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

[christianahannah]

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.

Have you seen this second memoriale in its entirety? Is it publicly available?

 

[Mary_H]

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.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" applies to everyone, Mach, including you. If we were abiding by that rule, there would be no websites and no discussion. On the other hand, there would be no legal systems, no arrests, no prosecutions.

 

[christianahannah]

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.

I agree with Mary_H that this is subject is off topic enough to have its own discussion but I'll ask this and be done with it - do you think the publicity this case (60 year old man, 11 year old child) has generated, both inside and outside Italy, will cause some action by legislators to change the law?

 

[Mary_H]

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

True. Have we covered it to a greater extent, though, than we have the jeans-rape law, the earthquake controversy, or the Sarah Scazzi case? It would be interesting to collect the statistics on that (but I'm not going to do it).

I think it's already pretty obvious that Machiavelli defends everything that is reprehensible about the Italian legal system.

 

[moogspaceport]

Can you elaborate, moogspaceport?

Didn't Knox accuse Lumumba of killing Kercher?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Waiting to be Heard has the whole text

Have you seen this second memoriale in its entirety? Is it publicly available?

I have read it in Amanda's book, and a commenter at Websleuths copied it there. The key passage (which I have quoted several times here) is the one that PM Mignini quoted back to her in cross examination; that passage is also found in Follain's book (and I think it is fair to say that Mr. Follain is not sympathetic to Ms. Knox). Perhaps we can dispense with questions about the authenticity of any passage that appears in all three places.

 

[christianahannah]

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

Here is another interview with Nencini and translation of that interview:

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/14_...ta-48072a24-8b06-11e3-bf44-9aaf223b3498.shtml

http://thefreelancedesk.com/front_featured/amanda-knox-appeal-2/

 

[Mary_H]

Didn't Knox accuse Lumumba of killing Kercher?

You wrote, "Still, she accused Lumumba of a crime she had to know he did not commit,..." The question is how she could know he did not commit the crime. How could she know anything about the crime?

 

[moogspaceport]

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.

I'm going to give that a read through... thanks!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

deconstructing the confusion

Didn't Knox accuse Lumumba of killing Kercher?

I suggest reading both of the police statements for yourself. "I recall confusedly that he killed her." Some time ago Kaosium wrote an analysis in these threads, and it is well worth one's time to read it.

 

[Bob001]

Idle question: Suppose that Guede, now or after he is released from prison, publicly said "I did it, and I did it all by myself. Nyah, nyah, nyah!" What would be the legal consequences for him -- after all, he's already been convicted and sentenced -- and for Amanda and Raffaele? Would they be cleared, or could the courts say something like "We think he's lying. We know they did it."

 

[christianahannah]

I have read it in Amanda's book, and a commenter at Websleuths copied it there. The key passage (which I have quoted several times here) is the one that PM Mignini quoted back to her in cross examination; that passage is also found in Follain's book (and I think it is fair to say that Mr. Follain is not sympathetic to Ms. Knox). Perhaps we can dispense with questions about the authenticity of any passage that appears in all three places.

I know the passage is quoted from Amanda's testimony but is the whole document available? Is this the two letters available written by Amanda to her attorneys on Andrea Vogt's website?

And my question had nothing to do with authenticity but rather if you had seen the whole document? Do you have a link to the Websleuths page?

 

[moogspaceport]

You wrote, "Still, she accused Lumumba of a crime she had to know he did not commit,..." The question is how she could know he did not commit the crime. How could she know anything about the crime?

Oh, I see what you're saying. I should have said "she accused Lumumba of a crime, without knowing whether he did it or not."

 

[Mary_H]

Oh, I see what you're saying. I should have said "she accused Lumumba of a crime, without knowing whether he did it or not."

 

[Bob001]

Another idle question: Suppose this second appeals court had upheld the acquittal? Would the prosecution have been able to appeal that decision back to the Supreme Court, and could that court then have sent the case back down to yet another appeals court? In other words, could the Supreme Court have kept ordering appeals until they got the decision they wanted? Is there any reason to think they sent the case to this particular appeals court because they had reason to believe it would convict?

 

[moogspaceport]

I suggest reading both of the police statements for yourself. "I recall confusedly that he killed her." Some time ago Kaosium wrote an analysis in these threads, and it is well worth one's time to read it.

Thanks for the link and I will definitely check that out. I've enjoyed reading through a chunks of these threads but truthfully, there's so much to wade through it can be confusing.

 

[acbytesla]

True. Have we covered it to a greater extent, though, than we have the jeans-rape law, the earthquake controversy, or the Sarah Scazzi case? It would be interesting to collect the statistics on that (but I'm not going to do it).

I think it's already pretty obvious that Machiavelli defends everything that is reprehensible about the Italian legal system.

It's clear that he seems to be a defender of the faith. That the system is not broken. That it is not in need of a serious overhaul. The failure to acknowledge actual science as well as common sense and logic. I find it unfathomable that they would use Curatolo in a court case and if they did, impossible to believe he is credible. And then, not to recognize the simple fact that if Curatolo is credible that he actually provides and alibi.

That's Machiavelli. He is an apologist for the entire system...or at least when it confirms his personal bias.

 

[Poppy1016]

And that makes her look better how exactly?

Good job avoiding the questions you have been asked regarding evidence and timeline.

 

[Poppy1016]

I have it. But I don't think it's a real scoop.
The small technical problem in this moment is extrapolating it from a larger pdf file (I don't have a pdf distiller on this device).

I think you are using an alcohol distiller.

 

[acbytesla]

Another idle question: Suppose this second appeals court had upheld the acquittal? Would the prosecution have been able to appeal that decision back to the Supreme Court, and could that court then have sent the case back down to yet another appeals court? In other words, could the Supreme Court have kept ordering appeals until they got the decision they wanted? Is there any reason to think they sent the case to this particular appeals court because they had reason to believe it would convict?

Yes, yes, yes. Nothing is final in Italy until the Court of Cassation (The Italian Supreme Court says it is)