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

[anglolawyer]

Thanks for the explanations! I must be coming down with something, my brain doesn't seem to be working very well so far today. It seems to me that in what you said in this post suggests an easy defense for Amanda on whether she 'ought to have known' that Patrick didn't do it: how could she? In fact her correspondence with him by text actually meant they she knew that he didn't want her at work, thus it was certainly possible that he'd done so as he was planning to go to the cottage and knew she was staying with Raffaele.

Snipped the rest solely for aesthetic reasons and I cannot get my mind out of this slumber long enough to retain what you are saying outside it sounds like you and LJ got into a knock down dragout and I ought to look it up! I remember the word 'otiose' coming up a few pages back, but I thought that was one of Grinder's conversations.

Yes, I can't get Grinder to kick the habit. No idea where he got that stupid word from. Talk about pretentious!

On whether she ought to have known that Lumumba was innocent, please bear in mind we do not know whether the law allows her to be convicted on what she ought to have known. The code does not use the expression. It just refers to knowledge, not constructive knowledge.

There are all kinds of places in the law where what you should have known catches you out just as much as if you actually did know it. You get fixed with such knowledge. It is imputed to you, like it or not. You are assumed to know the law for one thing, for the very good reason that if the law were only what you thought it was there would be no law, or, rather, there would be millions of legal systems running round the place, one for each of us.

Or, a lawyer negligently and mistakenly advises about something due to not knowing the law has changed. He will be liable for negligence on the basis of what he ought to have known, clearly, and will be fixed with that knowledge, like it or not. He knew or ought to have known and is therefore liable.

Can knowledge be imputed to Amanda in the same way? The code is not drafted in a way that suggests an affirmative answer so the short answer should be: no, Amanda's knowledge is limited to what it can be proved she subjectively knew, and you cannot add to it what a more intelligent, reasonable and/or sensible person might have known.

Regarding what you say, Hellman replies:

the circumstances under which Lumumba’s name emerged in the course of the police interrogation (a message directed to him taken from the cellular phone of Amanda Knox), and the lack of evidence of a connection between Lumumba and Meredith Kercher [should have] allowed Amanda Knox, even if actually innocent herself and far from the house on Via Della Pergola at the time of the crime, to be aware of Lumumba’s total innocence, and thus of the calumny that she was committing by pointing to him as the perpetrator of the murder.

Note the 'should have'. That is the language of constructive knowledge. Now, I don't know kompo nor whether he would revisit this part of the translation because if you change the word 'should' to 'could' then the meaning changes quite a bit.

But Hellman is not here discussing whether knowledge is actual or constructive for the purposes of this offence. He is only refuting the prosecution argument that the only way she could know Lumumba was innocent was if she committed the crime herself. The prosecution is actually saying it's either aggravated calunnia or nothing. Fine, in that case we'll take nothing.

 

[acbytesla]

I've been reading the last few pages over and over and over again. It makes my head spin. I simply don't understand the purpose of this charge. I don't see how a reasonable person would charge a defendant under these circumstances let alone convict her of it.

It seems as if the charge is motivated out of animosity as opposed to fulfilling some justifiable public purpose. We would call it "piling on" in the States.

It also seems that the circumstance for pressing such a charge is nuanced and should require at the very least the transcribing and preferably recording of the interrogation.

I guess I believe in "fair play" a little too much. The fact that Amanda did not speak the language very well combined with the fact that there is no transcription or recording of the interrogation would would lead a judge to providing the benefit of the doubt to the defendant.

Even if Amanda was guilty of the murder, I would not of good conscience find her guilty of the Calunnia. My perspective is the people forfeited the right to charge her with that crime when they failed to record the interrogation. How do we determine what Amanda's motive was without either of these two things?

Speaking of recording. I'm curious about the interrogation rooms. Are they wired for recording? And if not, why not? If the law in Italy requires it, you would think this would be pro-forma. Does anyone believe for one second, the excuse that Perugia couldn't afford it?

 

[Grinder]

Yes, I can't get Grinder to kick the habit. No idea where he got that stupid word from. Talk about pretentious!

Regarding what you say, Hellman replies:

the circumstances under which Lumumba’s name emerged in the course of the police interrogation (a message directed to him taken from the cellular phone of Amanda Knox), and the lack of evidence of a connection between Lumumba and Meredith Kercher [should have] allowed Amanda Knox, even if actually innocent herself and far from the house on Via Della Pergola at the time of the crime, to be aware of Lumumba’s total innocence, and thus of the calumny that she was committing by pointing to him as the perpetrator of the murder.

But Hellman is not here discussing whether knowledge is actual or constructive for the purposes of this offence. He is only refuting the prosecution argument that the only way she could know Lumumba was innocent was if she committed the crime herself. The prosecution is actually saying it's either aggravated calunnia or nothing. Fine, in that case we'll take nothing.

It is interesting that Hellmann gets the relationship between Meredith and Lumumba wrong. Apparently, that is the key to why he convicts her. Had Massei made such an error it would have made some sort of list. It causes concern that the Corte Suprema di Cassazione could see that and say Hellmann wasn't paying attention. It's like when someone lies about one thing it brings doubt to other things.

ETA - of course she could have seen him at the bar from 9 until 11 which would make it pretty darn clear that she knew he didn't do it. I'm only pointing out that there are other ways besides her being at cottage would allow her to know that he was innocent.

 

[Grinder]

Even if Amanda was guilty of the murder, I would not of good conscience find her guilty of the Calunnia. My perspective is the people forfeited the right to charge her with that crime when they failed to record the interrogation. How do we determine what Amanda's motive was without either of these two things?

Glad you agree

Speaking of recording. I'm curious about the interrogation rooms. Are they wired for recording? And if not, why not? If the law in Italy requires it, you would think this would be pro-forma. Does anyone believe for one second, the excuse that Perugia couldn't afford it?

Since Mignini's excuses included not being able to afford transcriptions and not that they had no capability I'd say they definitely had recording devices.

I don't believe the law requires recording of witness/people with information interviews. Yes, I've always believed she was a suspect by then.

I like the calumnia charge existing. If she had lied about Patrick on purpose to try to evade justice, then she should be punished for that. If the police were interviewing her honestly and she quickly went to the accusation then I wouldn't require recording for charges. I once was accused of a crime and police arrived didn't even write a report (I should have insisted) and when I asked them to charge the b**** with false reporting of a crime, they said she probably was confused. This person has gone on to getting numerous people charged with crimes but never convicted. I strongly believe that if someone does such a thing with or without a recording, they should be punished.

 

[anglolawyer]

It is interesting that Hellmann gets the relationship between Meredith and Lumumba wrong. Apparently, that is the key to why he convicts her. Had Massei made such an error it would have made some sort of list. It causes concern that the Corte Suprema di Cassazione could see that and say Hellmann wasn't paying attention. It's like when someone lies about one thing it brings doubt to other things.

I agree (in a shocking turn of events). Meredith did know Lumumba. Of course Amanda could have thought, 'well, they knew each other and he might have texted me as a pretext because he was fixing to go and see her and the cops say they know it was him, so sure, OK, it was him.' Thus, she cannot have known he was innocent and she gets off.

But, as LJ and I actually agree (another shocking turn ... etc.) if the law literally requires certain knowledge it is a stupid law. LJ thought it likely the Italian courts had clarified this and it would be good to know whether that was so.

If Amanda, not being under undue pressure and being reasonably well-rested and rational said Lumumba did it then she is a very bad person who deserves punishment, no? She should not get off on some technicality about what 'knowing' means. Therefore, the case ought to be about the goings on in the questura and whether they were such as to deprive her of the capacity to form the requisite intent. Since both Massei and Hellman found that she had capacity and they are the arbiters of fact I don't find it easy to see how she gets off on this ground.

What most here probably believe is something like this: the events of the night so impaired her ability to think straight that at the times (plural intended) she made the allegations against Lumumba she did not, subjectively speaking, 'know' he was innocent. Hellman has ruled against her on that as a matter of fact.

Another possibility is that she deliberately lied to end the torment. That would open a whole can of worms but the (fatal) problem with it is, it wasn't her evidence at trial.

 

[Grinder]

I agree (in a shocking turn of events). Meredith did know Lumumba. Of course Amanda could have thought, 'well, they knew each other and he might have texted me as a pretext because he was fixing to go and see her and the cops say they know it was him, so sure, OK, it was him.' Thus, she cannot have known he was innocent and she gets off.

She knew Lumumba, did she? Did Amanda know Rudi?

I don't think I made my point clear to you. Hellmann said, if I read it correctly, that Amanda should known that her statement was false since Meredith didn't know Patrick and vice versa.

But, as LJ and I actually agree (another shocking turn ... etc.) if the law literally requires certain knowledge it is a stupid law. LJ thought it likely the Italian courts had clarified this and it would be good to know whether that was so.

Well, then, I must disagree. This is for a criminal charge that puts one away for years. This is a felony not some petty misdemeanor. Even without the calumnia Patrick could sue for damages, at least here and I imagine there as well.

If Amanda, not being under undue pressure and being reasonably well-rested and rational said Lumumba did it then she is a very bad person who deserves punishment, no? She should not get off on some technicality about what 'knowing' means. Therefore, the case ought to be about the goings on in the questura and whether they were such as to deprive her of the capacity to form the requisite intent. Since both Massei and Hellman found that she had capacity and they are the arbiters of fact I don't find it easy to see how she gets off on this ground.

See above. She or the police should be liable for damages or both.

What most here probably believe is something like this: the events of the night so impaired her ability to think straight that at the times (plural intended) she made the allegations against Lumumba she did not, subjectively speaking, 'know' he was innocent. Hellman has ruled against her on that as a matter of fact.

Hellmann said since she knew M and P didn't know each other she should ahve know her story had to be false.

Another possibility is that she deliberately lied to end the torment. That would open a whole can of worms but the (fatal) problem with it is, it wasn't her evidence at trial.

That's also what Hellmann said.

Hey, Anglo what about the specious quote that I expanded at your request and referenced back to the appeal for Amanda saying Raf didn't give her up until after she spilled the beans?

 

[anglolawyer]

Hey, Anglo what about the specious quote that I expanded at your request and referenced back to the appeal for Amanda saying Raf didn't give her up until after she spilled the beans?

I will get back to you.

Meanwhile I basically don't understand anything you just posted.

 

[acbytesla]

Glad you agree



Since Mignini's excuses included not being able to afford transcriptions and not that they had no capability I'd say they definitely had recording devices.

I don't believe the law requires recording of witness/people with information interviews. Yes, I've always believed she was a suspect by then.

I like the calumnia charge existing. If she had lied about Patrick on purpose to try to evade justice, then she should be punished for that. If the police were interviewing her honestly and she quickly went to the accusation then I wouldn't require recording for charges. I once was accused of a crime and police arrived didn't even write a report (I should have insisted) and when I asked them to charge the b**** with false reporting of a crime, they said she probably was confused. This person has gone on to getting numerous people charged with crimes but never convicted. I strongly believe that if someone does such a thing with or without a recording, they should be punished.

With all due respect Grinder, it is the circumstances surrounding the accusation that matters. Amanda is playing the game...excuse the expression "but as the visiting team in a hostile environment".

In this case, you could hardly call it even a neutral field. Amanda hardly speaks the language, she is speaking through an interpreter and the language for the so called accusation is incredibly weak. The need for recording or transcribing is extra important in these circumstances, since you are depending on the interpreter to get it right. If Amanda had called the police to "accuse" someone, I would agree with your point.
Without a recording, how can we be sure what Amanda meant or what her motivation was?

The fact that this "interrogation" took place in a room of the police's choosing. They are responsible to get it right. Not the suspect. And the argument that she wasn't a suspect is simply NOT believable.

 

[acbytesla]

She knew Lumumba, did she? Did Amanda know Rudi?

I don't think I made my point clear to you. Hellmann said, if I read it correctly, that Amanda should known that her statement was false since Meredith didn't know Patrick and vice versa.

I have to admit I find this point interesting because I have read many guilters post that Amanda was motivated to kill Meredith because Patrick was going to fire Amanda and replace her with her roommate Meredith.

 

[anglolawyer]

A wide and in-depth analysis has been done of the subjective and objective situation experienced by Knox during the dreadful (orrenda) night between 5 and 6 November 2007 in the offices of the Judiciary Police of Perugia.
The appealed verdict reconstructs precisely the state in which the defendant was.

She had come to a state of "extreme exhaustion" out of pressures, physical offenses (the well known "scappellotti"), lack of legal assistance and above all because of the specious news that codefendant Sollecito had changed his version of the events, she was then threatened with thirty years in prison if she did not remember or confirm the facts.

These ascertained elements confirm the state of absolute need Knox was into and the threat of an extreme danger that she could avoid only pointing at some way of escape, even if not true (in practice inventing a story about Lumumba) that would have appeased the investigators and removed the threat.

Grinder

Instead of leaving me to guess, can you spell out your point? Are you saying this passage supports the argument that Raffaele was not asked whether Amanda went out 'on the spur of the moment' until after she had given the 1.45 statement? If so, how and, if not, in words of one syllable, what are you saying about this passage?

 

[Grinder]

With all due respect Grinder, it is the circumstances surrounding the accusation that matters. Amanda is playing the game...excuse the expression "but as the visiting team in a hostile environment".

With all due respect I thought you were saying that calumnia shouldn't be charged without a recording as a general rule.

I've been reading the last few pages over and over and over again. It makes my head spin. I simply don't understand the purpose of this charge. I don't see how a reasonable person would charge a defendant under these circumstances let alone convict her of it.
It seems as if the charge is motivated out of animosity as opposed to fulfilling some justifiable public purpose. We would call it "piling on" (throwing the book at) in the States.

It also seems that the circumstance for pressing such a charge is nuanced and should require at the very least the transcribing and preferably recording of the interrogation.

So I was taking it that since you used the word defendant and not Amanda you were generalizing.

In this case, you could hardly call it even a neutral field. Amanda hardly speaks the language, she is speaking through an interpreter and the language for the so called accusation is incredibly weak. The need for recording or transcribing is extra important in these circumstances, since you are depending on the interpreter to get it right. If Amanda had called the police to "accuse" someone, I would agree with your point.
Without a recording, how can we be sure what Amanda meant or what her motivation was?

Let's turn this around a little. If she did kill Meredith and she did try to foist the blame over to Patrick but caught the PLE by surprise and they weren't taping should she be forgiven the charge?

The fact that this "interrogation" took place in a room of the police's choosing. They are responsible to get it right. Not the suspect. And the argument that she wasn't a suspect is simply NOT believable.

I know that and have been arguing that since the beginning. Yes, they should have declared her a suspect, even though it is not as simple as, they thought she might be involved, and their system allows them to hold on to the witness status longer than I think it should.

I do not and never have thought she should have been convicted of the charge because from day one it was clear that the police had planted the story. Should Amanda have been recorded under the circumstances? I sure think so. Should the charge of calumnia require recording? No I don't think so.

 

[anglolawyer]

I have to admit I find this point interesting because I have read many guilters post that Amanda was motivated to kill Meredith because Patrick was going to fire Amanda and replace her with her roommate Meredith.

My understanding is Meredith had been to Le Chic and she made a cocktail that Patrick liked to serve his customers. I had better look in the books to see where I got that from.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder

Instead of leaving me to guess, can you spell out your point? Are you saying this passage supports the argument that Raffaele was not asked whether Amanda went out 'on the spur of the moment' until after she had given the 1.45 statement? If so, how and, if not, in words of one syllable, what are you saying about this passage?

It says that he did not pull her alibi until after she had signed the 1:45 note.

It would seem to show that the spur of moment did not happen until after her statement.

This quote from the appeal would back up what Raf said in his book about not pulling the alibi until after she had put herself at the cottage.

I thought that you had him giving her up before her statement. I could go back and check your theory but I am sure you can save me the work.

 

[anglolawyer]

It says that he did not pull her alibi until after she had signed the 1:45 note.

It would seem to show that the spur of moment did not happen until after her statement.

This quote from the appeal would back up what Raf said in his book about not pulling the alibi until after she had put herself at the cottage.

I thought that you had him giving her up before her statement. I could go back and check your theory but I am sure you can save me the work.

Thanks (and sorry to be so dim).

I can and I will be happy to save you any trouble at all. In the book, to recap, Raffaele says he was asked whether she went out 'on the spur of the moment' and he places this at the outset, before Amanda's interrogation has even started. I rely on this as showing the cops were driving them both towards confirming 'what they already knew' namely that A and P exchanged texts and she then went out immediately, lying to R when she did so.

Now, you would have it that it remains possible Raffaele got this wrong, that she told the cops this part of the story at or before 1.45 a.m. and they went and asked Raffaele about it before getting him to sign his statement at 3.30 a.m. and you cite this extract from her calunnia appeal in support:

She had come to a state of "extreme exhaustion" out of pressures, physical offenses (the well known "scappellotti"), lack of legal assistance and above all because of the specious news that codefendant Sollecito had changed his version of the events, she was then threatened with thirty years in prison if she did not remember or confirm the facts.

Well, this is simple isn't it? We know she crumbled at 1.45 a.m. Therefore the specious news was communicated to her before 1.45 a.m. Therefore Raffaele had changed his story long before actually signed his statement at 3.30 p.m.

 

[Grinder]

My understanding is Meredith had been to Le Chic and she made a cocktail that Patrick liked to serve his customers. I had better look in the books to see where I got that from.

It has been out there for years that Meredith was offered a night to make Mojitos with Polish Vodka (or something like that) that she saw when visiting the bar with Amanda.

From the TimesOnline 2009 - ...Into this strange gathering of people stepped Meredith, and one evening in mid-October she was invited by Knox to Le Chic bar where Knox worked. As Meredith walked in, her gaze was drawn to a bottle of Polish vodka behind the counter. “Oh, you’ve got Polish vodka,” she exclaimed, according to a legal source last week who is familiar with testimony in the case.

Lumumba, the bar manager who was known to all as Patrick, took notice and started chatting to her. Meredith told him: “I used to work in England as a barmaid, I know how to make mojitos with that vodka.” Lumumba, according to police documents, was born in Zaire in May 1963, which makes him 44 - not 37 as has been previously reported.

He was rather taken by the much younger Meredith, according to some testimony. The following Sunday, Lumumba asked Knox to bring Meredith along for an evening of free pizza. On that occasion, Lumumba again spoke to Meredith. “Why don’t you come back and make mojitos with that Polish vodka one evening?” he asked her.

 

[Grinder]

Well, this is simple isn't it? We know she crumbled at 1.45 a.m. Therefore the specious news was communicated to her before 1.45 a.m. Therefore Raffaele had changed his story long before actually signed his statement at 3.30 p.m.

Yes before 1:45 but I thought your theory involved them breaking Raf so they could go to Amanda and break her because she no longer had an alibi.

Anyway, I was just following your theory as you had requested and then you turn on me

Does the revelation that she broke before he pulled the alibi hurt your theory?

 

[acbytesla]

With all due respect I thought you were saying that calumnia shouldn't be charged without a recording as a general rule.

So I was taking it that since you used the word defendant and not Amanda you were generalizing.

Let's turn this around a little. If she did kill Meredith and she did try to foist the blame over to Patrick but caught the PLE by surprise and they weren't taping should she be forgiven the charge?

My point is not that there shouldn't be a law against filing a false police report. There is in fact a law in the US against this very thing. My point is that the accusation against Patrick arose through an interrogation in the police's own interrogation room. This wasn't a "field interview". No it took place where the police "controlled the entire environment" and therefore are responsible for the environment and everything that happens during it.

If Amanda, did indeed "surprise" the police and accuse the Patrick, I believe the police would have the responsibility then to stop the interview and warn the suspect of the consequences of false accusations and then make sure that it is recorded at that time. This is NOT difficult and should be a reasonable precaution against "creating" crimes and criminals.

But of course, that didn't happen, they were trying to get her to finger somebody and clearly they were thinking of Lumumba.

 

[anglolawyer]

It has been out there for years that Meredith was offered a night to make Mojitos with Polish Vodka (or something like that) that she saw when visiting the bar with Amanda.

From the TimesOnline 2009 - ...Into this strange gathering of people stepped Meredith, and one evening in mid-October she was invited by Knox to Le Chic bar where Knox worked. As Meredith walked in, her gaze was drawn to a bottle of Polish vodka behind the counter. “Oh, you’ve got Polish vodka,” she exclaimed, according to a legal source last week who is familiar with testimony in the case.

Lumumba, the bar manager who was known to all as Patrick, took notice and started chatting to her. Meredith told him: “I used to work in England as a barmaid, I know how to make mojitos with that vodka.” Lumumba, according to police documents, was born in Zaire in May 1963, which makes him 44 - not 37 as has been previously reported.

He was rather taken by the much younger Meredith, according to some testimony. The following Sunday, Lumumba asked Knox to bring Meredith along for an evening of free pizza. On that occasion, Lumumba again spoke to Meredith. “Why don’t you come back and make mojitos with that Polish vodka one evening?” he asked her.

Thanks Grinder. That's what I thought. So we are building quite a case against Hellman. He got this wrong while straining to find something to refute the prosecution argument.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yes before 1:45 but I thought your theory involved them breaking Raf so they could go to Amanda and break her because she no longer had an alibi.

I see the source of misunderstanding. No, Raffaele can break at any time, but I want it to be true that the cops asked him whether she went out 'on the spur of the moment' before they 'discovered' this from her.

Anyway, I was just following your theory as you had requested and then you turn on me

Does the revelation that she broke before he pulled the alibi hurt your theory?

No.

ETA but I think the cops got enough equivocation from Raffaele to be able to tell her he had pulled the alibi or even that they just lied to her believing he would succumb anyway.

 

[Grinder]

If Amanda, did indeed "surprise" the police and accuse the Patrick, I believe the police would have the responsibility then to stop the interview and warn the suspect of the consequences of false accusations and then make sure that it is recorded at that time. This is NOT difficult and should be a reasonable precaution against "creating" crimes and criminals.

But of course, that didn't happen, they were trying to get her to finger somebody and clearly they were thinking of Lumumba.

I agree and I think everyone with an IQ over 80 agrees that they should have recorded it from the beginning and if not the beginning as soon as she started with her "visions", they should have declared her a suspect and afforded her all the rights associated with that status.

I believe that they firmly believed at the point of starting the interrogation after seeing the SMS or perhaps before, if they had them which I don't think has been verified, they honestly believed she knew something and was covering for someone. I don't believe on the 5th they were of the mind to frame her.

I think every exchange with the cops should be recorded if at all possible, but I don't think a false report should get off because the cops didn't record as a matter of law.