Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Grinder]

Apparently if the ToD is moved to 10pm then Curatolo's testimony is no longer valid. If the ToD was established at 8:40 then Popovic must have bought off by Sollecito's dad. It has already been established that Koko was paid off, at least over at the PG site.

The original ToD according to ILE was 8-10pm. Curatolo and Nara forced them to push it to 11:45pm. It would be funny if not so sad and pathetic.

 

[Bill Williams]

And exactly where in those notes does she commit calunnia?

Look, Bill, I appreciate that you're a reasonable fellow (and I certainly appreciate the compliments on my Less Wrong post you offered at IIP -- that is if you are the same Bill Williams ), but your position on this is incoherent. (If it makes you feel any better, the position of the Hellmann court almost certainly is also.) Others have already pointed out the absurdity of "convictable but not sentenceable" (a convicted person always receives a sentence, even if it's only "time served"; Amanda was in fact sentenced to three years in prison for this supposed offense against Patrick Lumumba); more serious contradictions include the fact that, while you willingly take a position on a legal question, and support this position with arguments that are entirely legal in nature, you disclaim any qualification to contemplate matters of Italian law as soon as you are challenged with argument to the contrary. If you're going to claim that the calunnia conviction was justified, and you agree with me about Knox's state of mind during her interrogation and the fact that the statements were coerced, then you have to be willing to discuss the details of Italian law and the definition of calunnia because there is nothing else to discuss.

And it should go without saying that simple appeals to judicial authority aren't going to fly if the very subject under discussion is whether the ruling in question was correct.

All points well taken. I am convinced the position outlined is coherent, but your mileage obviously varies. I concede that most other's agree with you.

And yes, I am that Bill Williams. I am also "Another Bill Williams" on Sharon Feinstein's blog, because a first Bill Williams beat me to the place.

I am glad I'm seen as a reasonable; incoherent, but reasonable!!! That sounds a little like the old Woody Allen joke, two women in hospital, one woman complains, "This hospital food is really awful." The other womans says, "Not only that, but the portions are small!" Incoherent AND reasonable? Ouch! Ok ok, incoherent on this one point, reasonable in general - I get it. I guess I need to make my portions bigger!

Sheesh, even stint7 sees me as reasonable! Should I worry?

I truly do not know how else to put it, so will leave it to the posts made upthread. I also still value the LessWrong stuff, the surgical logic of it was remarkable. If it sounds like I am simply parroting judicial authority in this case, I then really have failed. I have not read Hellmann's report (yet!) so don't know how my "reasoning" parallels his, that's the only thing I can offer in self-defence.

Perhaps the problem is as with anything which seems "obvious" to one, but not to another. I truly do not see how anyone can disagree that the memorandums of the 6th and 7th simply muddy the waters of a direction I agree was established by the police. I believe it was LondonJohn who clarified something I said in error, ie. that the two "signed" memorandums prepared by the police were, in fact, relevant to the calunnia charge, just not to the murder charge. I still, though, do not see how Knox's waffling (most seem not to agree it was waffling, some see it as outright lying) doesn't make her at least (here's a loaded term) a co-conspirator with the police, at least until she started making clear retractions. She even confessed to her mother her misgivings.... but then I'm getting back into it, and I really don't want to annoy you further.

Thanks for a decent discussion about this.

 

[anglolawyer]

I forget, how did Raffaele's print get on the mat without leaving prints leading up to it and without there being evidence of them being cleaned?

Hi all.
Don't know if anyone answered this but here's my attempt. Owner of foot walks, in his shoes, to the bathroom, takes off right shoe (and sock, if any) and places foot in bidet. He rinses off some blood on his trouser leg and then stands on mat, creating watery, bloody footprint. He replaces shoe (and sock, if any) and returns to bedroom where he steps in some blood in order to create the prints showing him walk out of the apartment.

What I want to know is what happened to the heel part of the footprint. I guess that either Amanda wiped it off during the clean up she conducted when shimmying on the mat to her bedroom or the polizia scientifica thought it looked unsightly and cleaned it up.

 

[Grinder]

Hi all.
Don't know if anyone answered this but here's my attempt. Owner of foot walks, in his shoes, to the bathroom, takes off right shoe (and sock, if any) and places foot in bidet. He rinses off some blood on his trouser leg and then stands on mat, creating watery, bloody footprint. He replaces shoe (and sock, if any) and returns to bedroom where he steps in some blood in order to create the prints showing him walk out of the apartment.

What I want to know is what happened to the heel part of the footprint. I guess that either Amanda wiped it off during the clean up she conducted when shimmying on the mat to her bedroom or the polizia scientifica thought it looked unsightly and cleaned it up.

Yes, that's how Rudy left the print. The problem with Raffaele doing it is that most PGP think they were in bare feet during the cleanup and he would have been standing in the plaza with wet pants, which I'm sure eagle-eye Curatolo would have spotted.

The heel might not have touched the floor as the weight may well have been on the ball and toes of the foot.

Once again, there was no evidence of any cleaning of the floor but Maasei et al. just say it must have been cleaned because the evidence that should be there to fit our theory isn't there.

 

[Bill Williams]

I am rereading stuff on the Internet read a while ago, by which I came to the conclusion the Hellmann upholding of conviction on calunnia was appropriate. Hellmann may have upheld it, but for a different reason for why Massei orifinally convicted.

One is a matter about Aldo Patriciello, who himself had been charged under Article 368 of the Italian Penal code. It's an interesting read.

I am not a lawyer, and I do not speak Italian, so am under a double handicap. I have no way of gauging if I (or you!) are in error because of a glitch in translation, or in the way an Italian judge would interpret things.

But the issue seems to stand or fall on whether or not someone wilfully passed on information they knew to be false (ie. lied) or passed on information (or in Knox's case confirmed information) that they did not know for a fact to be true.

Seems to me that the latter is the basis for Hellmann's reasoning and the former is the basis for Massei's reasoning.

I guess we'll know in a couple of weeks.

 

[Kaosium]

If I'm missing something, then by all means point it out! As I said I've already changed my mind in the course of the discussion, and I'd be change it again if you can give me a convincing reason to do so.

I don't know if I can.

It is not just this Amanda Sorensen who has said this regarding this case, other lawyers have as well. It is quite possible that while being lawyers they are not especially well versed in extradition law and thus are mistaken. I suspect there might be another reason they say this, notably extradition law doesn't work quite the way you think it does, but I don't think I can prove the point, being as I'm not a lawyer myself, and in some respects your argument seems compelling to me as well.

Thus I will capitulate and yield the field to you.

 

[Kaosium]

I am rereading stuff on the Internet read a while ago, by which I came to the conclusion the Hellmann upholding of conviction on calunnia was appropriate. Hellmann may have upheld it, but for a different reason for why Massei originally convicted.

One is a matter about Aldo Patriciello, who himself had been charged under Article 368 of the Italian Penal code. It's an interesting read.

I am not a lawyer, and I do not speak Italian, so am under a double handicap. I have no way of gauging if I (or you!) are in error because of a glitch in translation, or in the way an Italian judge would interpret things.

But the issue seems to stand or fall on whether or not someone wilfully passed on information they knew to be false (ie. lied) or passed on information (or in Knox's case confirmed information) that they did not know for a fact to be true.

Seems to me that the latter is the basis for Hellmann's reasoning and the former is the basis for Massei's reasoning.

I guess we'll know in a couple of weeks.

At least you're trying to back your contention. I've asked repeatedly for someone who thinks they made the right decision on the calunnia charge to try to ascertain how Hellmann will make the case in his Motivations, you are the first to attempt that.

It's an interesting argument, but it seems to me both statements suggest she doesn't know for a fact they are true, through the 'vague and confused' qualifiers employed. She expands on this almost immediately, later the same day in the 'gift' note, making it quite clear how unsure she is of what happened after the police got done with their yelling and hitting.

 

[Grinder]

I am not a lawyer, and I do not speak Italian, so am under a double handicap. I have no way of gauging if I (or you!) are in error because of a glitch in translation, or in the way an Italian judge would interpret things.

But the issue seems to stand or fall on whether or not someone wilfully passed on information they knew to be false (ie. lied) or passed on information (or in Knox's case confirmed information) that they did not know for a fact to be true.

Say, Bill, elsewhere people are discussing the statements and whether they were admissible or not.

It is said that the police didn't need to record her interrogation because she wasn't a formal suspect at the time. The Court of Cassation ruled that the first two statements couldn't be used in the murder trial but Massei let them in through the back door by allowing them in for the callunia charge.

Now, since it is said that as a witness Amanda was entitled to a lawyer and statements made by her as a witness can't be used against her in trial, why did the Court of Cassation have to rule on this?

Why don't you think the Court of Cassation will rule that their order for not using the statements in the murder trial was undermined by bringing it in the calunnia trial and that by trying the cases together Massei's court violated Amanda's right to fair trial and will send the calunnia portion back to the court of the first instance.

 

[Bill Williams]

My word - we're in disagreement and so far there has not been too much of a bun fight. Imagine if this is the way it had been all along?

At least you're trying to back your contention. I've asked repeatedly for someone who thinks they made the right decision on the calunnia charge to try to ascertain how Hellmann will make the case in his Motivations, you are the first to attempt that.

I'd lost track of the specific of why I thought this way - to be far it was not my idea, but it sure seems right when I first read it. I was reading some stuff on the 'net about the calunnia section of Italian law (Section 368 I believe) and was trying to get my non-Italian head around a law halfway between "libel" and "holding someone's honour in disrepute." I got side tracked into having to come to grips with the fact that there is no crime scene clean - and with no crime scene clean, then Knox and Sollecito simply could not have been present in the cottage at the critical time.

So I think Hellmann upheld the calunnia conviction for a reason different than Massei originally convicted. Not that I am an expert in Italian law, or the way judges interpret it - but it seems that Hellmann will be saying, "the finding of "did not do it" to the murder charge," and the finding of "crime did not exist or take place" with the so-called staging of the break-in, still Knox was not in a position of knowing or not knowing about Lumumba's (then) alleged involvement. There this is a finding of misleading the investigation by not saying unambiguously, "I could I possible know?"

My thing is that Knox was involved in doing Lumumba harm, as she as much said to her mother by the 10th. That's the way I look at it. My other reasons are upthread. I recognize I am in the minority with this view. And no, I do not work for Hellmann - some think I'm still employed by Marriott, and it would be inethical to double dip.

It's an interesting argument, but it seems to me both statements suggest she doesn't know for a fact they are true, through the 'vague and confused' qualifiers employed. She expands on this almost immediately, later the same day in the 'gift' note, making it quite clear how unsure she is of what happened after the police got done with their yelling and hitting.

I call memoranums #3 and #4 waffling, making "I stand by my statements...." assertions, which are actually the only clear, unambiguous assertions. I wouldn't say she was "making it quite clear how unsure she was", she was just expressing confusion. However in writing she made a plain declarative statement, "I stand by....", that was perhaps the only clear thing about the note. Certainly, taken as a whole it's just a confusing way of putting it.

Say, Bill, elsewhere people are discussing the statements and whether they were admissible or not.

It is said that the police didn't need to record her interrogation because she wasn't a formal suspect at the time. The Court of Cassation ruled that the first two statements couldn't be used in the murder trial but Massei let them in through the back door by allowing them in for the callunia charge.

Now, since it is said that as a witness Amanda was entitled to a lawyer and statements made by her as a witness can't be used against her in trial, why did the Court of Cassation have to rule on this?

Why don't you think the Court of Cassation will rule that their order for not using the statements in the murder trial was undermined by bringing it in the calunnia trial and that by trying the cases together Massei's court violated Amanda's right to fair trial and will send the calunnia portion back to the court of the first instance.

I have no clue whatsoever. The answer to this should come from someone familiar and with long experience with the way the criminal and calunnia trails intermix. I am the first to say that the process sounds unweldy, but then they never asked my opinion when the Italian Penal Code was put together.

My guess is that Massei convicted because he thought Knox was involved in the murder, and accused Lumumba to throw police off the trail, and that Hellmann upheld the conviction for a differing reason. Not that she lied, but that when she was free and clear to make the statement, "Look, how could I possibly know?", she only seemed to be confusedly saying, "I imagined I could have been there, but it also seems more likely that I was at Raffaele's the whole time, but in any event I stand by the assertion I made last night."

To me, that is not lying. It is obviously trying to put the "truth" together, but it also had the effect of NOT drawing fire away from Lumumba, therefore, Hellmann will say, it's calunnia. Memorandum #3 and #4 make her an unwilling co-conspirator with the police in ruining Lumumba.

That's the way I see it. I think that's what Hellmann will say.

 

[geebee2]

On the callunnia, I think the strongest evidence against Knox is that she said she felt guilty about it, and that she should have been more courageous. I'm not exactly sure how courageous we should expect an exhausted twenty year old woman to be when faced by a dozen or more police conducting an aggressive interrogation, but Amanda tells the truth, and if she says she should have been more courageous, I am inclined to believe her.

The courts have already accepted an element of shared blame, I (from memory) think Patrick got €18,000 from the police.

So I think Hellmann was probably right to leave the callunia alone. Knox may choose not to appeal it on the grounds that it would damage Patrick financially, that would hardly be a just outcome. If she makes millions from her book and other rights, she can well afford it, and quite probably he cannot. If she does appeal it, I think she will win, but I hope she doesn't.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I just saw this on Google news. Someone wrote an article discussing the grassroots effort that helped free Amanda Knox.

The Grassroots Organization That Helped Free Amanda Knox
http://www.groundreport.com/Business/The-Grassroots-Organization-That-Helped-Free-Amand/2943029

 

[Grinder]

I meant to say that she wasn't entitled to a lawyer as a witness but couldn't edit it.

Bill, you didn't answer my question or even give it the old guilter try .

Why did the Court of Cassation need to rule that the first two statements weren't admissible when everyone knows that a witness' statement can't be used against them?

I wouldn't say she was "making it quite clear how unsure she was", she was just expressing confusion.

Bill would you say that expressing confusion is making it clear that she was unsure?

Earlier I ask what behavior by the police would exonerate her. I don't believe you've attempted to answer this. Had she of her own free will gone to the station and handed them a note saying Patrick did it and didn't correct the statement immediately I'd agree with you.

Having the statement squeezed out of her so the chief could describe as he did and then be locked up in solitary without counsel is not giving her free will or as you described it "she was free and clear to make the statement" - she definitely wasn't free and I don't think you properly factor in how being locked up impacted her specifically and people in general. You also seem to forget that the police told her they had hard evidence that Patrick was at the cottage and she as well.

Last question for now. If Patrick had actually killed Meredith and they had hard evidence he had done it (fingerprints in blood, shoe prints in blood, DNA on and in Meredith ) and softer evidence like cell phone records showing him near the cottage, would she be lying if she told the police Patrick wasn't there or didn't do it?

In her last note she makes clear to me that she can't say what Patrick's involvement was because she wasn't there. Given her circumstances of being locked up and threatened I think was as brave with her statements as possible. And being in solitary after the interrogations and threats she received, I think being brave is the point.

 

[snook1]

These discussions are really making me very interest in what Hellmann will say in his report.

I hope it comes before Christmas. Is there a chance?

 

[Dan O.]

Hi all.
Don't know if anyone answered this but here's my attempt. Owner of foot walks, in his shoes, to the bathroom, takes off right shoe (and sock, if any) and places foot in bidet. He rinses off some blood on his trouser leg and then stands on mat, creating watery, bloody footprint. He replaces shoe (and sock, if any) and returns to bedroom where he steps in some blood in order to create the prints showing him walk out of the apartment.

What I want to know is what happened to the heel part of the footprint. I guess that either Amanda wiped it off during the clean up she conducted when shimmying on the mat to her bedroom or the polizia scientifica thought it looked unsightly and cleaned it up.

Welcome to JREF.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

Presume you are walking into the bathroom, you have blood on your right pant leg up to the knee (as evidenced by where you scrapped the door coming in), and at least one hand is also covered in blood as evidenced by the finger streaks on the wall in the murder room. After fumbling to turn on the light (as evidenced by the traces of blood on the switch and wall), you survey the options for cleaning up. There is a sink, the obvious place for cleaning hands and face but not very convenient for feet. There is the bidet which is used for cleaning private parts (not somewhere one would stick their hands and feet).

(not the right bathroom but shown for illustration)

And of course there is also the toilet (don't look too closely as the one above is used).

Then there is the walk in shower with 4 walls to contain any secondary splatter and a shower head on a long flexible hose that allows a gentle spray to be directed precisely at whatever body part needs cleaning.

"But" you may be thinking, the footprint on the mat was on the side towards the bidet and as far away from the shower as it could be. Of course, if the mat had been turned around the other way,

It is obvious that the print was made by someone stepping out of the shower.

 

[Grinder]

Does anybody have Inspector Volturno's testimony in English?

Is there a picture of the male footprint in the hallway, not the bathmat?

 

[Grinder]

Is there a link to photos of the bathmat print that don't come from IIP or FOA?

 

[Grinder]

did I say don't come from? wish could go live again

 

[Skind]

It is obvious that the print was made by someone stepping out of the shower.

I have to say, it amazes me that anyone could have thought it was anything else.

 

[Bill Williams]

I meant to say that she wasn't entitled to a lawyer as a witness but couldn't edit it.

Bill, you didn't answer my question or even give it the old guilter try .

Does a wink got one off the hook of being accused of making an ad hominem remark? "Guilter" is a loaded word here, while at the same time technically true in relation to me on this lone point. Has not "Guilter" as a word become associated with someone who bases their claims on a fundamentally venomous characterization of Knox? If so, please do not use that word in remation to me. If not, I'll accept the wink.

Why did the Court of Cassation need to rule that the first two statements weren't admissible when everyone knows that a witness' statement can't be used against them?

I am not entirely sure, but I am assuming it was because the Court of Cassation could not itself identify the exact time when Knox was a witness being interviewed as opposed to a suspect being interrogated. The non-recording of the interview/interrogation has a habit of making that important junction in time unclear! So I am not quite sure what you and I are arguing about here.

This is especially relevant, considering LondonJohn has corrected me in saying that the very same court ruled that those two statements COULD be used in relation to the calunnia charge. Sounds wacky to me to have them admissible in one, but inadmissable in another, esp. when it is the same jury! But who am I to criticize the way Italians do these things? I say it's wacky, but they say it's the law!

Bill would you say that expressing confusion is making it clear that she was unsure?

If your intent is to have me say what it is I would say, then I would say that the only clear statement in memoradums #3 and #4 are the clarity with which they say, "I stand by my statements made last night...." At its most basic level of parseing a sentence and interpreting it, that is a sentence meant to be clear, and which I also judge to be clear.

For me, and you will disagree I am sure, the subsequent statement of confusion itself is not clear - it is an unclear statement of confusion which does nothing on the face of it to NEGATE the only clear sentence in the memorandum. I am not sure if you are one of them, but criticism leveled my way has included the assumption that an unclear confusion-statement should NEGATE and render (as it it had not been written) the only clear part of the note.

Earlier I ask what behavior by the police would exonerate her. I don't believe you've attempted to answer this. Had she of her own free will gone to the station and handed them a note saying Patrick did it and didn't correct the statement immediately I'd agree with you.

Which she did not, agreed.

Having the statement squeezed out of her so the chief could describe as he did and then be locked up in solitary without counsel is not giving her free will or as you described it "she was free and clear to make the statement" - she definitely wasn't free and I don't think you properly factor in how being locked up impacted her specifically and people in general.

Except that it was her who "freely and clearly" asked for pen and paper while in that situation, free from the interrogation but still in a lot of hot water, and knowlingly in hot water, wrote what she wrote.

I hope I never experience what she experienced, I'll give you that. But I do not, and I do not believe the court should either, factor in the aggrevating factors you claim should give her a free pass on writing #3 and #4, clearly she should not have written. Any lawyer out of law school would have told her that. (Note to self: next time you are out of the interrogatee's chair, do not ask for pen and paper.)

You also seem to forget that the police told her they had hard evidence that Patrick was at the cottage and she as well.

No I don't. My memory is not that bad.

Last question for now. If Patrick had actually killed Meredith and they had hard evidence he had done it (fingerprints in blood, shoe prints in blood, DNA on and in Meredith ) and softer evidence like cell phone records showing him near the cottage, would she be lying if she told the police Patrick wasn't there or didn't do it?

Nope. I have never once accused Knox of lying. I especially do not accuse her of lying because of the pejorative interpretation others put on the word "lying". At best what I am saying is that memorandums #3 and #4 have her unintentionally corroborating a wacky theory about Lumumba the police were inexplicably locked into.

It is why if I were Hellmann I would have done what he did - but I would have gone farther than sentencing her to "time served", it would be at point of sentencing I would be trotting out all the stuff you say above should have resulted in acquittal.

I think I would have said something like, "I sentence you to one day in jail, just to teach you not to ask for pen and paper to make a voluntary statement like you did in #3 and #4." I'd be doing it with the intent that the next time (God forbid), "you're being brow beating by police, to not go the extra mile FOR THEM later on, regardless of the circumstance later on, in the misguided attempt to be helpful. Please please please don't try to be helpful! Helpful people 99,999 times out of 100,000 simply muddy things." Sound familiar?

In her last note she makes clear to me that she can't say what Patrick's involvement was because she wasn't there. Given her circumstances of being locked up and threatened I think was as brave with her statements as possible. And being in solitary after the interrogations and threats she received, I think being brave is the point.

Brave as possible?, possibly. I don't know the woman, so can't really say. But the harm done to Lumumba was real as a result.

 

[katy_did]

...There is a sink, the obvious place for cleaning hands and face but not very convenient for feet. There is the bidet which is used for cleaning private parts (not somewhere one would stick their hands and feet).
[...]
It is obvious that the print was made by someone stepping out of the shower.

Yet traces of blood/water were visible in the bidet, but not found in the shower...?