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

[kwill]

Mignini: So I told her: “you can make statements to me; I will not ask questions, since if you make a spontaneous statement and I collect it, I will collect your statement as if I were in fact a notary”.

What a farce.

Can you imagine the translator, carefully explaining this in English to a crying, terrified, sleep-deprived Amanda?

"Just tell this good man what you think might have happened. Remember that all we want is to find out who did this. Remember that we have evidence that you were there, and that Raffaele has told us that you went out for a few hours that night. No one will ask you any questions, but this good man will simply write down whatever you want to say."

And the subtext would be:

"If you don't tell us what we already know to be true, we're just going to keep you in this chair for as long as it takes. This good man is here to help you. It doesn't matter if you're not sure; just talk and all this unpleasantness will go away."

Where was her lawyer? Oh, right. They offered her the chance to have one present but she didn't want that.

Farce, from beginning to end.

 

[Desert Fox]

I clicked on Hot Nostril's profile and looked at past posts... I did this to see if he came here just to discuss this case. Does not look like it. Makes me believe he might be interested in actual skepticism...... I would like to see the back and forth continue.

So far I have no posted on any other threads yet I assure you that I am interested in skepticism in other matters.

 

[Kestrel]

The Perugia team did a full court press on Amanda that night because they knew from tapping Amanda's phone calls that her mother would show up the next morning. That needed to force a confession from the girl before Mom showed up and got her a lawyer.

 

[acbytesla]

Mignini: So I told her: “you can make statements to me; I will not ask questions, since if you make a spontaneous statement and I collect it, I will collect your statement as if I were in fact a notary”.

What a farce.

Can you imagine the translator, carefully explaining this in English to a crying, terrified, sleep-deprived Amanda?

"Just tell this good man what you think might have happened. Remember that all we want is to find out who did this. Remember that we have evidence that you were there, and that Raffaele has told us that you went out for a few hours that night. No one will ask you any questions, but this good man will simply write down whatever you want to say."

And the subtext would be:

"If you don't tell us what we already know to be true, we're just going to keep you in this chair for as long as it takes. This good man is here to help you. It doesn't matter if you're not sure; just talk and all this unpleasantness will go away."

Where was her lawyer? Oh, right. They offered her the chance to have one present but she didn't want that.

Farce, from beginning to end.

I know...it's the one thing that is almost NEVER discussed in these debates.

I love how Machiavelli tells us frequently that we English speakers are "confused" about certain Italian statements and translations.
But then on the other hand, he is sure about what Amanda meant. Never mind that his sources have been translated either by Amanda who's Italian is very poor or the Italian detectives who are working through a translator.

Across the board from day one, there has to be confusions by both Amanda and the detectives and prosecutors. If there was one person that they should have recorded the interviews from above all else it was Amanda.

But the Italians prosecutors have never show that they are interested in truth justice and the American way. They are interested in saving face and covering their asses. Truth just doesn't matter to them.

 

[Desert Fox]

What makes any piece of evidence more significant is when it fits together with other pieces of evidence to form a consistent picture. The DNA on the clasp hook is an outlier where the only picture it fits is one that is completely fabricated by the prosecution. In fact, other evidence such as how the clasp was torn from the bra, blood splatter showing that the bra was removed while Meredith was still alive, Rudy Guede's DNA on the bra itself all form a compleatly different picture that is incompatible with the clasp hook being touched at the time of the murder.

The elements you mention cast suspiscion on the validity of the evidence itself.

In this case, I would argue that it is at least reasonable that it got there somehow accidentally. Now, I cannot rule out fabrication.

 

[Caper]

So far I have no posted on any other threads yet I assure you that I am interested in skepticism in other matters.

Of course. What I mean is, he did not come here to specifically argue the case, which tells me there is a far greater likelihood they change their mind. A lot of 9/11 truthers, for example came here, because they were referred here. A diehard 9/11 truther that came here for the specific reason to argue 9/11 truth would NEVER change their mind.... while someone who might be here already and happen upon... say... loose change, have questions and might think there is some truth to the film, are far more willing to see the fallacies in the arguments once they are pointed out.

That's why I think seeing his original purpose of coming here is important.

I see many similarities between 9/11 truthers and most of the pro guilt... I would suspect there is much overlap.

 

[Grinder]

Experienced police dispatchers often get calls reporting accidents and crimes. They deal hourly with issues where they are required to decide if they need to dispatch an ambulance, a police officer, or a police response team. Dispatchers know that initial callers don't always know the extent of the incident - can't possibly know in the case of just uncovering a burglary in someone else's house. That is why experienced / competent dispatchers follow up with a question or two or three. "Are you sure nothing is stolen?". "Is the occupant of the room there? Has he/she checked to see if anything is stolen?".

In this case the dispatcher didn't ask Raffaele more details. That shows me the police didn't think Raffaele's statement was lacking - it did not warrant more attention. Raffaele's statement of what he knew at the time to be correct (later proved to be incorrect) is only significant if you want it to be. Suspect him of being guilty, then you can assign guilty motivations where none previously existed.

I wasn't talking about the 911 operator but rather the investigators that would review the 911 call as part of the investigation. As I said most here wish to minimize it but it clearly is something that would raise suspicion with an investigator. It would be interesting to know how Raf responded when they first asked him about the wording.

His response doesn't make him guilty or even cause a reasonable person to lean in that direction but still would be something that initially would cause a reasonable investigator pause.

 

[Desert Fox]

Here's a photo to help give you a clue:
[qimg]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/14/tziv.jpg[/qimg]

Wanted to come back to this. . . .Shows how small the room is and makes it so physically it would simply be hard for three people to be in there fighting, let alone be in there without leaving pysical evidence.

 

[kwill]

I love how Machiavelli tells us frequently that we English speakers are "confused" about certain Italian statements and translations.
But then on the other hand, he is sure about what Amanda meant.

Well, he's right about one thing. I am confused about certain Italian statements and translations, especially the one I just quoted:

Mignini: So I told her: “you can make statements to me; I will not ask questions, since if you make a spontaneous statement and I collect it, I will collect your statement as if I were in fact a notary”.

If we believe that this is what he said, the only conclusion you can draw is that he's deliberately trying to protect himself against the accusation of depriving a suspect of her right to counsel.

It's a farce.

 

[Diocletus]

Yes, I think understand. You don't put it very well but I agree with what you say (assuming I understand you correctly). Motive is a type of circumstantial evidence. If you have such evidence then you have to see where it takes you, how it fits with other evidence. But remember, there almost always is a motive for murder. In fact, you can probably take away the 'almost'. Killing people is against the law and you go to prison for a long time if caught. Therefore, you need a good reason to do it.

Having a motive is a weakness. Try to conceive of the perfect murder but, to make it realistic, the murder has to be of someone you have a motive to kill, not some random person you never met before. Possessing the motive gives you a huge problem. It makes the exercise much harder. It makes the police look in your direction and they must see nothing untoward when they do. Seeking motive gives investigative direction to the cops: who had a reason to do this? It is very important and should not be dismissed on the narrow basis that, strictly speaking, it does not have to be proved. Strictly speaking it does not but that does not make examination of the motives of the players irrelevant. Hence the focus on strife between Amanda and Meredith. There tends to be less focus on Raffaele who cannot have had any real animus against the victim at all and must therefore be bent into shape to fit one or other of the scenarios favoured by your side: knife obsessed nutter, pawn in the hands of the she-devil, bored and out for fun, off his head on mind-alterating substances etc etc etc. Evidence? Nah.

Don't most of the "aggravations" require some kind of proof of motive? If motive is so irrelevant, and unnecessary, then why do they build motive into their punishment regime? This "motive is irrelevant" line that the prosecution is now pushing is horse pucky.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well, he's right about one thing. I am confused about certain Italian statements and translations, especially the one I just quoted:

Mignini: So I told her: “you can make statements to me; I will not ask questions, since if you make a spontaneous statement and I collect it, I will collect your statement as if I were in fact a notary”.

If we believe that this is what he said, the only conclusion you can draw is that he's deliberately trying to protect himself against the accusation of depriving a suspect of her right to counsel.

It's a farce.

That's not how I read it. He is describing something that probably never happened, firstly, but it's as defensible account as he can contrive given that, except by way of a spontaneous statement, there was no other way he could have a dialogue with a suspect in the absence of a lawyer. He had to speak with her because there were things in her first statement he needed to amend. I have already posted several times about the key differences in her account and how the second version is an improvement over the first.

The funny thing about the 'spontaneous statement' exception is that it makes perfect sense if one thinks about something a suspect might blurt out, say, on the way to the cells: 'I can't lie. I did it! Oh what will become of me?' No reason why that should not be admissible. But a closely-typed page of A4 that traverses the same ground as the first statement in the same sequence with crucial changes? Uh - uh.

Why, at 5.45, was she no longer able to recall lying to Raffaele and leaving immediately? The guilters say this was a coded message to Raf warning him to stick to the story, but I don't see how that works. They had both departed from the story and were going to jail so plan A was in the trash already. Why would she have kept him out of it at 1.45 when he had just dropped her in it?

It was Mig who needed her to place Raf at the scene having decided to proceed against him and needing just that bit more to be sure Matteini would lock him up.

 

[Grinder]

Heard people in other parts of Europe argue that the US has the death penalty, therefore they cannot ever argue against human rights. I have to also argue that many southern prisons are nothing but horrid and maybe even worse that Italy. We also pretty much know that Texas has put innocent people to death.

I am wondering if it might not just simply be argued that they did not receive a fair trial.

As I understand it the court that hears the extradition request determines whether the Italians have met the standards required by the treaty, but they don't investigate the evidence or redo the trial.

 

[acbytesla]

Well, he's right about one thing. I am confused about certain Italian statements and translations, especially the one I just quoted:

Mignini: So I told her: “you can make statements to me; I will not ask questions, since if you make a spontaneous statement and I collect it, I will collect your statement as if I were in fact a notary”.

If we believe that this is what he said, the only conclusion you can draw is that he's deliberately trying to protect himself against the accusation of depriving a suspect of her right to counsel.

It's a farce.

With all due respect Kwill, you don't seem confused about Mignini's statement at all.

 

[Mary_H]

Well it’s not that hard to gauge. The Florence appeal court confirmed Raffaele and Amanda’s convictions; Raffaele is currently in Italy his travel documents have been taken away, whilst the take here and on American news channels is one of whether Amanda will be extradited, no one really believes the Italian Supreme Court will not confirm the Florence appeal verdict. Also I doubt anyone in Italy really believes America will extradite Amanda.

Those connected to case are fully aware of shall I say the non-Italian negative comments about this case. However, I believe the criticism has had the effect on those institutions involved of closing ranks. Indeed, the largely foreign vilification of Mignini has resulted in the annulling of all charges related to MOF case and his promotion, this for me is a clear indication of what the Italian judiciary think of foreign criticism of Mignini.

So your original question was rhetorical and we agree that media and internet coverage have influenced the judges. Originally I thought you were trying to say the opposite -- that English-speaking criticism has no effect.

You, Nencini, Mignini, Costagliola and anyone who has complained about the pro-innocence "PR Supertanker" are admitting that the Italian judges are influenced by public opinion, a reality PIP have relied on since the beginning. Judges are not supposed to be politicians; they should be immune to anything that is not going on in the case file and the courtroom. The prosecution's exploitation of press coverage, however, showed us that public opinion mattered very much as far as how this case would go.

When people do bad things, and then use the excuse that other people's reactions to their behavior gives them the right to do more bad things, well, that is bullying. It leaves critics' hands tied. Bullies take all the power when they pretend their behavior depends on how other people behave. Then they go ahead and do whatever they want to anyway. There is no good faith.

You can say that critics had better be quiet or the judges will find for guilt, but that's like saying no one should criticize North Korea or Iran because of what they might do in response. Rational adults should not react emotionally to other people's criticism by deliberately retaliating in ways designed only to hurt the critics instead of examining what is being criticized. Is that really the way Italy wants to be seen?

 

[Mary_H]

The elements indicating contacts between Guede and Knox are not argument to build a case against Knox; the function of the argument is to undermine the positive defensive counter-argument that Knox would not have any contacts with Guede, on anthropological, social and historical grounds (honor student, alleged proven "difference" or "distance" etc.).

The basic problem is this is false. There is everything you need to convict Knox based on the evidence (autopsy, lies, etc.). The conjectures about Knox are useful, in order to counter the conjectures by which you try to build a case for Knox's innocence and suggesting an unproven accustion scenario against Guede.

If there were no vicious pro-Knox PR propaganda, wild conjectures against Guede, no false defamatory accusations against Mignini and Stefanoni, no anti-Italian racism, no hypocritical omerta' by a bunch of supporters, there would be no conjectures about Knox.
The conjectures about Knox are not the "case" about Knox. They are a response to the insults and vicious lies that you and the Knox supporters are trying to use agaist others.

Ah, I see Machiavelli already has addressed the issues I referred to in my last post. He is saying that if PIP did not criticize the prosecution's case, then PGP would not have to fight back so viciously.

Here is where you go wrong, Mach: "...you try to build a case for Knox's innocence...."
In the new, non-Napoleonic system that is supposedly in use in modern Italy, the case for innocence already exists; no one needs to build it. If the case for guilt is built with integrity, then it can be considered on its own merits. The only reason anyone reacted against the prosecution's case to begin with is because it was not built with integrity and has no merit. Trust us, we are not doing this for our health.

 

[Strozzi]

This is an example of unfounded assertion. There is no evidence and no element indicating Giacomo was a drug dealer whatsoever. No sane person would consider the five mini-marjuana plants as a drug dealer's storage.
As for contacts, maybe you also forget about the phone contacts between Knox and the Piazza Grimana drug dalers gang.

Machiavelli, is this the same person you were referring to in the past when you said that Amanda had the phone number of a drug dealer in her phone? I ask because I want to be sure I understand you. Thank you in advance for clarifying it.

 

[Vibio]

Re: sequestered juries.

I don't know if sequestered juries are common in Europe.

In the US, they are not very common.

One could argue that the Amanda Knox trial was so high profile that it deserved a sequestered jury, but after 6 years I can't imagine anyone who has not read about the case. The fact that the Knox trial was not televised also helps.

"Sequestration has fallen so far out of favor that judges rarely bother anymore. The current thinking is that isolating a jury causes more problems than it solves. For one, it can increase juror dropouts. Those with family responsibilities can't stomach more than a few nights away from home, and they often end up leaving midcase due to "personal circumstances." The departures, in turn, increase the likelihood of a mistrial. And there are serious concerns that the eagerness of jurors to return home could compel them to deliberate hastily.

When a judge does decide to sequester a jury, it's often because there's a critical piece of inadmissible material being discussed in the press—for example, a suppressed confession. Or there may be the threat of harassment from reporters, protesters, or the defendant's criminal associates. Less frequent nowadays is a sequestration based solely on the high-profile nature of a case; such reasoning became less popular after the 1995 O.J. Simpson trial, which featured a long sequestration that some legal observers regarded as counterproductive. In the Muhammad case, the fact that the trial is not being televised probably helped the judge decide against sequestration. When the jurors return home at night, under strict instructions not to view or read press accounts of the trial, it's obviously easier without the day's testimony plastered all over the TV.

There are a few states that have mandatory sequestration laws for the most serious criminal cases. Missouri, for example, requires that juries in death-penalty cases be sequestered. But in general, the decision is left solely to the trial judge. Either the prosecution or the defense can request a sequestration, but such motions are usually denied. There are no nationwide figures on the percentage of juries that are sequestered, but it's certainly tiny."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_.../2003/11/when_do_judges_sequester_juries.html

 

[Mary_H]

Yes, it's the same if you take something and destroy it, under the legal point of view. It's always theft. However the motive changes. If you want to catch the theive, you woud look for those who have an interest in disposing of it, rather than those who want to keep it.

About the second argument: about this, your point is wrong. It is possible that the person intended to keep the item and then changed idea; yes, it is possible, wut it is the weaker possibility. It's more complicate and less consistent, less logical. You need to answer the question: "why did he take the item in the first place", what was his/her motive, and the answer to this happens to be logically weak.
If you assume that the person took the phones with the intent to actually dump them, the explanation is simpler, and it's stronger, it explains the action better.

The weaker hypothesis is not good, because in order to convict someone on it, you need to prove it. Otherwise there cannot be any conviction for theft. Instead, as for the stronger possibility, all what is required is that the judge thinks there is independent evidence of a staging; if it is proven that a staging occurred, if you have evidence that someone did intended to alter the scene, then you a further element in support the strongr hypothesis and you can consider it as part of a staging.

Why did you ignore my argument against the phones being part of a staging? I said it is not logical to stage a burglary in one room but steal nothing from that room, and is not logical to stage a burglary by stealing only phones when there are at least three computers in the house.

The phones provide zero evidence of staging.

 

[kwill]

That's not how I read it. He is describing something that probably never happened, firstly, but it's as defensible account as he can contrive given that, except by way of a spontaneous statement, there was no other way he could have a dialogue with a suspect in the absence of a lawyer.

That's exactly what I meant . . . he's got to claim it was spontaneous because otherwise he would have had to have counsel present. The "let's just pretend I'm nothing but a notary" business is laughable.

He had to speak with her because there were things in her first statement he needed to amend. I have already posted several times about the key differences in her account and how the second version is an improvement over the first.

I wish I were better at using the search function.

The funny thing about the 'spontaneous statement' exception is that it makes perfect sense if one thinks about something a suspect might blurt out, say, on the way to the cells: 'I can't lie. I did it! Oh what will become of me?' No reason why that should not be admissible. But a closely-typed page of A4 that traverses the same ground as the first statement in the same sequence with crucial changes? Uh - uh.

Right. Totally spontaneous! She could hardly stop talking about the very specific details they needed to include, because she was just so eager to share her thoughts about those very particular experiences. Sure.

 

[Dan O.]

In this case, I would argue that it is at least reasonable that it got there somehow accidentally. Now, I cannot rule out fabrication.

I was saying that the prosecutions narrative was fabricated. How Stefanoni managed to come up with her results is an enigma. The clasp itself could even have been taken out of the cottage and returned before the December visit. You have to wonder who left that front door unlocked before the morning of November 14 and who subsequently locked it and applied the extra tape to the seal afterwards. Why is this significant breach of the crime scene security ignored and even lied about in the trial?