No, I’m not going to subscribe to this. I don’t have to have the expertise of a juror or a judge or an investigator or attorney in a case before I believe I have the “right” to express an opinion.
I didn’t say that, you misunderstand me. I’m completely against people saying that you aren’t qualified to have an opinion on nuclear power or global warming etc., because most people know most of the relevant facts there. But those things are different because we can get general facts about such things, but with this one key thing could change everything.
I said I’m not against it. I just said you would need to devote a really long time to looking at all of the facts involved, including precedents from other trials and data. Don’t you think it seems a little cushy for everyone at home to have their opinions on it, “instant coffee” style? At an extreme level, think about the people that just say “bah, look at that attorney’s past, and the DNA analysis was flawed, they should let her out”… that analysis/opinion is worthless. I think it’s a very, very serious thing and demands hours of consideration.
Given what you say right after this, I don’t think I misunderstand you.
My idly blathering about this trial doesn’t change anything.
No, I don’t need to devote such time in order to have a casual conversation about this case. That makes no sense at all.
I have the comfort of not being the defendant or the victim in this case, nor the judge nor jury. If that’s what you mean by “a little cushy,” I can’t deny it, but I also don’t see that as a reason for me to limit my urges to discuss the matter with people situated similarly to me.
My two cents: I’ve deliberately avoided learning anything about the case. This morning, I jumped to this link and read through it not really caring whether Amanda was innocent or not. Until I saw this:
That’s when I realized that prosecution was pulling a McMartin. I didn’t bother anymore with reading the rest of the Wiki entry, per the sentence being in the past tense and implied that “the Devil made me do it” wasn’t going to muster the jury to a guilty verdict.
I feel especially sorry for murder victim’s family–the sloppy prosecution just adds to the pain.
Actually, it’s not defamation. That’s a simple offense to a person’s reputation. In this case, we’re talking about “calunnia,” which is knowingly accusing and innocent person of a crime. It’s punished pretty stiffly in the Italian penal code.
Ok (you’re Italian?). What I don’t get (havent followed the case really, there’s zero coverage of it over here) is this: apparently the defamation/calunnia thing stemmed from Knox’s hearing by the police. But since when is “ratting out” on other people when you’re yourself being charged counts as calunnia?
Wouldnt that be more when you go the police yourself and say “X has done this, I can testify”?
It does seem farcical that the killer was locked up from day one, on good evidence, apparently agreeing to a ‘fast track trial’, and then the hapless two also get done for the same crime. There never seemed to be a coherent picture of how the three of them acted together - almost like Meredith was killed twice, and we’ve got people for both murders!
Throw in the fact that motive-less, violent knife murder from a young woman (on another young woman) of sound mind and basically good character must be way down the list of likely scenarios, and you’ve already got the guy who did it, then it’s looking like an egregious miscarriage of justice.
Miscarriage or not, they’ll be few tears shed for Knox I suspect - falsely accusing her boss, and pedalling a bullshit, self-serving story in general in the face of such a tragedy speaks volumes.
I’m not Italian, but I live and practice law in Italy.
The fact that you were being interrogated when you made your false accusation is no excuse. How could it be? Being questioned by the police is not license to lie.
In any case, the key part of “calunnia” is not accusing another person of a crime, it’s doing so while knowing perfectly well that person is innocent. If I’m convinced of the truth of my inadvertantly false accusation, I may be guilty of defamation, but not of calunnia.
Because you’re being put under pressure. That’s the whole point of an interrogation. The police wants either names or confessions and are going to be relentless in that quest.
But I guess to charge someone with calunnia, that is “accusing another person of a crime, while knowing perfectly well that person is innocent”, the burden of proof is on the accusation. How did they manage to establish that in the Knox case?
ETA: btw, cool to have someone knowledgeable on Italian law, God knows such knowledge is usually absent on any Knox thread.
Sure, pressure is the point of interrogation. But it’s still no excuse for lying. If it were, it would kind of eliminate interrogation as a useful investigative tool, wouldn’t it?
I really haven’t kept up on the Kercher case, so there’s a whole bunch of factual stuff I don’t know. As to how the prosecution met the calunnia burden of proof, it was soon obvious that Patrick Lumumba had nothing to do with the crime, and I imagine (I’m guessing here) that Amanda Knox admitted that she’d made the whole thing up.
Could you elaborate on that comment. Because on face value, it’s absolutely vile.
Related question:
Are you guys (either the Italian populace at large or more specifically members of the various judicial professions in general) as acutely aware of the problem of false confessions as we’ve been over the past few years over here in the US?
I don’t take myself to know much at all about them, but what I’ve seen quoted from them doesn’t make me think very highly of them to be honest. They don’t seem concerned with the truth so much as with getting someone, anyone at all blamed and imprisoned for the crime.
Again: I don’t pretend I have an accurate picture of them, but I do note that I wouldn’t think highly of them if I thought I had an accurate picture of them.
Which is exactly one of the reasons why there are people who believe that the cops shouldn’t be allowed to use high pressure interrogation techniques at all. If Knox’s descriptions of her interrogation are true then it was the police themselves who first suggested and then pushed her to implicate her boss. It seems an almost surreal catch-22 to make her liable for it.
It doesn’t matter that she claims that she made it up because of extreme
Police pressure to do so?
I’ve always assumed (and I may be wrong) that it wasn’t a case of her saying something once under stress, the police went away and that was it. I thought it was more her repeatedly stating it in an effort to get the attention off her. Less something under duress, more a calculated choice.
But as I said, I may be wrong.
Yup. That wasn’t the last thing I read about this sad story, but it did convince me Knox had nothing to do with what happened. On top of that there was the interrogation, sloppy handling of the evidence, and of course a justice system that didn’t want to admit it screwed up. I can’t fault Knox for making up a story under extreme pressure (that’s my understanding of how it went) and I can’t fault Meredith Kercher’s parents for their opinions about the case (even if they’re incorrect) and their feeling that the murder of their daughter was forgotten in the midst of all the debates and the scaldals. Those things are just too far removed from my experience.
I can fault her. It was a fucking stupid thing to do that got the police investigating a completely innocent man for murder. When, presumably, those police would have been better off trying to find the actual murderer.
Or have we just decided that lying to the police is OK now?
And if someone close to you is ever murdered and the police spend several days interrogating you as a suspect, I’m sure you will do better. I can’t fault her because nothing like that has happened to me, and because I think pretending to know what you would do in that kind of situation is foolish.
Maybe you can clear something up for me. The Italian Supreme Court ruled that the statement she made to police implicating Lumumbia could not be used as evidence in the murder trial since it was obtained via an interrogation that violated her civil rights (she was not made aware she was a suspect before she was interrogated for 14 hours without access to a lawyer, an interpreter, food, water, or a bathroom). How then could it be used as evidence for other charges? I would think if a statement was obtained through unlawful means it wouldn’t be able to be used as evidence on any charge.
I had no opinion either way until I heard that the prosecutor (Mignini) had also been involved in the Monster of Florence case (and gotten indicted for abuse of power). It’s hard to put faith in any prosecutor engulfed in that mess.
“There have been suicides, exhumations, alleged poisonings, body parts sent by post, séances in graveyards, lawsuits, planting of false evidence, and vicious prosecutorial vendettas. The investigation has been like a malignancy, spreading backward in time and outward in space, metastasizing to different cities and swelling into new investigations, with new judges, police, and prosecutors, more suspects, more arrests, and many more lives ruined.”
Compared to the Monster of Florence mess, the Knox case was practically a model of prosecutorial discretion. :dubious: