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

[acbytesla]

The Felice statement certainly sews up in my mind that Amanda's statement was NOT spontaneous and the police managed to get Amanda to say what they wanted her to say. What's amazing to me is just how weak the statement was.

 

[Grinder]

Hellmann's ruling was bizarre and it is an otiose drill to argue otherwise. There may be rationalizations why he did the bizarre but in the end it was bizarre.

The charge wasn't slander but closer to false reporting to the police.

Anyone who with a denunciation, complaint, demand or request, even anonymously or under a false name, directs a judicial authority or other authority that has an obligation to report, to blame someone for a crime who he knows is innocent, that is he fabricates evidence against someone, shall be punished with imprisonment from two to six years. The penalty shall be increased if the accused blames someone of a crime for which the law prescribes a penalty of imprisonment exceeding a maximum of ten years, or another more serious penalty. The imprisonment shall be from four to twelve years if the act results in a prison sentence exceeding five years, from six to twenty years if the act results in a life sentence.[1][2]
The mens rea of calunnia requires awareness and a willingness to blame someone of a crime that the accused knows is innocent.[3]
Calunnia should be distinguished from criminal slander (ingiuria) and criminal libel (diffamazione) which relate to offences against personal honour in the Italian Penal Code

It would seem clear that she did not know he was innocent, therefore not guilty, period.

ETA - the slander accusation against her was not in Hellmann's court - I don'y believe it has gone through the court of the first instance yet.

 

[Supernaut]

How does that work if she is aquitted on appeal?

Is Amanda's representation appealing the guilty-of-slander verdict at the SC?

This whole thing is so demented.

 

[Grinder]

The Felice statement certainly sews up in my mind that Amanda's statement was NOT spontaneous and the police managed to get Amanda to say what they wanted her to say. What's amazing to me is just how weak the statement was.

On all counts you are correct. I read the story when it came out and nearly jumped out of my chair. It was so obvious that they had squeezed the "accusation" and even at the time it seemed a bizarre accusation. Within days Patrick's alibi became public but the PLE took two weeks to release him'


The PGP to this harp on the idea that Amanda should have immediately screamed from her cell that he was innocent, when in fact she couldn't know that unless she was there. Also, they forget that she was being held in jail and probably figured that she would once again be mistreated if she were too strong in recanting.

The last note, Nov. 7th, didn't surface until far later. The first note already had the appearance to me of letting them know that the accusation wasn't to be considered valid.

Not only was the statement weak but it was in Italian and was written by the cops. The contents of the statements were released almost at once poisoning the well immediately.

I encourage one and all to go back and read the early reports from the tabs etc.

 

[Grinder]

I don't know why in this discussion of calumny, the word slander is used. This is NOT a case of slander that was dealt with by Hellmann.

Hellmann has nothing to do with the slander charges against Amanda or her parents or against the lawyers or journalists or anybody.

Someone has confused the two. False accusation of a crime (calumny) is a criminal charge that is separate and distinct from criminal slander or civil slander.

 

[acbytesla]

You really love that word don't you Grinder???

 

[Grinder]

You really love that word don't you Grinder???

Anglo introduced me to it and it's a little inside joke.

 

[acbytesla]

Anglo introduced me to it and it's a little inside joke.

It cracks me up, since I don't think I had ever heard it before reading it on one of the forums, might have been this one, but I think I read it on IIP first.

It goes with one of my other favorite words ...pedantic. I really love that one because using the word pedantic is in itself. pedantic.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

another brick in the wall

Incidentally, in searching for a direct source for the full De Felice quote, I came across this interesting piece from the BBC,filed on 7th November 2007:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7082281.stm

It's interesting because it tells us even more about what De Felice and the police were thinking, and what they thought they knew before Knox even sat down to be interviewed on the late evening of the 5th:

Quote:
Their mobile phone records were vital to the investigation, he said, telling our correspondent: "If I told you I was in Rome, but the record showed I was in Paris, then you might begin to ask questions."

This clearly indicates that the police believed they had caught Knox in a lie about her whereabouts on the night of the murder. And this in turn can only mean that they were already convinced that her version of events (that she was at Sollecito's all evening) had been contradicted by her text message exchange with Lumumba. This in turn clearly tends to suggest that this was the "facts we knew to be correct" which the police believe they knew even as they ushered Knox in to begin her interrogation.

This article should be added to an ever-lengthening list of evidence that shows that Amanda and Raffaele were suspects well before the beginning of their his and hers interrogations on the night of 5 November. Malkmus has turned up a couple of good citations as well, and Raffaele's telling of the how a cop put the business card of a lawyer into his hands is another brick in the wall.

 

[Grinder]

It cracks me up, since I don't think I had ever heard it before reading it on one of the forums, might have been this one, but I think I read it on IIP first.

Probably that pompous Clive.

It goes with one of my other favorite words ...pedantic. I really love that one because using the word pedantic is in itself. pedantic.

Yes and didactic .

 

[acbytesla]

Probably that pompous Clive.



Yes and didactic .

OK, enough. lmao

 

[Mary_H]

Is Amanda's representation appealing the guilty-of-slander verdict at the SC?

This whole thing is so demented.

Oh, sorry, I thought that was what everyone was talking about. I guess they're just talking about how illogical the decision was in general? I shouda read farther back.

 

[Supernaut]

Oh, sorry, I thought that was what everyone was talking about. I guess they're just talking about how illogical the decision was in general? I shouda read farther back.

Sarcasm becomes you, my dear!

Whatever.

The goons are appealing the acquittal.

I havn't heard anything about Amanda appealing the slander conviction.

So, what gives?

 

[Mary_H]

Sarcasm becomes you, my dear!

Whatever.

The goons are appealing the acquittal.

I havn't heard anything about Amanda appealing the slander conviction.

So, what gives?

I know you won't believe this, but I wasn't being sarcastic. I would never be sarcastic with you, anyway, but when it comes to knowing about these legal procedures, I'm apathetic.

 

[anglolawyer]

This article should be added to an ever-lengthening list of evidence that shows that Amanda and Raffaele were suspects well before the beginning of their his and hers interrogations on the night of 5 November. Malkmus has turned up a couple of good citations as well, and Raffaele's telling of the how a cop put the business card of a lawyer into his hands is another brick in the wall.

Add John Kercher, who records that at his first encounter with Mignini, probably on 04 Nov (his book gives a wholly misleading impression of the date for some inexplicable reason but freeski, I think, demonstrated it) the latter was particularly interested in Amanda.

LJ's find regarding the cell phone records is absolutely key imho as is the 05 Nov meeting between Patrick and Amanda. Sorry to be pedantic, otiose and didactic about it, but I am convinced the cops thought they were evading surveillance by having a face to face. The absence of any incriminating material in A & R's calls to each other may also have been viewed in the same light.

 

[anglolawyer]

I know you won't believe this, but I wasn't being sarcastic. I would never be sarcastic with you, anyway, but when it comes to knowing about these legal procedures, I'm apathetic.

Pathetic? Oh, apathetic, sorry I think Amanda is indeed appealing the callunia conviction.

Grinder, where did you get that pretty translation of the law of calunnia?

 

[anglolawyer]

Yes - this is exactly how I see it. And in order to see it this way, one must hold that it is indeed possible to be guilty of criminal slander without knowing (for certain) that the accused person was innocent.

This is why I think that Hellmann was right in principle regarding the "knowing" aspect, but that he was wrong in his assessment that - in your words - 'OK it was bad, but not that bad.' I think that the SC ought to rule that Hellmann was wrong on the mens rea aspect, which was the result of his being wrong on the impact of coercion, bullying, intimidation, threat, suggestion and improper police conduct upon Knox's state of mind aat the time she "accused" Lumumba.

Let's discuss this without using mens rea (then Grinder will stop using otiose and we won't bore the pants off everyone and since we aren't ad idem on its meaning).

How can Cassazione rule that Hellman was wrong about the impact of the coercion etc? I thought Hellman was the final arbiter of fact.

ETA I once had a contest with a colleague to put more and varied latin expressions and maxims in our correspondence with other law firms. Ex abundanto cautello, audi alteram partem etc That was a lot of fun, especially as no one ever wrote back saying: WTF? Cut the crap willya! They had to pretend it was all par for the course. (I don't speak latin btw.
http://www.inrebus.com/legalmaxims_a.php)

 

[Bill Williams]

LJ's find regarding the cell phone records is absolutely key imho as is the 05 Nov meeting between Patrick and Amanda. Sorry to be pedantic, otiose and didactic about it, but I am convinced the cops thought they were evading surveillance by having a face to face. The absence of any incriminating material in A & R's calls to each other may also have been viewed in the same light.

Although I don't necessarily go with this, I couldn't help but note that if true, this is one more example of.....

..... Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

I want to find the originator of this particular investigative canard-like principle... and hit them up the side of the head.....

The question should always be - "when does the absence of evidence actually count as evidence that something might be?"

If used as suggested by Anglo above, it functions as a veritable Rorschach Test of confirmation bias.

 

[anglolawyer]

Although I don't necessarily go with this, I couldn't help but note that if true, this is one more example of.....

..... Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

I want to find the originator of this particular investigative canard-like principle... and hit them up the side of the head.....

The question should always be - "when does the absence of evidence actually count as evidence that something might be?"

If used as suggested by Anglo above, it functions as a veritable Rorschach Test of confirmation bias.

Bill, the whole case is a Rorschach Test, whatever that is. Everything that points clearly to innocence has an associated crazy explanation, from the molecular-level clean-up to Amanda's brilliant use of misdirection when naming Lumumba. I recommend you read the Massei report when you have some time. It's full of this stuff.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, the whole case is a Rorschach Test, whatever that is. Everything that points clearly to innocence has an associated crazy explanation, from the molecular-level clean-up to Amanda's brilliant use of misdirection when naming Lumumba. I recommend you read the Massei report when you have some time. It's full of this stuff.

I'd mention the number "39" here, but I tried that a few weeks ago and the whole thread went to pot!