Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Bill Williams]

I was just posing the problem. Florence is not starting off where Hellman did. They already have her guilty of calunnia before she walks in. I guess they could just repeat Hellman's findings but if they do they will be, as you say, arguing with the ISC. What a dog's breakfast. I still blame Hellman for it. He should have gone the whole hog and acquitted of calunnia.

If you remember, when I started I was the only one in the universe who agreed with Hellmann in toto. Look where that got me.

 

[Grinder]

I was just posing the problem. Florence is not starting off where Hellman did. They already have her guilty of calunnia before she walks in. I guess they could just repeat Hellman's findings but if they do they will be, as you say, arguing with the ISC. What a dog's breakfast. I still blame Hellman for it. He should have gone the whole hog and acquitted of calunnia.

Yes. It was obvious that his logic on this was flawed. She could have known that Patrick didn't do it because he didn't know Meredith -

I could have agreed it was possible that she finally gave up and signed the statement to get them to stop but she would have done that not knowing whether he did it or not.

It is important for a public relations standpoint to expose de Felice and Nappy's crew for what they are. They need to hammer his quote from the press conference and demand what they knew to be correct. Regardless of the technical aspects of calunnia they need to show that the only way they could have known what she signed was correct was that they fed it to her or that she just happened to come up with the exact story they had come to know was correct.

I continue to doubt a regular legal approach will win this case.

 

[Grinder]

If you remember, when I started I was the only one in the universe who agreed with Hellmann in toto. Look where that got me.

You're kidding!

 

[Bill Williams]

If you remember, when I started I was the only one in the universe who agreed with Hellmann in toto. Look where that got me.

You're kidding!

Ok, I lied. Zanetti agreed with him. Or so I assume. I changed my mind on the exact one that was held up at ISC, so why ANYONE listens to what I've blathered on about is the biggest surprise of all.

In truth, I was a mild guilter at first, only because I didn't pay much attention and what little I knew back then was, "DNA is DNA is DNA." I didn't even know what "DNA" they were referring to, and couldn't spell Haplotype to save my life, and knew nothing of bras or kitchen knives..... I reasoned, "If they've got DNA then I hope those two kids enjoy jail!"

It was reading TJMK's version of Drew Griffin's interview with Mignini as well as reading Massei's motivation that changed my mind about calunnia, mainly Mignini. He lied to Griffin between his teeth about the interrogation. I didn't know it then, but Griffin reports that the next day he had a chance meeting with Mignini on the street, and Mignini asked if Griffin thought he’d been truthful, were there inconsistencies?

“He was basically asking if I thought he was lying, because I’d been questioning him about many things,” said Griffin. Speaking through an interpreter, he gave the embattled prosecutor a noncomittal answer and the two shook hands.

See Dempsey's coverage of this at.... http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/05/06/cnn-amanda-knox-prosecutor-rambling-confused/

Of course guilters will say "consider the source." Go for it.

The point is, I got the same feeling simply by reading the TJMK supplied transcript of the full Griffin interview with Mignini, before realizing that others (Griffin, Dempsey, etc.) had come to the same conclusion. I cannot comment about anything else, really, but as far as Mignini's account of the crucial interrogation is concerned, Mignini was and is a Grade A liar.

The rest is history.

 

[RandyN]

Because without the video recording, the defence team themselves could be charged with either defamation or calunnia, especially if they were seen to be accusing the cops of criminal behaviour which they knew did not exist.

This is complete bull crap. So you are suggesting that a claim even though true but that is without a certain amount of evidence is a crime in Italy? Ok fine...

Please explain why Lumumbas lawyer could call Knox a witch without any proof that she was any such? Did they secretly put her in the water to see if she could float?

As to the claims she made in court...there is more than this bare statement that suggests she is telling the truth.

1. Giobbi testified that from another office he could hear Knox screaming. The problem is that the weak useless defense failed to pin Giobbi down as to why Knox may have been screaming. This was their fear of defending the truth about their client in order to remain distant from it...."All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing"...I am quite certain the defense are all good men and women...but I am just as certain that evil did in fact prevail.

2. RS heard AK scream and cry out for help from his own torture chamber. Did the defense question anyone? Did they run an investigation? Did they put it to the prosecution office as to why they failed to run an investigation? NO! useless pieces of crap....did nothing.

3. One recording is missing...guess which one.

4. Folain mentions this recording being partially released to the press...was he lying? Did he see it? Does he know about it? None of this comes out unless someone files some charges seeking answers to these highly important statements.

5. Why would Knox first mention the hits and then explain she understands the stress police are under? It happened....Fiquura did it and we all know its true.

6. It what world is there lawyer law but also police law that allows interrogation to be assisted by a few rabbit whacks to the back of the head? Not in any civilized country...N.Korea...perhaps. Iran maybe., Syria possibly... but is that really legal in any first world country?...a status Italy wishes to claim for itself although this case has proven without a doubt that the ECOHR has Italy exactly right. One of the worst if not the worst democratic countries for human rights violations by its judicial system. Those facts are indisputable. Perhaps the defense might bring that point up.

Italy has escaped the full punishment they deserve for first bringing such a ludicrous baseless case and they deserve to be publicly hung for going above and beyond to hide the original corrupt action. Corrupt right up to and including the Italian SC.

Not like they didnt have the chance to save face and move on...they wish to open Pandoras box...stupid stupid people.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I cannot remember

I still blame Hellman for it. He should have gone the whole hog and acquitted of calunnia.

It is possible (though I think it unlikely), that Hellman got outvoted by the lay judges. Or do we know that it was unanimous?

 

[Bill Williams]

Please explain why Lumumbas lawyer could call Knox a witch without any proof that she was any such?

Because the person who was responsible for laying the charge is the PM, ie. Mignini.

 

[Grinder]

Because the person who was responsible for laying the charge is the PM, ie. Mignini.

It is not a crime to be a witch in Italy.

He could be sued by Amanda for defamation, but I'm guessing that's not a priority.

Calunnia is making a criminal accusation against someone.

 

[RandyN]

Yes, the aggravating circumstance, which is one of a list set out in the penal code that applies to all offences (or, if not all, more than just calunnia) is making the false allegation with intent to evade her own or another's responsibility for the crime.

This is why there is still such a battle around the calunnia charge and why Mach is cock-a-hoop that Hellman's conviction for the basic offence was upheld. For how can she have known Patrick was innocent if she was not herself involved as she is now in law deemed to have known? It no longer lies in her mouth to say she did not know. It has been found against her that she did. If she returned and gave evidence of lack of knowledge she would be silenced by the court, quite correctly.

If she's not going back, or even if she is, how is the defence going to deal with this? It's no good arguing the cops told her they knew Patrick was there and as a result she came momentarily to beleve he was implicated. The ISC has ruled that out and Florence is bound hand and foot by the ruling.

Simple...just as they should have all along....

"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."

Impossible to know then and even today impossible to actually know...Did the murder occur with the help of Lumumba? Did he step out for some minutes? He has no receipts that help him fix the time of operating hours of his bar. And there still is that SIM card change and cottage ping of Lumumbas phone...come on the guy was certainly a small time drug dealer...probably Guedes supplier...who knows? Was he passing out pamphlets or free samples to students at their steps hangout?

No matter...then and today it is impossible to know if Lumumba is innocent. That makes calunnia impossible according to the way I read the law. How do they ignore this? Because the stupid defense never bothers to raise the point???

 

[RandyN]

Respectfully disagree here Bill:



and



IOW she knew her exchange with Patrick was totally benign and she knew there was no connection between him and MK. She cannot at the same time momentarily have believed something the cops told her ('we know he was there' and btw. it's not her evidence they said that) and that Patrick could not be involved for the reasons above.

Why isn't she stuffed?

ETA she comes before the Florence court convicted of calunnia. The court cannot go behind that finding.

False....we have no idea about the relationship between Lumumba and MK. If we are to believe him he fired Knox and was going to replace her with Miss Kercher. He did say that after all. Plus who knows what he said to Knox prior to the murder. Did he have the hots for MK? Sure seems possible, even probable.

The SC decision is not the final word in Italy. Please dont make me keep repeating this known fact...investigate the murder case from year 2000 that Hellmann as part of a 3 judge panel overturned. Its not a secret that the SC had already confirmed this murder conviction.

This is Italy...they say they have a law to overcome any other law. This is the foundation of their legal system.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

However, Schene was not found guilty.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2012317057_schene10m.html
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/No-third-trial-for-ex-deputy-accused-of-jail-886478.php

Mary, that is truly amazing.

 

[RandyN]

It is not a crime to be a witch in Italy. He could be sued by Amanda for defamation, but I'm guessing that's not a priority.

Calunnia is making a criminal accusation against someone.

You sure about that? They got Clooney for driving a boat w/o a license...surly one must have a license to fly a broom...see what I did there?

I am applying Italian logic...

 

[Chris_Halkides]

2010 AI report on Italy

This is weird. No matter how pose the question, no one seems to want to address it.

“I just don’t understand how lodging a formal complaint with the court would have resulted in Calunnia?”

I think I misunderstood your question. Fortunately others have given you some detailed explanations. I would add that making a formal complaint would serve no purpose. In 2010 Amnesty International wrote, "Italy failed to introduce an independent police complaints body and to introduce the crime of torture in its ordinary criminal legislation." Pretty much what they wrote in 2007.

 

[Mary_H]

because it's against the law?

Thanks, anglo, but that is really the question. What law is it against? I find it very hard to believe Italy has a law that says the carabinieri cannot cuff an "uncooperative" suspect in the head a couple times.

Even more than being against the law, had they admitted they slapped her when combined with the "we questioned her until she BUCKLED and told us what we knew to be correct" really, really looks bad. I think it looked bad from day one but had they admitted...

Thanks, Grinder, but it wouldn't look any worse than it already looks. They have never allowed appearances to stand in their way.

This may or may not answer your question. For some, the alpha and the omega of this case is that Amanda accused an innocent man. When one acknowledges that there was physical coercion, one is also forced to admit that this weakens slightly the idea that she accused Patrick because she was guilty, because it at least admits the possibility of an alternate explanation. Also, people who believe she was cuffed are likely to feel more sympathy for her than people who believe that she was not.

Thanks, Chris, but there is an easy alternate explanation for the cops -- the one they have already offered. She wasn't cooperating, so we made her cooperate. They feel this is within their right, and legally, it very well may be.

I would guess most countries in the world would not protest against the whacks. That's what puzzles me about why the Perugians are so adamant in their denial. They don't even bother denying or suing over the fake HIV test and leaking Amanda's diary, and that episode is much closer to the definition of torture than the whacks were.

 

[Mary_H]

Mary, that is truly amazing.

I agree, Sherlock. That was one of the reasons Seattle got a visit and lengthy review from the Justice Department. They still have a long way to go toward restoring their image.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Grinder, Skind, Bill, Halides1 and Mary_H

Firstly, thank you for your posts, in particular Skind and Grinder as they addressed my question or confusion.

I thought the Calunnia applied because Amanda made the accusation whilst testifying and wrongly assumed that if Amanda’s legal team had made a formal complaint to the court that this would treated differently, post #10295 and #10293 clarified why Amanda legal team didn’t make a formal complaint.

 

[anglolawyer]

It is possible (though I think it unlikely), that Hellman got outvoted by the lay judges. Or do we know that it was unanimous?

I have no idea.

 

[anglolawyer]

Simple...just as they should have all along....

"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."

Impossible to know then and even today impossible to actually know...Did the murder occur with the help of Lumumba? Did he step out for some minutes? He has no receipts that help him fix the time of operating hours of his bar. And there still is that SIM card change and cottage ping of Lumumbas phone...come on the guy was certainly a small time drug dealer...probably Guedes supplier...who knows? Was he passing out pamphlets or free samples to students at their steps hangout?

No matter...then and today it is impossible to know if Lumumba is innocent. That makes calunnia impossible according to the way I read the law. How do they ignore this? Because the stupid defense never bothers to raise the point???

Randy, you are missing the point or, as you would put it - bull crap! She has been convicted of the offence in all three courts. It is therefore a judicially established and legally incontrovertible fact, so far as Florence is concerned, that she did know Patrick was innocent when she accused him of murder.

 

[anglolawyer]

False....we have no idea about the relationship between Lumumba and MK. If we are to believe him he fired Knox and was going to replace her with Miss Kercher. He did say that after all. Plus who knows what he said to Knox prior to the murder. Did he have the hots for MK? Sure seems possible, even probable.

The SC decision is not the final word in Italy. Please dont make me keep repeating this known fact...investigate the murder case from year 2000 that Hellmann as part of a 3 judge panel overturned. Its not a secret that the SC had already confirmed this murder conviction.

This is Italy...they say they have a law to overcome any other law. This is the foundation of their legal system.

You are re-fighting Waterloo, Bonaparte. Short of the ECHR she is guilty of calunnia.

 

[JREF2010]

Randy, you are missing the point or, as you would put it - bull crap! She has been convicted of the offence in all three courts. It is therefore a judicially established and legally incontrovertible fact, so far as Florence is concerned, that she did know Patrick was innocent when she accused him of murder.

and if she can be convicted unfairly for the interrogation, by the judge that acquitted her (best case scenario) ,

it is highly likely she will be convicted unfairly for murder, by a system that is ordered to go along with the ISC who accepts the guilty verdicts and rejects the innocent verdicts.

I guess because the system isnt investigating the prosecution/police, the system only wants to support it self, protect itself....face saving.
They dont want to open that black box of a corrupt and/or incompetent system, instead support it and protect it will be the outcome.

maybe they can save face by calling her guilty and then let it fade away in the extradition phase, for Raffaele its probably not going to be easy as he is in the country of this face-saving system.

is it better to convict one innocent kid, than to admit the entire system is faulty and makes horrific mistakes and possibly is incompetent?
thats the real ISC decision, and I think they will convict for all the wrong reasons.