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

[Machiavelli]

I agree. When the questioning of Amanda began, there was no evidence and no potential charge against her.

Actually there was a potential charge, but at the moment, the charge was not murder. She was, informally, strongly suspected. But not strongly suspected of murder: strongly suspected of lying and covering up for the real murerer. This is why she was a person informed about facts in the charge of murder, not a suspect, under all point of views.

 

[acbytesla]

You are maliciously lying if you call me a child rape apologist.

Why? You seem to believe that it is ok for a 60 year old to have sex with an 11 year old and not serve time for it. Seems like an apologist to me.

 

[Mary_H]

The police never told her there was blood on Sollecito's hands. They never named Patrick Lumumba. They never said Patrick wanted to have fun and wanted to have sex with Meredith, never told her Meredith uttered a terrible scream covering their ears, never told her that she was crouching in the kitchen knowing ("imagining") what was goind on. Never told her that Lumumba is a bad person and that she should be very afraid of him.

What they told her, as for her own testimony, is that they didn't believe her, that Sollecito withdrew her alibi, that she was acting as a stupid liar, that they hit her twice at the back of her head, that they may consider her an accomplice if she didn't tell the truth, that they did not belive her when she said she didn't meet anyone, and also objected she sent an sms in Italian suggesting an appointment that evening.
That's all what they said. The rest is Amanda's.

I don't care if she wrote the next five volumes of War and Peace. She did what the police wanted her to do, which was to embellish and create. She went into the Questura with a story the cops didn't like, and came out with one they liked and approved of. Curiously, the story the cops liked and approved turned out to be completely false. That, right there, proves the point.

 

[acbytesla]

And that makes her look better how exactly?

Just figured you might as well be reporting the facts instead of myth. I would think you would want to be telling the truth. But hey, if you want to lie, I guess I can't stop you. But if it was me, I'd want to know I was accurate.

 

[Dan O.]

; but also, I remind that Sollecito committed the same crime and he has been walking the streets after 4 years and will be walking the streets after another 8 years. Some people will not like this, too.

isn't accusing someone of committing a crime itself a crime in Italy? What evidence do you have that Sollecito committed the crime that you are accusing him of?

 

[billyryan]

Spezi actually has multiple convictions, and currently stands indicted for his malicious placing of false evidence against Antonio Vinci, for which he was caught in flagrante delicto.

One charge left acquitted on all of the rest,your criminal justice system now has the same credibility as the Syrian government,I bet the ECHR already know this case is coming their way,it will be the most publicised case they have ever dealt with,with this one case they can prove to the people of Europe that they are a very important institution fearlessly defending the ordinary man in the street against national criminal justice systems corruption and abuse

 

[Mary_H]

Actually there was a potential charge, but at the moment, the charge was not murder. She was, informally, strongly suspected. But not strongly suspected of murder: strongly suspected of lying and covering up for the real murerer. This is why she was a person informed about facts in the charge of murder, not a suspect, under all point of views.

I see. She was suspected (under some points of view), but she was not a suspect (under all points of view).

Being strongly suspected of lying and covering up for the real murderer apparently provides for a set of rights different from being strongly suspected of murder. Okay.

 

[Mary_H]

Why? You seem to believe that it is ok for a 60 year old to have sex with an 11 year old and not serve time for it. Seems like an apologist to me.

To me, this is off topic enough to be a separate discussion.

 

[moogspaceport]

First of all her "handwritten note" was written within a few hours of the "confession" and seems entirely believable and easily misinterpreted by non-native english speakers.

Secondly, if she is guilty, it just makes absolutely no sense at all for her to accuse Lumumba, because she would have known he wasn't there. The confession and accusation makes absolutely no sense if she was guilty. The confession itself notes she continuously shakes her head while "saying" these things, another sign she doesn't believe what she is saying.

Really the only logical conclusion is she was railroaded. The lack of recording or transcripts of the interrogation makes it all the more suspicious.

It does make it very suspicious, and I cannot put myself in Amanda's shoes... I do not know what it is like to be a 21 year old student abroad in a country where I barely understand the language, accused of having something to do with a terrible crime. As I said before, I don't think Knox or Sollecito murdered Kercher. I do think she was probably railroaded in the confession. Still, she accused Lumumba of a crime she had to know he did not commit, and that's messed up, regardless of the badgering from the Italian police.

 

[RoseMontague]

You are maliciously lying if you call me a child rape apologist.

You seem to support the court's action in this regard, good for you. What I consider a malicious lie is the calling of AKRS supporters racists and filthy mafioso. I can't see how this advances your argument at all. I don't agree with Mary on this case because I think that the child sexual abuse case shows how crazy the Italian system of justice is. That is something I have seen many times in Kercher case.

 

[Mary_H]

It does make it very suspicious, and I cannot put myself in Amanda's shoes... I do not know what it is like to be a 21 year old student abroad in a country where I barely understand the language, accused of having something to do with a terrible crime. As I said before, I don't think Knox or Sollecito murdered Kercher. I do think she was probably railroaded in the confession. Still, she accused Lumumba of a crime she had to know he did not commit, and that's messed up, regardless of the badgering from the Italian police.

Can you elaborate, moogspaceport?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

link to Saul Kassin's article

It does make it very suspicious, and I cannot put myself in Amanda's shoes... I do not know what it is like to be a 21 year old student abroad in a country where I barely understand the language, accused of having something to do with a terrible crime. As I said before, I don't think Knox or Sollecito murdered Kercher. I do think she was probably railroaded in the confession. Still, she accused Lumumba of a crime she had to know he did not commit, and that's messed up, regardless of the badgering from the Italian police.

moogspaceport,

Hi from Wilmington, NC. IIRC she was twenty. She retracted completely in her second memoriale (7 November), parts of which were quoted back to her by PM Mignini, so there can be no doubt of what she said. I trust Saul Kassin's perspective on this question.

 

[Dan O.]

It does make it very suspicious, and I cannot put myself in Amanda's shoes... I do not know what it is like to be a 21 year old student abroad in a country where I barely understand the language, accused of having something to do with a terrible crime. As I said before, I don't think Knox or Sollecito murdered Kercher. I do think she was probably railroaded in the confession. Still, she accused Lumumba of a crime she had to know he did not commit, and that's messed up, regardless of the badgering from the Italian police.

Did Amanda send Patrick a text message saying that she would meet him? The accusation all starts from there. Without the meeting, there is no trip to the cottage. Without the trip to the cottage, Patrick doesn't meet Meredith. If Patrick doesn't meet Meredith, they don't go to her room together. If they don't go to her room together, there is not sexual advance. If there is no sexual advance, there is no rejection. If there is no rejection, Patrick doesn't confusedly murder Meredith.

So, can you answer that question: Did Amanda send Patrick a text message saying that she wanted to meet him or was that theory all started by the Italian police not understanding the American phrase "see you later"?

 

[Machiavelli]

You seem to support the court's action in this regard, good for you. What I consider a malicious lie is the calling of AKRS supporters racists and filthy mafioso. I can't see how this advances your argument at all. I don't agree with Mary on this case because I think that the child sexual abuse case shows how crazy the Italian system of justice is. That is something I have seen many times in Kercher case.

I support the court decision because the decision is legal. It is provided by the law. The law is made by legislators. The decision is also fair in the context of the set of laws, but above all it is legally correct.
But the decision does NOT say that it is ok to have sex with children. This is a lie. Proven lie, not just unfounded assertion.
I do consider many Knox supporters racists. And not in a position to call som people corrupt or mafiosi or liars, given their moral credibility.

 

[Mary_H]

Nencini it seems is saying the motive is that they had nothing better to do. The question about Raffaelel's statements is addressed as well with the judge saying he has never been questioned and even his statements in front of Matteini are not usable.

http://goo.gl/e35HfV

Gotta love this part:

Twelve hours of closed session, why so long?
"It was the time, there was the need for the jurors would take cognizance of the acts. The documents in this process occupy half the room. It felt two things: the severity of the situation. And then, I must be honest, the media overexposure of this case, that did not help. Jurors returned home and were bombarded by information. And when we saw each other, they wanted to know: "President, but on TV they said in another way. How did it really?" So my logic was: let's take the time you need, we have to come out with a clear conscience. So it was."

 

[Bill Williams]

Actually there was a potential charge, but at the moment, the charge was not murder. She was, informally, strongly suspected. But not strongly suspected of murder: strongly suspected of lying and covering up for the real murerer. This is why she was a person informed about facts in the charge of murder, not a suspect, under all point of views.

Folks - this is the judicial sleight of hand that caused this eventual wrongful conviction. There is not such thing as "strongly suspected" in Italian law.

Mignini was very clear in his eventual intervention, about the term of Article 63.

Machiavelli will argue this until he's blue, because this point is one on which the rest turns. It is a battleground point.

I, for one, am glad that Machiavelli openly fudges on a fictional distinction.

 

[acbytesla]

To me, this is off topic enough to be a separate discussion.

It is definitely tangentially related to the Kercher case. It demonstrates Machiavelli's defense of Italy's misogynistic judicial system.

 

[Bill Williams]

I support the court decision because the decision is legal. It is provided by the law. The law is made by legislators. The decision is also fair in the context of the set of laws, but above all it is legally correct.
But the decision does NOT say that it is ok to have sex with children. This is a lie. Proven lie, not just unfounded assertion.
I do consider many Knox supporters racists. And not in a position to call som people corrupt or mafiosi or liars, given their moral credibility.

But your considerations have no weight, other than your uninformed opinion. I am grateful that you phrase it the way you do.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think you are alone. I don't know any other child rape apologists.

Machiavelli is the only one I have seen so far.

I agree. It is a fair reading of Machiavelli's posts here that he believes as you say.

My hope is that others will then connect the dots.... Machiavelli also suggests there is a difference between "someone strong suspected" and a suspect.

You have to hand it to him. He doesn't try to hide it. You'd also think he was unaware of Nencini's wrongful conviction on Thursday... Machiavelli actually no longer needs to argue this.

Does this mean that the point is still "in play"?

 

[moije2]

What does that mean, "considered a suspect"? That is totally subjective. Being a suspect means there are elements of evidence for a specific charge, evidence that can be filed. It does not mean that someone subjectively considers you something.

I think I agree with this - being a suspect means having <some> indication. Or elements if you will of criminal conduct. If you have all elements then they would likely be charged and arrested etc.

As such, isn't that what they had against Amanda, some indication? And isn't that precisely when the right to an attorney attaches?

Seems like that you are arguing that they did indeed fail to provide an attorney. Unless you argue that Raffaele retracting support for her alibi provides no such "element". That would seem difficult to me.