Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Chris_Halkides]

Pacelli

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

This point bears being repeated.

 

[Grinder]

This point bears being repeated.

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

 

[bookworm]

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.

But isn't that pretty much a "sin of omission"?

 

[smkovalinksy]

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.

It is disappointing, isn't it, that so many intelligent people would become mean-spirited and obtuse regarding a question of justice. Of course, they say the same thing about our side. I do not think it applies , objectively.

Reading both of those sites is an experience as frustrating as it is fascinating. I have learned a lot of facts about Italian justice, and appreciate the translations, but the spirit of vengeance and closing the eyes deliberately to new facts is horrid. I understand why you feel as you do, and I appreciate your candor, and cannot help but agree with you for the most part.

 

[smkovalinksy]

But isn't that pretty much a "sin of omission"?

Sorry to say it, but Machiavelli is the one who has the problem with distinguishing logical concepts, not you. None so blind as those who will not see. That Knox made false statements is clear to all. Whether she did so under duress, or with full knowledge and intent, or with malice aforethought, is what is in question.

 

[Grinder]

Sorry to say it, but Machiavelli is the one who has the problem with distinguishing logical concepts, not you. None so blind as those who will not see. That Knox made false statements is clear to all. Whether she did so under duress, or with full knowledge and intent, or with malice aforethought, is what is in question.

I think the calunnia charge requires only that the statement was false. I think that under the Italian system one must be sure to be telling the truth or here comes a calunnia charge.

If I'm correct that would explain why Curt and Edda were charged for only repeating what Amanda had told them and they believed to be the truth.

In the US one must prove the statement to be false, prove that the person knew it to be false and in the case of a public person prove that it was intended to cause them damage. After all that the damaged person needs to show how much they were damaged.

Of course, here we can charge people with obstruction of justice, hindering an investigation, and other related charges such as perjury, but here again we must prove knowledge.

I think that something in between would be best because people should be held liable for making damaging statement without having a good reason to believe the statement is true.

Now, when the police engage in what it seems clear they did in this case, then they should be charged not the speaker.

I mean would you charge the doll or the ventriloquist?

 

[smkovalinksy]

I think the calunnia charge requires only that the statement was false. I think that under the Italian system one must be sure to be telling the truth or here comes a calunnia charge.

If I'm correct that would explain why Curt and Edda were charged for only repeating what Amanda had told them and they believed to be the truth.

In the US one must prove the statement to be false, prove that the person knew it to be false and in the case of a public person prove that it was intended to cause them damage. After all that the damaged person needs to show how much they were damaged.

Of course, here we can charge people with obstruction of justice, hindering an investigation, and other related charges such as perjury, but here again we must prove knowledge.

I think that something in between would be best because people should be held liable for making damaging statement without having a good reason to believe the statement is true.

Now, when the police engage in what it seems clear they did in this case, then they should be charged not the speaker.

I mean would you charge the doll or the ventriloquist?

Ah, now I see the distinction. I did not understand that there was this difference between libel in the US and calumnia in Italy. Yes, I would agree that if the police suggested PL to Knox, and seemed to push her to think she had met him and gone there with him, that the fault is theirs.

 

[Grinder]

Ah, now I see the distinction. I did not understand that there was this difference between libel in the US and calumnia in Italy. Yes, I would agree that if the police suggested PL to Knox, and seemed to push her to think she had met him and gone there with him, that the fault is theirs.

It is important to note that calunnia is not a civil offense but rather a criminal offense unlike libel or slander. It is more like perjury/impeding an investigation/falsely accusing rolled into one.

 

[smkovalinksy]

It is important to note that calunnia is not a civil offense but rather a criminal offense unlike libel or slander. It is more like perjury/impeding an investigation/falsely accusing rolled into one.

Oh, yes, of course. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[js202]

It is disappointing, isn't it, that so many intelligent people would become mean-spirited and obtuse regarding a question of justice. Of course, they say the same thing about our side. I do not think it applies , objectively.

Reading both of those sites is an experience as frustrating as it is fascinating. I have learned a lot of facts about Italian justice, and appreciate the translations, but the spirit of vengeance and closing the eyes deliberately to new facts is horrid. I understand why you feel as you do, and I appreciate your candor, and cannot help but agree with you for the most part.

Except I don't believe that any but a precious few over there are actually intelligent. And none who come here.

And those who are "intelligent" demonstrate zero competence with their use of what they possess, or, worse are despicably mendacious. Such as "Michael," who was known to go around spamming the web with presumably knowing lies that Rudy Guede had no criminal history, and that his foster parents had never abandoned him...

So, in general, I have no problem with LondonJohn's blanket assessment of "idiots." Nor do I have any problem with such idiots assessing us as deficient. Instead I consider the source. Do you recall the PMF clown who, literally in the waning hours preceding the appeal verdict, opined that those who believe in innocence all possess a sub-100 IQ?

As RandyN would say, member dat?

While I appreciate the civility of some here, I myself don't see much percentage in standing on ceremony in my assessment of such cretins. In a real-life game of high stakes, they have richly earned their portion of contempt.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

My rebuttal strictly about logic is formally correct, but basically its provocative form was just meant as a response to Randy N's verbal attitude. He puts in improper straw men, points falesely to non existing errors: I am annoyed by his method. The second fact is also true, this is known. But In my opinion that was not really just the point Randy N was making.

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.

1. In my opnion this is not correct. And it is not correct if referrrd to both the the main accusation documents, statement of 05:54 and the hand written note of 6th. The 05:54 is not entirely consistent, but definitely unambiguous about accusing Lumumba. About the hand written note, this is possibly even more insidious. It is ambiguous in the degree in which implicates Lumumba, as it is meant to be a kind of uncertain piece of evidence, a piece of evidence that doesn't lead to a conclusion of guilt against him. But it is definitely not ambiguous in its intent of being a piece of false evidence. It is a whole false testimony written voluntarily, which contains elements both against Lumumba and against Sollecito. Its value as false evidence is even more evident. Its value of false accusation is less clear, as to use your wording, but its value of false evidence, voluntarily deceitful, is more clear, which is what matters to the charge of calunnia.

2. The conditions under which it was made are defined by Amanda herself: she wrote the note voluntarily, on her own initiave, and gave it voluntarily to Rita Ficarra. She admitted to not having received pressure nor requests on redactig this memorandum.

3. I think that "when her statements are considered as a whole" is a bit a misleading condition. Her statements inequivocably are a series of false testimonies. The only possible questions in Amanda's defence, at this point, are only two: 1) if she released them voluntarily or not; 2) if she was sincere or she lied.
The 1) is ruled out by the conditions in which the memorandum was written, as she also admits, and by the lack of elements, since there is no report of coercing, no early complaint with clear statement that she lied because of intimidation or coercion (the only factual detail is the hitting twice on the head); and because she kept on claiming she actually still had memories about Patrick being in her home and killing Meredith. 2) the only possibility left to excuse her is that she was sincere and was suffeeing of a false memory syndrome. This, however, goes quite against anything credible for mamy reasons. Among them because she accused Patrick after just two hours of questioning (after she was told that Raffaele had withdrawn her alibi).

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.

I absolutely agree on that the accusation must be knowingly false. A person commits calunnia only if knows the testimony is false.
Here, there is obviously a jurisprudence on what the verb "knows" means when referred to a calunnia. If I falsely accuse a passer by of being a crazy terror bomber, I cannot just bring in my defense the sole argument that I could not be sure for certainity that he was not a crazy terror bomber. The "who knows if...?" defence doesn't work. If by your best knowledge you don't have such incriminating information against a person and you don't relly believe him guilty, this, by jurisprudence, is considered as knowing the person is innocent.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

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.

Here I am not embracing a position about the existence nor the non existence of a memorandum of the 7th. However, I object to your claim that you can say for certain this memorandum exists or that it is likely to exist.

Try to understand that to me the first point of start, is that there is no trace of this alleged memorandum in the trial documentation. It is not quoted nor cited by Micheli, nor by Massei's court, not by other preliminary judges, nor by the defences.
I simply can't assume a document with such date exists on this grounds, merely based on Pacelli's wording about a "nov. 7th" with no quote. It is not even true that she choses to mention her nov. 7th memorandum: it's Pacelli the one who mentions the memorandum first.
Other basic facts are that Pacelli says she repeates her accusation in it, and your statement that he is being dishonest is just unsupported, since you don't have a 7th statement, and don't know what is written in this possible document.

 

[Machiavelli]

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

No.
This is not the story in other words. This is another story. One of your twisting and changings.
Read again please.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

And in your opinion, when Randy N makes up an ad hominem false argument I should not respond?

Everyone knows she gave false information, but Dougm was argueing that the calunnia could be something like Pacelli's calling names or judgements, and I was answering to him about this point. And that was the argument. Then Randy attempted to blame my post of "ignorance" and "false statements" on the specious ground that while speaking with Dougm about this Pacelli-comparison, I did not put in the word "knowingly". And that was the second argument.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

Of course. And hopefully to see some day the finding of the truth delivered in some official way to the Kerchers.
In other words, my wish is to see Guede's confession, or an equivalent official outcome from the judiciary.

 

[Machiavelli]

Sorry to say it, but Machiavelli is the one who has the problem with distinguishing logical concepts, not you. None so blind as those who will not see. That Knox made false statements is clear to all. Whether she did so under duress, or with full knowledge and intent, or with malice aforethought, is what is in question.

And why you think I have problems in distinguishing that?

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

Why? I don't think so. I don't think murderers are evil.

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.

My indications are, what they did was quite different than trying to help the police.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

second memoriale excerpts

Here I am not embracing a position about the existence nor the non existence of a memorandum of the 7th. However, I object to your claim that you can say for certain this memorandum exists or that it is likely to exist.

Try to understand that to me the first point of start, is that there is no trace of this alleged memorandum in the trial documentation. It is not quoted nor cited by Micheli, nor by Massei's court, not by other preliminary judges, nor by the defences.
I simply can't assume a document with such date exists on this grounds, merely based on Pacelli's wording about a "nov. 7th" with no quote. It is not even true that she choses to mention her nov. 7th memorandum: it's Pacelli the one who mentions the memorandum first.
Other basic facts are that Pacelli says she repeates her accusation in it, and your statement that he is being dishonest is just unsupported, since you don't have a 7th statement, and don't know what is written in this possible document.

highlighting mine
Machiavelli,

Candace Dempsey quotes about three paragraphs of material from the second memoriale on page 185 of Murder in Italy. PM Mignini quoted a portion of the second memoriale back to her in the trial testimony I found at PMF. The portion that PM Mignini quoted directly contradict Pacelli's misleading claim.

 

[Machiavelli]

There's everything on PMF:

Is this enough for you?

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

Neither do I, in fact that's why I suspend any judgement about the purported nov. 7th memorandum untill I can see it.
I edited these English translations that you see on PMF and wrote verbatim the Italian transcripts btw.

What I know is, from the allegedly quoted line, and by the whole of the statements, that I don't see this changing things.
Knox, basically, keeps claiming on the 6th and then later, that she didn't lie and she actually had memories of Patrick (so she does not claim coercing). She also changes her claim in December and in her interrogation (recorded) she attempts to justify herself in the terms as if she lied because of fear, then seems to make the argument that she thought it could be true and fails to answer, and her lawyer stops the questioning.
In the end, also after her court testimonies, my assessment is her explantions are inconsistent and not credible.

 

[Machiavelli]

highlighting mine
Machiavelli,

Candace Dempsey quotes about three paragraphs of material from the second memoriale on page 185 of Murder in Italy. PM Mignini quoted a portion of the second memoriale back to her in the trial testimony I found at PMF. The portion that PM Mignini quoted directly contradict Pacelli's misleading claim.

What Mignini quotes is a line, rather than a portion. A line where she says she did not lie, that means she claims that on the night of nov 5th she believed what she told was true, what she remembered (that she had witnessed Patrick coming to her house and kill Meredith while she was in the kitchen).
If you have more from p. 185, just quote it.

The only question to answer anyway is, if this series of claims by Knox can be considered credible or not.