ia nephew GREEK Mary, whose binder sheets 309-320 6 fascicles. PM, at one point of the interview (see page 315), just as you are talking about the murder, the grandson alia Messer says verbatim: "You know, where did we go wrong? When done successfully, and we would call the police ... {...) or first aid ... and / lora had been an accident ...something like that ... (...) But we have done .. fitrbacchioni, alluding to the fact that he and his joint (and significant fact, the use of the pronoun "we" and the verb to have first-person plural), immediately dopa "the fact ", ie dopa Ia death of Sarah, rather than experience the Carabinieri, or call the emergency room (perhaps Ia claiming excuse of an" accident "), preferred to" make furbacchloni ", ie trying to get rid of any trace of the crime immediately, eliminating the corpse of the girl.

Further confirmation in this regard emerges from an extract of the interception of the environment in jail 22.10.2010, concerning a conversation between Messer! Michael and Ia daughter Valentina, the interception had been largely transcribed realtit giit _ during the investigation (see pages 266-277 binder file 6 AM), Phase Ia very RNA initial interview had been reported only in summary form, without elements that emerge from it particular interest (who, as we will see, there were, and which evidently Ia PG investigators she had not noticed, perhaps because of an incomplete knowledge of slang expressions used by respondents), 7111/2011 preliminary hearing of the PM has instead produced a CD containing the video-audio. extrapolation of this initial part of the interview, minutes from 00:00 to 02:31 min used with re1ativa Ia transcript paper.

In the video you actually see the Michael Messer and Ia daughter Valentina, meeting each other, hug each other and burst into tears at this juncture of strong emotion for both Ia daughter begins telling his father that loves g1i the same (although a week earlier, on October 15, his father had made statements for first time in the Ia accusing daughter Sabrina Ia), and that Sabrina's vuo1e well, though now apparently can not come to see him, just because she was arrested and, in fact, Valentina asked him "you know that is not here?" (Ie in prison), and Messer replied in the affirmative, saying quote "lu turnover is" (ie, alluding to the fact, that the fact of the murder), and at this point, while Valentina crying, Misseri pronounced in dialect, still in tears, Ia exact words "there is ... Sabrina Muccia Ia cu ni para / a ...". Now, just watching the video you can capture the gesture made by the very eloquent Misseri say these words: for He shakes hands folded several times, in the typical Italian gesture of us, that means not the attitude of the dark and of a fact or circumstance, and will learn the details, but rather giit of those who know exactly how things are but wishes to express disapproval, not sharing, so that these! "We" start (as we all know people who understand the dialect spoken in these areas of Salento), means not 'the' what ', but' why '. "Pros ache."

1'a that purpose. "And all that is logically connected to! followed by the verb used Misseri, ie "Cow," which, in the Salento dialect, and in particular the one spoken in the area of Avetrana Manduria and 2, is commonly used in the double sense RNA complementary to "cover, silenced" 3 •In other words, exact words uttered by MISSERJ Ia, especially in light of the accompanying gestualitit absolutely unequivocal, it must be translated thus: "but why Sabrina is silent ... that (they) speak ..." in those! in short, the juncture Messer, in a dramatic moment of despair and failure of momentary emotional, thinking that somewhere alia daughter Sabrina Giomo and in prison (among other things, as a result of his own charges), laments the fact that the same Ia Sabrina prefers silent (on "lu turnover", meaning to! the fact of murder) or has made or may make statements giit which continues to "cover" Ia realtit of real events, the fact MISSERJ think that the point at which you arrived, and no

2 The writer has Ia luck - referring to this case, that other things need any more correctly interpreted as the many expressions and slang dialect that recur in discussions of the various protagonists - to fully understand the dialect spoken by the actors, and because he lived far from 'childhood and until about ten years ago in a country on the eastern side of the province of Taranto, where people speak a dialect very similar to that after all avetranese (and totally different from that of the capital), and because of onna twelve years, for farniliari personal reasons, he attended assiduously, especially during spring and summer! 'geographical area in which the place and understood Hail CCAD are the facts, thus having had the opportunity to learn all the nuances of language of that area.

3 A similar verbal, with the same meaning as "cover, silenced" to hide something, and present actually in other southern dialects, and in the Calabrian and Sicilian segnatarnente "ammucciari" and in Campania and Basilicata "Batch!the "origin of the word is traced back to the old French · · mucier" in turn derived from Iatino vulgar "lnuciare" (see Etymological Dictionary of Italian dialects, Utet 2005), then also transfused in Tuscany (see the line of 127 singing dell'lnfemo XXIV of Dante, when meeting with Vanni Fucci, "and I to! Duke: tell him that cow, and demand to blame here giit '/ Extorted, I saw blood and worries homo "). it is worth any more Ia, Ia, and that her daughter would do well now to tell all he knows of 'murder ("cu ni talk", meaning "to speak").

And that-and in fact very significant as can be seen very well in the video-I
daughter Valentina at this point, having understood the-fly when alluding CIA father, changes attitude completely and suddenly, to adjust the neck sweater, crying suddenly stops and sits down, immediately bringing the conversation to other topics (see page 2. transcription of the UPA produced 07.11.2011, which actually true word aile spoken and heard in the video).
Now, if we see the implications of this phrase uttered by COSL MlSSERI are not "one way" - that is demonstrative of guilt for the murder of Sabrina - as claimed by Attorney Ia (Ia second with that exclamation, which the prisoner was invited ideally Ia daughter Sabrina to confess): In theory, indeed, that phrase might well be compatible with the thesis defense Ia (Ia, which takes sole responsibility of Michele MlSSERI nell'assassinio), whichever ie to demonstrate only that Sabrina was, in fact, to aware of the responsibility of the father, and that this' last one just for that same reason you (the debut of these! communicates with the other daughter Valentina) regretted the fact that Sabrina could continue to "cow", ie to cover, to hide, to make a version of convenience does not conform to the true reality of the facts, instead of talking, finally, and say how they are things (both real and that soon after he returns to attribute responsibility for the murder Ia, Valentina saying "I do not believe that was me"); Ia sentence could then be interpreted in Attic defensive, as if these [the juncture ideally meant Misseri
dissolve [to daughter Sabrina by the bond of filial, and urge it to make statements in which the accused as the sole perpetrator of the homicide.

Do I have this right? They taped the jailhouse conversations between Sabrina and Michele and they think they have found 'evidence' of their complicity in lines like 'where did we go wrong?' That and some meaning in some secret language they have an 'etymological' reference for?!

Reading through the whole thing as best I could, I got the impression they thought they should stay imprisoned because they hadn't cracked yet and if they got out they might interfere with the investigation by appearing innocent!
 
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.

If there was genuine reason for believing that Amanda and Raff had committed the murder, then "disturbed or disgraced" would hardly be an adequate way of describing them. Since there is no such reason, and all indications are that they lost 4 years of their lives simply because they tried to help the police, your continued attacks on them are in themselves a disgrace.
 
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.

But if you still believe Knox and Sollecito are guilty of Meredith's murder, and if your definition of justice is the Kerchers' family, then you must be interested in Knox and Sollecito and your motivation must remain, at least in part, in promoting your opinions of their guilt.
 
However, my opposition to the innocentisti community grew faster than my convincement in the defendant's guilt.

So, in other words, you became convinced of guilt, not because of any evidence, but rather, because you don't like the innocentistis.

I find it odd that you can't distinguish between evidence and advocate. You wouldn't make a very good juror, would you?
 
And in this case the focus of my concern in the definition of justice is the Kerchers' family, not Knox or Sollecito.

They already got their justice. Guede is in jail. Granted, their justice has been somewhat abbreviated because the prosecution colluded to have the courts convict him of committing a joint crime just so they could prosecute the innocent people. But, when you play in the barnyard you get dirty.
 
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 are you really saying here? Everyone knows simple logic. Everyone knows she gave false information; above all, Knox herself. The mens rea and malice aforethought aspects are what are being questioned.
 
They already got their justice. Guede is in jail. Granted, their justice has been somewhat abbreviated because the prosecution colluded to have the courts convict him of committing a joint crime just so they could prosecute the innocent people. But, when you play in the barnyard you get dirty.
Right. The man responsible is convicted and imprisoned, which is a lot more justice than the families of some murder victims ever get: Many murders go unsolved, and the victims' families are left to wonder for decades. If Guede has a short sentence, it is because Knox and Sollecito were wrongly brought into the mix. The Kerchers know whom they can blame for this.
 
If there was genuine reason for believing that Amanda and Raff had committed the murder, then "disturbed or disgraced" would hardly be an adequate way of describing them. Since there is no such reason, and all indications are that they lost 4 years of their lives simply because they tried to help the police, your continued attacks on them are in themselves a disgrace.
Bravo.
 
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.

I disagree. The trial testimony indicates that two memorandums were made and Pacelli and others are indeed quoting directly from the text since several times they quote the almost same exact line, "I didn't lie when I said that I thought the
murderer was Patrick" (Pacelli quotes it twice in fact). Only in the third quoting of this text by Mignini do we find out the truth, "But now I know that I can't know who the murderer is, because I remember that I didn't go home.", which is a full recantation.

Pacelli was just being intellectually dishonest with his claim that Amanda confirmed that Patrick was the "assassin" again on the 7th.

CP: Listen, the first time you ever actually said that Patrick had nothing
to do with it, when was it?
Do you remember? Of these people you told,
was it to your lawyers? Or was it your mother on the phone on the 10th?

AK: That Patrick had nothing to do with it? I imagined that he was innocent
because--

CP: But when did you said it for the first time? In the phone call with
your mother on November 10th?

AK: I don't know when the first time I told someone was.

GCM: Excuse me. Before you told your mother, did you tell anyone else?

AK: Yes, I wrote it in my memorandum of the 7th.

AK: Yes, I wrote it in my memorandum of the 7th, and then when I discussed
the situation with my lawyers, I explained why I had said these things. And
I explained the fact that I couldn't talk about the guilt of this person.
I thought that, at a certain point, thinking about how Patrick was, I thought
that it wasn't even possible that he could be guilty of something like that,
because he wasn't like that. But I wasn't actually in the house seeing
anything, so I couldn't actually state whether he was guilty or not.

In the above, Pacelli is asking her when was the first time she said that Patrick had nothing to do with it. In response, she mentioned her Nov 7th memorandum. If she had said her 6th memorandum, that would be an obvious false statement by Knox as she did not retract her accusation against Patrick in those writings (she merely said that her memories couldn't be trusted). But the quoted text provided by Mignini from her 7th memorandum does retract the claim 100% and so this is why Amanda cited it.

There's no reason to believe that the PMF transcript is that confused about the dates, especially considering the overall context.
 
Last edited:
What do you mean exactly by emotionally invested?

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

And for me it was the opposite. My opposition to the PG community grew volumes faster than my being convinced of innocence.
 
And for me it was the opposite. My opposition to the PG community grew volumes faster than my being convinced of innocence.
And for me it went thusly: I became convinced of their innocence, and then began to view the PG community with something akin to horror.:eek:
 
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

That is actually §136a StPo in case anyone wonders.http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stpo/__136.html
And I'd be actually REALLY careful with how that actually plays out. Sadly I do not have access to the relevant commentaries anymore.
http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stpo/__136.html
 
So, in other words, you became convinced of guilt, not because of any evidence, but rather, because you don't like the innocentistis.

I find it odd that you can't distinguish between evidence and advocate. You wouldn't make a very good juror, would you?
Right, if it is not the evidence which is fueling one on, but contempt for the personalities of those who support innocence, this is an illegitimate position. Not one conducive to objectivity or the ethics of reason.
 
Right, if it is not the evidence which is fueling one on, but contempt for the personalities of those who support innocence, this is an illegitimate position. Not one conducive to objectivity or the ethics of reason.

True enough.

I would add that any reasonable person, whomsoever, should easily recognize what a pack of hyenas and imbeciles populate sites like PMF and TJMK. And one fundamental of ethics is that we may be judged by the company we keep.
 
That is actually §136a StPo in case anyone wonders.
Yep, you're right. The 'a' slipped...

And I'd be actually REALLY careful with how that actually plays out. Sadly I do not have access to the relevant commentaries anymore.
Well, it certainly depends a lot on the circiumstances, but in case similiar to AK I don't think there'd be a ghost of a chance of conviction for slander or murder based on anything the accused said or signed during the interrogation.

-
Osterwelle
 
Whoa! You're commenting on logic shortcoming and can then state;

"she has to knowingly give false information to commit a calunnia"

is a subset of

"she has to give false information to commit a calunnia"

What in the world are you smoking? Your logic is flat out broken. Providing information based on information provided by trusted sources or providing information 'suggested to me' as a result of brainwashing or hypnosis are but two examples of why the first statement is entirely different from the second. One can not be guilty of calunnia if they honestly believed, for whatever reason, that the information was correct.

He is talking about necessity, while you are talking about sufficiency. Both of you are saying something true, but only one of you is saying something relevant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom