Damn right, unique opportunity in the history of criminology, the perpetrator is handed on a plate an out clause to implicate others. How is this not obvious to the whole world, even McCall etc.
Continuation Part Seven: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case
- Thread starter Kaosium
- Start date
- Status
Mary_H
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 5,253
It's a culture, Desert Fox, like any other culture.
"They laugh alike, they walk alike,
At times they even talk alike --
You can lose your mind....."
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,177
Dunno. How many people were involved in McMartin Preschool? Somebody had to get an excavation permit, permit had to be approved, had to call in backhoe operator, contact the media, interview toddlers for instructions on where to dig...
It's hard to say where an epidemic of mass stupidity leaves off, and a bona fide conspiracy begins.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,545
He almost never refuses. What he does is just ignore.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,545
Simple Samson. Most people don't think for themselves. Most people are morons.
anglolawyer
Banned
On Truth
With unnecessary cruelty, I felt, Mach made the point that Mignini does not lie awake at night worrying about what we are discussing here. He implied this thread has very little bearing on the proceedings in Italy. Coulsdon reminds us of this at regular intervals and they are both right, of course. But, there is more than one way of skinning a cat. The trial process, as compared with a reasonably disciplined, learned, intelligent and prolonged internet discussion, does not necessarily come out on top in all respects even if, rather unfairly, they get to lock people up and we don't. Over the very long haul we may outlast the process and even have some impact on it, given that not a few posters here are connected with one or more of the players, among other considerations.
Truth will out, they say. The online discussion, subject to strictly (sometimes capriciously
) enforced rules, weeds out bad ideas, pools expertise (another cell tower discussion! Great! 
) refines knowledge by iteration and thus circles in on the truth like a swarm of vultures wheeling in on a rotting carcass.
Truth forced Mach to blurt out that she was strongly suspected when she arrived at the questura because he had forgotten that in demonstrating just how suspicious her behaviour was he had waded into a swamp been in another part of the forest. Truth did that.
Likewise, truth forced Mach to recant his triumphal claim that she had meant her own apartment when she said 'I was there. I cannot deny it'. Truth predicted she could not have meant that because, in truth, she was not there. The answer to that one does indeed lie in the legal process where it was judicially held early on that she meant Raf's place, but I am sure we could find plenty of examples of points that have been made here but not there, or made here first or made here more forcefully.
Truth obliges me to doubt the claim insinuated into this discussion after many years that Mignini arrived at 2.00 a.m. How convenient that time is (and at variance with the time only he can have given Follain)! Like the porridge, not too early, not too late but just on time and backed by the ridiculous REM corroboration. Just like Curatolo's extraordinarily accurate recollection of looking at his watch and noticing it was 9.27. Yes, I recall an occasion when I looked at my watch and the time was 13.43. It was eight years ago yesterday as it happens. I was not doing anything special. I just remember it, that's all.
Maybe Italians lie differently than others. Maybe they lie so much these embellishments have crept in so that if you don't embellish nobody believes you or nobody thinks it a good enough lie to be worth believing. Maybe Truth will not out in Italy. Well have to take care of that here.
With unnecessary cruelty, I felt, Mach made the point that Mignini does not lie awake at night worrying about what we are discussing here. He implied this thread has very little bearing on the proceedings in Italy. Coulsdon reminds us of this at regular intervals and they are both right, of course. But, there is more than one way of skinning a cat. The trial process, as compared with a reasonably disciplined, learned, intelligent and prolonged internet discussion, does not necessarily come out on top in all respects even if, rather unfairly, they get to lock people up and we don't. Over the very long haul we may outlast the process and even have some impact on it, given that not a few posters here are connected with one or more of the players, among other considerations.
Truth will out, they say. The online discussion, subject to strictly (sometimes capriciously
) enforced rules, weeds out bad ideas, pools expertise (another cell tower discussion! Great! ) refines knowledge by iteration and thus circles in on the truth like a swarm of vultures wheeling in on a rotting carcass.Truth forced Mach to blurt out that she was strongly suspected when she arrived at the questura because he had forgotten that in demonstrating just how suspicious her behaviour was he had waded into a swamp been in another part of the forest. Truth did that.
Likewise, truth forced Mach to recant his triumphal claim that she had meant her own apartment when she said 'I was there. I cannot deny it'. Truth predicted she could not have meant that because, in truth, she was not there. The answer to that one does indeed lie in the legal process where it was judicially held early on that she meant Raf's place, but I am sure we could find plenty of examples of points that have been made here but not there, or made here first or made here more forcefully.
Truth obliges me to doubt the claim insinuated into this discussion after many years that Mignini arrived at 2.00 a.m. How convenient that time is (and at variance with the time only he can have given Follain)! Like the porridge, not too early, not too late but just on time and backed by the ridiculous REM corroboration. Just like Curatolo's extraordinarily accurate recollection of looking at his watch and noticing it was 9.27. Yes, I recall an occasion when I looked at my watch and the time was 13.43. It was eight years ago yesterday as it happens. I was not doing anything special. I just remember it, that's all.
Maybe Italians lie differently than others. Maybe they lie so much these embellishments have crept in so that if you don't embellish nobody believes you or nobody thinks it a good enough lie to be worth believing. Maybe Truth will not out in Italy. Well have to take care of that here.
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
When I was growing up in Queensland, Australia, it turns out, the vice squad was as corrupt as hell. Almost all of them were taking bribes or turning a blind eye to those who were, effectively running a protection racket which went all the way to the politicians at the very top.
That might sound like a "far reach conspiracy" but it all came out in the Fitzgerald Inquiry and surrounding media investigations. There are even crazier real-life examples, like Operation Gladio in Italy, but I think the Queensland police example is a better parallel.
Obviously it's not just limited to taking bribes. "Verballing" and producing fake confessions are recurring problems in ill-regulated police departments.
Police forces without meaningful oversight do sometimes get very corrupt indeed. Italy is unique to the best of my knowledge in First World nations in not having any meaningful police oversight body.
So the idea that a police force which is in no way answerable for its actions might develop a culture of bending or breaking the rules to protect its own at the expense of the public welfare doesn't strike me as terribly surprising. Power corrupts. It's not a very novel observation, but it's true.
anglolawyer
Banned
There is also the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad
How many were involved in that?
The Independent 1st Nov 1999 said:
Parliamentary report said:
How many were involved in that?
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,545
It's called the thin blue line. In fact, I recommend everyone watch the fantastic documentary called the Thin Blu Line that was made in 1888. It's the true story of Randall Adams a man who was wrongly convicted of murdering a police officer in Texas.
You can find it on You Tube.
Here is one user review on IMDB. There is a really good line from the movie that will give you the heebie jeebies and make you see think of the prosecutors is this case, or the Debra Milke, Ryan Ferguson and many other prosecutors who will never acknowledge their mistakes and go after an innocent.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
Others have given additional examples, but I'd add the Hillsborough cover-up which is the subject of another thread in the forum at the moment. Systematic alteration of witness statements, absolute cess-pit of conspiracy and corruption.
Rolfe.
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,229
I have managed to travel from Germany to Switzerland and back again without a passport, as I left it behind where i was staying in Germany. The main reason why that is is because the borders are so open, so much so at times you only know you have gone from one country to another as the road signs have changed.
I did wonder about the news of Sollecito being found near the border and his passport confiscated. He can easily drive, walk or get the train out of Italy without one and over an unmanned border crossing.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Getting out of Schengen would be the tricky bit though.
I don't know what the trip to Austria was all about, but rationally, it wasn't about flight. If he was contemplating flight he should either have taken steps to be a very long way away by the time the verdict was announced, or started to make careful and long-term plans afterwards.
It seems he thought he would be acquitted on the rather reasonable grounds that he didn't do it, but most of us here thought that was going to be pretty irrelevant given the politics of the situation. Still, hope springs eternal. Nevertheless, a panicked run for the border the night of the verdict, when there's still the ISC ruling to go, is irrational. Even more so when it's only an internal Schengen border.
I'll bet there are ways out of Schengen for someone in his position, but they'll require careful planning and forethought, and probably money. And they'll involve aircraft and/or boats, not a car.
Rolfe.
I don't know what the trip to Austria was all about, but rationally, it wasn't about flight. If he was contemplating flight he should either have taken steps to be a very long way away by the time the verdict was announced, or started to make careful and long-term plans afterwards.
It seems he thought he would be acquitted on the rather reasonable grounds that he didn't do it, but most of us here thought that was going to be pretty irrelevant given the politics of the situation. Still, hope springs eternal. Nevertheless, a panicked run for the border the night of the verdict, when there's still the ISC ruling to go, is irrational. Even more so when it's only an internal Schengen border.
I'll bet there are ways out of Schengen for someone in his position, but they'll require careful planning and forethought, and probably money. And they'll involve aircraft and/or boats, not a car.
Rolfe.
I am undecided still having gone back and forth and this is the reason I am on this forum. However, I do think the Italians have it wrong. They focused on Amanda's suspicious behaviour but I think they assumed suspicious behaviour equated to being involved in the actual murder. I don't think she or RS could have been involved in the actual killing, they had no scratches or injuries whatsoever. The knife evidence seems completely bogus - the police just pick and test one random knife and that's the one that happens to have MK's DNA on it? Shouldn't they have tested every single knife? Not sure why the Italians even believe that. I agree the Italians were trying to find evidence just to fit the 2 kids. But a few things are questionable to me - Amanda's behaviour, which even Raffaele agrees as odd and inappropriate. By most universal standards, it is unusual to an extreme, Amanda struggles to reason it away. 2 - Raffaele tells the police in his phone call that nothing was stolen. Why would he make this claim when there is a break-in and the reason he is calling the police is to report a break-in and he does not live there and still has not discovered MK? The correct answer for most people would have been just "I don't know" or even "how the F do I know, I don't live here and haven't taken inventory". 3 - Amanda's confession - yes, I understand she was allegedly hit, coerced, etc.. still very hard to swallow; 25% of innocent people make false confessions apparently. What about the other 75%? Amanda is smarter than your average bear, still find it hard to believe she can write a confession in such detail for an extremely intelligent person. 4 - confusion about what they did that night and this constant blame on marijuana smoking as the cause. Heavy drinking and marijuana can cause memory loss for sure but perhaps only if they were about to pass out from it. They were not high enough that they were not able to read, watch a movie, eat, etc. For regulars smokers like AK and RS, highly doubt smoking a joint or 2 "impaired" their memory. If anything, they probably had a very high tolerance to it, almost like cigarette smoking for them. It "sounds" like another blame game to explain their confusion. They also blame alot of this on police coercion. How many different answers can there be for "we stayed at home all night" especially when your life is on the line. 2 smart kids with no straight answers. Raff has no excuse - he is a native Italian speaker.
I don't think they were involved in the killing. But they do seem to know something or are trying to hide something for sure, Amanda much more than Rafaelle. Rafalle I think is innocent for the most part, he may have just gotten involved as an innocent bystander. Amanda I think just got trapped, she panicked and just made whatever bad situation she was in worse by the second and eventually couldn't go back. What actually happened? I have no idea and that is the reason I am on this forum!! I am not sure why the Italians are trying to literally make Raff and Amanda break with these jail sentences. They should really have tried to make Rudy break when they had the chance.
anglolawyer
Banned
I think you set out the case for involvement very well. IMO it is a very weak case as others with more time and inclination to deconstruct these points may seek to argue. What you end up with though, assuming you buy all the points you set out, is an extremely weird scenario, possibly stranger than the full-on pro-guilt theory, that they were involved but not in the murder itself, which they have instead covered up, staging things, misleading the police, never ratting on Rudy or squealing on each other, despite the very real prospect of 25 years+ in prison and despite all the evidence pointing to them (which magically transforms into real evidence now, not fakery assembled by an ass-covering prosecution).
Strozzi
Graduate Poster
I will respond to point 2 raised by Lambsheen which concerns Raffaele telling the police when he called the dispatcher that nothing was stolen. Raffaele did not believe anything was stolen. Period. When he looked into Filomena's room and saw the broken window and rock he saw Filomena's laptop computer case and a mid-size TV. He also saw a camera on the kitchen counter. He did not thnk anything was stolen. Raffaele saying nothing is stolen only has significance if you want it to be meaningful to indicate he was deceptive - but that is the police's meaning, not Raffaele's meaning.
Why don't the police be honest and say Raffaele at the moment of the phone call thought nothing was stolen because valuable items that a thief might steal such as laptop and camera were visible? Because they are looking for information to implicate him. Period.
The Postal Police were in the house a while and did not know there was a murder victim in the next room. Asked to break down the door, the Postal Police refused and one of them is alleged to have said "It's not like there's a dead body in there"? Was he lying? Or was he stating what he believed to be true based on what he assumed to be the situation?
I have passed minor car accidents and called the police dispatcher. They alway ask if anyone is injured. She is gathering informaton to know if she should dispatch an ambulance. I remember several times telling dispatchers that nobody is injured. The accident damage is minor and the drivers of the two cars are standing there exchanging information. Yet, how do I know that one of them or a passenger in a car is is not injured? You make reasonable assumptions based on what you see at the scene and you make a statement based on what it means to you. No intent to deceive. No lie.
Police dispatchers deal with burglar and car accident calls all the time. They know the type of answer they got from Raffale is basic human nature. It means the caller does not believe anything is stolen.
This case is full of questionable interpretations made by the police who don't know the meaning of something and assign it negative meaning because they have never learned better. Like assuming that Amanda's text to Lumumba meant she had a meeting with him (police erased the second half of the message, the "good night" which put a definitive end to it. Rather than ask her what it meant, they shoved the phone in her face while shouting at her to stop lying about not having plans to meet with Lumumba.
It's like Inspector Giobbi seeing Amanda shift in some way as she stood up after putting on white booties. It reminded Giobbi iof the "la mossa" hip swivel that some women do on TV shows, which he finds sexy. It had meaning to Giobbi! He catches that sort of thing just like he interpreted Raffaele and Amanda eating pizza for dinner five days after the murder to be a sign of guilt.
Last edited:
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
It is well known that Mignini was aware of at least one English language discussion of this case. How could Machivelli have forgotten that it was Mignini that had The original Perugia-Shock blog shut down. I suspect that Machiavelli is either lying about what Mignini follows or Machiavelli knows who is doing the following and reporting to Mignini.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,614
Abrams and the Gotcha games
I am sending him messages via his contact page and also collecting his errors for future reference. It is what isn't in his article that is equally troubling. It isn't clear what he thinks actually happened, and he probably has not thought about it too deeply. Instead of playing "Gotcha" (and playing it poorly), he should work on a timeline/narrative.
Just to answer a few of these
1) What behaviour specifically? What we have mostly heard is in retrospect and has involved people's reflections from after they were arrested - and once they were arrested, it was easy for other people to look back and criticise every small action or utterance that Amanda made. This was then distorted by the tabloids to create the character of 'Foxy Knoxy'. Most of the stuff initially written about Amanda's behaviour turned out to be false, for example, the buying 'sexy' underwear. I would like to know what everyone else was doing at the same time - did Filomena kiss and grope her boyfriend? Did Meredith's British friends get drunk? Did anyone make an awkward joke that came out wrong? Did anyone else laugh inappropriately at the wrong time or have a foot-in-mouth moment?
2) I think Raffaele called to tell the police that the house had been broken into - but the main reason for the call was to express that they couldn't contact Meredith. I think the operator was fixated on 'something being stolen', whereas Raffaele wanted to make the point that Meredith was missing, hence the 'nothing stolen'. The police might have turned up two days later for a burglary.
3) Amanda was 20 and interrogated overnight in a foreign country and in a language she didn't understand. She might be intelligent, but she was not worldly wise and was likely socially immature, trusting and easily impressionable. Just imagine being young and alone and being shouted at in a language you barely understand, being hit and told you will never see your family again. Being told that they have firm evidence that 'proves' you were at the cottage - and if you don't remember, you will go to prison for 30-years. This has to be up there for one of the most terrifying experiences that a young person could go through. I really don't know what I would do in the same situation - but I have enough empathy and imagination to understand it must have been hellish and she was appeared pretty much broken by the end of it.
4) It's difficult to know what exactly either of them said about that night, without the tapes. I do know that memory is incredibly innacurate and it is very easy to confuse people. I regularly take medical histories and I'm always amazed at how innacurate people's memories are - often two family members will describe the same event in completely different ways - and there recollections will change every time they have to retell the story.
I can imagine that after the traumatic events on November 5th, their initial attention wasn't on exactly what they did the night before and they obviously didn't corroborate they stories. I don't think they thought for one moment that they would ever be suspected and probably didn't really understand the importance of trying to give a minute by minute account of the evening before. As the days pass, the memory of that night was going to become more innacurate - just try and remember in detail exactly what you did a few nights ago?
Can you imagine trying to remember the exact details of a few nights ago? Can you imagine having a number of police trying to confuse you and catch you out? Can you imagine that they might encourage you to doubt what you remember happened? Can you imagine that you might misremember something simple, like a phone call from your Dad or the time you used the computer - and that this is then used to confuse you and make out that you are lying about something and this then leads to you doubting yourself and wondering if you have the dates confused? Can you imagine how tired and stressed you would feel with all the questions and being called a liar - and that you are not allowed to look at a calendar to check the dates?
It is very easy to manipulate and confuse people - and we'll never know exactly what happened due to no recordings of that evening.
I think cannabis was only a part of this - it was going to make them shockingly bad at remembering times and exact details - and it was also going to make them much easier to confuse and mainpulate.
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,614
their memories of the evening
With respect, I think you are overstating things a bit. Amanda and Raffaele don't say that they smoked so much they had amnesia, a common PG refrain. To the best of my knowledge they have never said that they were drinking heavily. They both give detailed accounts of what they did, but their times are sometimes wrong. That is not completely surprising, given that at on that date, there was no strong reason to care about exact times, and Amanda did not carry a watch and had shut off her cell phone.
lamasheen,
With respect, I think you are overstating things a bit. Amanda and Raffaele don't say that they smoked so much they had amnesia, a common PG refrain. To the best of my knowledge they have never said that they were drinking heavily. They both give detailed accounts of what they did, but their times are sometimes wrong. That is not completely surprising, given that at on that date, there was no strong reason to care about exact times, and Amanda did not carry a watch and had shut off her cell phone.
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
Isn't it obvious to everyone?!
Raffaele hasn't been in Italy since his release after the first appeal. Why has nobody questioned that the person seen with Raf's father and sitting at the defense table doesn't look like the Harry Potter character we all knew from the first chapter? Of course, somebody has to be there to occupy the seat. Why not give an exchange student studying international law or a budding journalist a front row seat to the circus?
- Status