Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Dan O.]

It is Amanda Knox's alleged prize-winning story - which she wrote in Capanne prison under the name of 'Marie Pace'

Some journalist made this assumption based on "Marie" being Amanda's middle name. The only other link made in the telegraph article was:

"When I came back they had already taken you to the hospital but you must know that I didn't want to abandon you ... I just hope that you're OK. Forgive me," writes Knox Marie Pace.

Rudy Guede, the unemployed drifter who was first convicted of Miss Kercher's murder but still denies any part in the killing, told an appeals court in Perugia that his biggest regret was not helping the young British woman when she lay bleeding to death in her bedroom after being stabbed in the neck.

So it is obvious that they got their suspects crossed and Rudy is the one that wrote that essay.



We still haven't heard from the statement analysis guy to tell us the secret meaning behind the words and phrases used in the essay. What's taking so long?

 

[komponisto]

You're ranting.
Assuming it is actually as low probablility as you say, that does not negate the fact that these three were convicted unanimously on the strength of the evidence.
Who cares how rare an occurrence this might be. Statisticians only, probably.

Which part of "posterior probabilities must incorprate prior probabilities" don't you understand?

(If that's too advanced for you, try "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".)

You can't form a belief about this case without having a belief about how rare the occurrence is.

 

[komponisto]

That's because it wasn't a refutation.

It most certainly was. Quixotecoyote confused the prior probability that something happened given only the knowledge that the universe exists (or whatever) with the prior probability given the knowledge that Meredith Kercher was murdered -- and thus implictly claimed that I had appealed to the prior improbability of known facts. I corrected this confusion by pointing out that I hadn't so appealed. This constituted a refutation.

 

[RoseMontague]

Some journalist made this assumption based on "Marie" being Amanda's middle name. The only other link made in the telegraph article was:



So it obvious that they got their suspects crossed and Rudy is the one that wrote that essay.



We still haven't heard from the statement analysis guy to tell us the secret meaning behind the words and phrases used in the essay. What's taking so long?

The origin of this prize winning prison writing contest story is the paper Corriere della Sera which happens to be the same paper Amanda sued and won some real cash, not the fictional 100 claimed in the articles I have seen. This paper not only published her prison diary but excerpts from a book about her secret sex life as well as the secret sex lives of some of the other people involved in this case including witnesses.

I am surprised anyone gives this story any credence whatsoever.

 

[katy_did]

So Sollecito admits to having told the police a "load of bs," and the police say this took the form of a representation that Amanda had told him she was going to Le Chic to meet with friends that night. Amanda says she was "astonished" by the change in Raffaele's testimony, considering it tantamount to having "placed evidence" against her. There just comes a point at which the contention that everything the police have said about the interrogation is a malicious fabrication begins to wear a bit thin. But while we're on the subject, just what is Sollecito's present, in-court version of the facts here, and how, and on what basis, are his lawyers communicating this to the jury? What's this business about filing an application to the Supreme Court contesting Amanda's representation that he was with her all night?

Not sure why you think anyone is saying "everything the police have said about the interrogation is a malicious fabrication". As I said, I think it would have been pretty straightforward to get Raffaele to say Amanda might have left the flat that night: he was always certain that he himself hadn't left, and so never changed his story in that respect; but his memory was hazy and so he couldn't say for certain that she was there the entirety of the time as well. Easy enough for the police to pick up on that uncertainty, to tell him they had evidence she had left (why would he have suddenly volunteered that information otherwise?) and from there for him to convince himself that she really had left. A similar process to Amanda's account of her own interrogation, only a lot less dramatic.

I doubt it will be significant at all in the appeal - surely, if the jury are swayed by anything, it would be Amanda's interrogation and not Raffaele's. The only way I can see it playing a part at all would be if the prosecution or jury decided to go with the theory that Amanda left the flat while Raffaele stayed. Then it might become important, and then maybe Raffaele would testify. But I doubt the prosecution will go down that road.

I'm not sure what you mean about an application to the Supreme Court. If you read Raffaele's appeal, though, it's very strongly supportive of Amanda and the claim that both of them were together all night (as someone said on PMF, if you didn't know it was Sollecito's appeal you could be forgiven for thinking it was Amanda's).

On another note, the fact that the police claim (very implausibly) that they didn't record either interrogation and that there are no transcripts (from what Charlie says) surely has to be seen as a bit suspicious. What are they hiding? Shouldn't we be giving the accused the benefit of the doubt on those grounds alone? Relying on the police statements as evidence of what happened during the interrogations is like trying to determine the truth behind a tabloid newspaper headline; it's impossible without the broader context.

 

[RoseMontague]

I didn't get banned, I was just asked not to post (in big red writing, as I said). And clearly, you are a newcomer to PMF if you think people are only banned there for good reason (though admittedly, RoseMontague's final post was particularly inflammatory). Feel free to cover yourself by writing 'katy_did at JREF said', if you like; it really makes no odds to me either way.

LOL. Was that the one where I thanked Catnip for a fine translation/summary of the Mignini/Comodi appeal or where I was attempting to defend thoughtful from an attack by Michael over her Quintavalle post I had quoted here?

 

[katy_did]

LOL. Was that the one where I thanked Catnip for a fine translation/summary of the Mignini/Comodi appeal or where I was attempting to defend thoughtful from an attack by Michael over her Quintavalle post I had quoted here?

To be frank, Rose, I personally thought both posts were equally heinous, but I'm not sure which one was the fairly hefty straw that finally broke the camel's back and got you banned.

ETA: [/sarcasm] (well, this is the internet).

 

[Poppy1016]

Not sure why you think anyone is saying "everything the police have said about the interrogation is a malicious fabrication". As I said, I think it would have been pretty straightforward to get Raffaele to say Amanda might have left the flat that night: he was always certain that he himself hadn't left, and so never changed his story in that respect; but his memory was hazy and so he couldn't say for certain that she was there the entirety of the time as well. Easy enough for the police to pick up on that uncertainty, to tell him they had evidence she had left (why would he have suddenly volunteered that information otherwise?) and from there for him to convince himself that she really had left. A similar process to Amanda's account of her own interrogation, only a lot less dramatic.

I doubt it will be significant at all in the appeal - surely, if the jury are swayed by anything, it would be Amanda's interrogation and not Raffaele's. The only way I can see it playing a part at all would be if the prosecution or jury decided to go with the theory that Amanda left the flat while Raffaele stayed. Then it might become important, and then maybe Raffaele would testify. But I doubt the prosecution will go down that road.

I'm not sure what you mean about an application to the Supreme Court. If you read Raffaele's appeal, though, it's very strongly supportive of Amanda and the claim that both of them were together all night (as someone said on PMF, if you didn't know it was Sollecito's appeal you could be forgiven for thinking it was Amanda's).

On another note, the fact that the police claim (very implausibly) that they didn't record either interrogation and that there are no transcripts (from what Charlie says) surely has to be seen as a bit suspicious. What are they hiding? Shouldn't we be giving the accused the benefit of the doubt on those grounds alone? Relying on the police statements as evidence of what happened during the interrogations is like trying to determine the truth behind a tabloid newspaper headline; it's impossible without the broader context.

I was wondering if you know if Patrick's interrogation was recorded. It seems to me all three of them tell pretty much the same story in varying degrees. Police intimidation that ended with the answers they desired. I am not sure what they got Patrick to say, but it took them 2 weeks to verify his alibi.

 

[katy_did]

I was wondering if you know if Patrick's interrogation was recorded. It seems to me all three of them tell pretty much the same story in varying degrees. Police intimidation that ended with the answers they desired. I am not sure what they got Patrick to say, but it took them 2 weeks to verify his alibi.

I don't think they did record Patrick's, at least AFAIK, though Charlie might know for sure. It's quite a contrast to the Sarah Scazzi case where they released a recording of the interrogations and the judge quoted from the transcripts. I agree that there are similarities between what all three say about their interrogations. If they really didn't record Patrick's that makes things even more suspicious, especially as he would surely have been a suspect at that stage...?

 

[TomM43]

Honestly, I do not fetishize beating dead horses, but I would like to get to the bottom of this and I do not know what to make of your reply. Below comes from a summary of the issue I posted earlier (# 322)



When you say - ' A direct answer to the question would be, "Yes." ' and ' Her answer would be a clear and direct answer to two questions, "When did you...? and "How often...?"' - I do not know it relates to the questions above.


The root problem was identified by Katody Matrass @24863 and Komponisto @24868, who are fluent in Italian. Treehorn was misunderstanding question 2 to read ‘On the occasion of this party, (where Guede was in attendance) at that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs?’, and from this Treehorn contrived the question ‘Did you (Knox) smoke drugs at that party with Rudy?’ Out of his mistaken understanding, Treehorn then mistakenly accused Knox of giving evasive and intentionally incomplete responses, presumably with an intent to deceive.

Komponisto kindly translated afresh and in full the relevant passage, which can be found upthread at post 7. Here Treehorn's questions are correctly translated:

CP: Nell'occasione di questo party, signorina, fumaste hashish?
CP: On the occasion of this party, Ms. Knox, did you [plural, referring to the whole group!] smoke hashish?
AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes.
CP: Lei, all'epoca dei fatti, ottobre 97, faceva uso di sostanze stupefacenti? 2007 -- chiedo, mi scusi -- faceva uso di sostanze stupefacenti?
CP: During the period in question, October '97 [sic], did you [singular] use [imperfect tense, meaning "habitually use"] mind-altering substances? 2007 -- sorry -- did you [habitually] use mind-altering substances?
AK: Every once in a while with friends.

TomM43, I do not understand how you can continue to maintain that Knox answers these questions in any other way except clearly, directly, on the topic, and without evasion.

Treehorn does seem to make the claim that the interlocutor, Carlos Pacelli, is hindered from asking the trenchant questions somehow because of an Italian civil law tradition, which I must say I find quite mysterious. You seem to have picked up this line of reasoning, and that becomes the subject of the rest of your post. Hopefully we can get to the bottom of this issue as well.

I don’t know if Treehorn is trying to assert that every answer Knox gave was evasive, but he certainly is trying to assert that the answers she gave to the above questions were evasive, and he was wrong.

Now, everyone reading this board, including LoZ, Treehorn, and even you TomM43, all now agree that the example given by Treehorn in post 24821 shows that Knox is answering clearly, directly, on the topic, and without evasion.

Isn’t that correct?

I do not understand your preoccupation with getting me to agree with your specific characterization.

I agreed in general with Treehorn's original post, but also said it wasn't the most egregious example. You now say that translations from two posters (whose posts I never read, btw) are better than the one Treehorn used, and remove the vice of her answers.

Since the question doesn't ask if she, herself, smoked hashish at the party, I have no criticism of her answer to the first question.

A direct answer to a question calling for a "yes" or "no" is one of those two words. What passes muster in ordinary conversation doesn't suffice in formal legal proceedings.

As to the second question, translating "faceva di uso" as "habitually use" creates an additional problem. Her answer is neither clear nor direct. If that is how she understood the question, I think that she is trying to deny that she used drugs as a matter of habit, as opposed to using them at times during October. But she does not expressly deny it. If that was her intent, the direct answer is "No." I think such a response to such a question in a legal proceeding in this country would be followed up by "Is that a 'yes' or is that a 'no'?" In either case, she could certainly qualify her answer by adding that she only used them only occasionally with friends. It is also unclear because we don't really what she means by "occasionally".

The question, btw, was not translated by the interpreter into English; Knox responded in English and her answer was translated into Italian.

 

[TomM43]

TomM43,

Based on the words, “you were with him, you met him.” I would say that the police had Patrick in mind at this point. These words imply that they knew that Amanda had spoken to Patrick on the afternoon of the 5th. Perhaps Amanda spoke Patrick’s name first, but to call her statement a lie is a gross misrepresentation of the situation. Moreover, I am under the impression that Amanda supplied Patrick’s name and address to Rita Ficarra before the interrogation began, so it is not as if the police had no idea who Patrick was.

She was charged with falsely accusing Patrick of murder, and she claimed that the police put words in her mouth. I don't see how it matters whether the police knew his name or not. The issue focused upon at this juncture of the trial was who first wrote or spoke the name, Patrick.

 

[RoseMontague]

I don't think they did record Patrick's, at least AFAIK, though Charlie might know for sure. It's quite a contrast to the Sarah Scazzi case where they released a recording of the interrogations and the judge quoted from the transcripts. I agree that there are similarities between what all three say about their interrogations. If they really didn't record Patrick's that makes things even more suspicious, especially as he would surely have been a suspect at that stage...?

Glad you brought that up. Sabrina Misseri is still in prison and it seems they want it to remain that way.

This is a good link for those interested with several recent related posts on the right side of the page. A few quotes from this one:

Says an old proverb that "there is no end to the worst." Non c'è detto che si adatti in maniera migliore a chi lavora nella procura che indaga sulla morte di Sarah Scazzi. There is said to fit in the best way to who works in the attorney investigating the death of Sarah Scazzi.

There are no other logical explanation for what they did in the past , and what they are doing in the present, we read the same mistakes and persevere. Nulla viene portato avanti con professionalità e tutto viene lasciato al caso. Nothing is being carried out with professionalism and everything is left to chance.

The post Seven Truths is also well worth reading.

http://translate.googleusercontent....le.com&usg=ALkJrhiXBi-Dns6J93MEKwpZZxhc3YtNaw

 

[Mrs.Columbo]

The origin of this prize winning prison writing contest story is the paper Corriere della Sera which happens to be the same paper Amanda sued and won some real cash, not the fictional 100 claimed in the articles I have seen. This paper not only published her prison diary but excerpts from a book about her secret sex life as well as the secret sex lives of some of the other people involved in this case including witnesses.

I am surprised anyone gives this story any credence whatsoever.

I read about this also in La Repubblica - it was a writing contest in Capanne-prison and the winning story "Amore mio" was rewarded with 100 Euro and was written under the name of Marie Pace.
It is a story about a girl which lost conscience in a party with heavy drugs, beer and smoke.

The rumor was that the author might have been Amanda Knox - but her family never confirmed, despite admitting that their daughter has won an award for 'poesie' at a literaric competition.

the link to La Repubblica: http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubb...giallo-sul-racconto-di-un-delitto-simile.html

 

[TomM43]

I would like to try to read it for myself. Do you have a link? I can make do with google translate, if I must.
***

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165

 

[RoseMontague]

I read about this also in La Repubblica - it was a writing contest in Capanne-prison and the winning story "Amore mio" was rewarded with 100 Euro and was written under the name of Marie Pace.
It is a story about a girl which lost conscience in a party with heavy drugs, beer and smoke.

The rumor was that the author might have been Amanda Knox - but her family never confirmed, despite admitting that their daughter has won an award for 'poesie' at a literaric competition.

the link to La Repubblica: http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubb...giallo-sul-racconto-di-un-delitto-simile.html

Their source for this story is "some text" (Google translated). I take this to mean they picked the story up and ran with it. It also mentions that the Knox family denies this was written by Amanda and said she won for a poem of hers. The contest was supposedly administered by a Catholic church. I am not sure that particular story would be a big winner with the church but that is just my opinion. In any case this is not confirmation of the story.

 

[komponisto]

As to the second question, translating "faceva di uso" as "habitually use" creates an additional problem. Her answer is neither clear nor direct. If that is how she understood the question, I think that she is trying to deny that she used drugs as a matter of habit, as opposed to using them at times during October.

The question was unambiguously about her habits during October. Her answer is unambiguously affirmative, and extremely clear -- so clear that it gives more information than was being asked for: not only that she used drugs during October, but also the circumstances in which she did so. There is absolutely nothing evasive about the answer. This particular straw just isn't worth grasping at.

(By the way, the phrase is "faceva uso di", which, word by word, means "you-[habitually]-made use of".)

 

[Dan O.]

the link to La Repubblica: http://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubb...giallo-sul-racconto-di-un-delitto-simile.html

Thanks for that link. Here is one I found for Corriere: http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2009/dicembre/07/mistero_co_9_091207008.shtml

These all seem to be written on the same date. Some sources indicate that the Corriere article was first.

Given that the parents specifically denied that the essay was written by Amanda and the rules of the competition were that the author was to be anonymous, we should consider this yet another attempt to smear Amanda with unsubstantiated rumors.


Of course, if we wanted to smear someone, what is the prison doing encouraging suspects in current trials to publish stories?

 

[katy_did]

Glad you brought that up. Sabrina Misseri is still in prison and it seems they want it to remain that way.

This is a good link for those interested with several recent related posts on the right side of the page. A few quotes from this one:

The post Seven Truths is also well worth reading.

http://translate.googleusercontent....le.com&usg=ALkJrhiXBi-Dns6J93MEKwpZZxhc3YtNaw

Thanks, Rose (btw, when I cut and pasted the google translate URL to get to the original post it took me to this page? Weird. Not that I don't appreciate Maddox the Miniature Dachshund or Rambo the Rottweiler, obviously. LOL).

I haven't seen all that much reported on the case lately, so I'll definitely have a look at the site (have managed to find it now!). As with the Kercher case it still seems shocking that someone can be imprisoned for such a long time before being charged, and with apparently little evidence to hold her, bar her uncle's accusations. Think I mentioned earlier that Sabrina's defence consultant, Carla Vecchiotti, is one of those appointed to carry out an independent review of the forensics in the Kercher case.

 

[RoseMontague]

Thanks for that link. Here is one I found for Corriere: http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2009/dicembre/07/mistero_co_9_091207008.shtml

These all seem to be written on the same date. Some sources indicate that the Corriere article was first.

Given that the parents specifically denied that the essay was written by Amanda and the rules of the competition were that the author was to be anonymous, we should consider this yet another attempt to smear Amanda with unsubstantiated rumors.

Of course, if we wanted to smear someone, what is the prison doing encouraging suspects in current trials to publish stories?

Yes. The original article even calls it a mystery yet it was certainly used to smear her. As we have seen, it is still being used to smear her and even the story itself has become exaggerated and misrepresented by many into something more similar to the Kercher murder and it is also presented as fact by the same people.

 

[katy_did]

Their source for this story is "some text" (Google translated). I take this to mean they picked the story up and ran with it. It also mentions that the Knox family denies this was written by Amanda and said she won for a poem of hers. The contest was supposedly administered by a Catholic church. I am not sure that particular story would be a big winner with the church but that is just my opinion. In any case this is not confirmation of the story.

Not even that, it's just 'according to some' the text was written by Amanda ("secondo alcuni"). So kind of like 'an anonymous source said...', I guess (or just 'some say that...'). I'd assumed there was a more solid basis for thinking she'd written it than rumour. Good to know it's just more gossip...