Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[acbytesla]

Is the link below the C2 technology that Pelleri talks about? If that's the case, it's all I need. Basically, what we're saying is that it's irrelevant whether Meredith's English phone connnected with the Monte La Guadia WIND tower or not. The C2 algorithm will automatically find the tower that has the best signal for the phone. Am I making sense in layman's terms?

C2

C2 is the GSM cell reselection algorithm. Once the MS (Mobile Station) has camped onto a cell it will continue to assess the surrounding cells to ensure it is monitoring the cell that will offer the best radio connection. As the user moves the camped on cell may become unsuitable. This situation...

www.mpirical.com

http://amandaknoxcase.com/

Yep.

The cell calls tell you little. What we know is the cell phone was found in an area that had a very good line of sight to the Wind tower but no line of sight to Piazza Luppatelli cell site. So the cell could have been anywhere from in the bedroom to below the house and anywhere along the route to where the phone was found. I suspect it shows Rudy avoiding leaving from in front of the house but instead making his escape down through the woods and doubling back and around to the entrances to the walled city near the garden where the cell phone was found.

But there is no way to be conclusive.

 

[Stacyhs]

I've walked that route from Guede's apt, through the Via Canerino gate into the park, along the wall and to the cottage. I encountered no one on that walk and this was in the afternoon on a nice day. If he didn't want to be seen, that's the route he'd most likely have taken.

 

[acbytesla]

I've walked that route from Guede's apt, through the Via Canerino gate into the park, along the wall and to the cottage. I encountered no one on that walk and this was in the afternoon on a nice day. If he didn't want to be seen, that's the route he'd most likely have taken.

It's all speculation. The cell antenna shows an area you might have been. But not necessarily where you were within that area. It gets more complicated when their are overlapping cells. There is nothing in the prosecution's case that doesn't rely on weak evidence and wild speculation.

 

[acbytesla]

Not following the thread, I don't know if this is old news or not. But Amanda appeared on one of my favorite podcasts. Dax Shephard's Armchair Expert. This was uploaded to YouTube a month ago. Amanda looked good.

 

[TomG]

Here's another Adobe AI interpretation of the 1st memoriale in response to specific questions asked by me.

What is the overview of the document?

The document is a written statement by Amanda Knox, dated November 6, 2007, in which she attempts to recount her memories and clarify her involvement in the events surrounding the murder of Meredith Kercher. It reflects her confusion, emotional distress, and uncertainty about her recollections. Key points include:

*Timeline of Events: Amanda provides a detailed account of her activities on November 1, 2007, including spending time with her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, watching a movie, smoking marijuana, and possibly falling asleep. She also describes waking up the next morning and discovering the door to her house open and blood in the bathroom.​

​

*Confession Under Pressure: Amanda discusses a "confession" she made to the police, stating that it was given under extreme stress, exhaustion, and coercion. She claims she was hit in the head and pressured into making statements that she now doubts, including implicating Patrik Lumumba in the murder.​

​

*Confusion and Memory Issues: Amanda repeatedly emphasizes her confusion and inability to fully recall events. She questions the reliability of her own memory and expresses doubt about the truth of her statements, describing them as potentially influenced by dreams or stress-induced imagery.​

​

*Concerns About Raffaele: Amanda expresses confusion about Raffaele's claim that they were not together on the night of the murder. She speculates that he might be lying out of fear and trying to distance himself from her.​

​

*Questions About Evidence: Amanda acknowledges that the police claim to have hard evidence placing her at the scene of the crime but states that she does not understand what this evidence is. She questions the reliability of the evidence and her own memory.​

​

*Denial of Guilt: Amanda repeatedly asserts that she did not kill Meredith and expresses fear and confusion about the situation. She asks questions about the real murderer and the evidence against Patrik or others.​

​

*Overall, the document is a mix of personal reflections, attempts to clarify her actions, and expressions of doubt and fear. It highlights Amanda's emotional state and her struggle to make sense of the accusations and evidence against her.​

Does the document implicate Patrik as the murderer?

*The document does not definitively implicate Patrik as the murderer. The author mentions having "flashbacks" of Patrik as the murderer, but they explicitly state that these seem unreal, like a dream, and they are unsure if these memories are real or fabricated under stress and confusion. The author also questions the reliability of their own memory and acknowledges that they cannot confirm Patrik's involvement with certainty. Therefore, the document does not provide concrete evidence or a clear accusation against Patrik.​

​

*The document does not present any concrete evidence against Patrik. The author mentions having "flashbacks" of Patrik as the murderer, but they explicitly state that these seem unreal, like a dream, and they are unsure if these memories are real or fabricated under stress and confusion. The author also questions the reliability of their own memory and acknowledges that they cannot confirm Patrik's involvement with certainty.​

​

*No physical evidence or corroborating details are provided in the document to substantiate any claims against Patrik. The references to him appear to stem from the author's confused state of mind rather than any factual basis.​

How does the narrator describe Raffaele's behavior?

*The narrator describes Raffaele's behavior as caring and gentle in the past but expresses confusion and concern about his actions during the investigation. Specifically:​

​

*Caring and Gentle: The narrator mentions that Raffaele has "always been so caring and gentle" with them, highlighting a positive relationship prior to the events.​

​

*Confusion About His Statements: The narrator is puzzled by Raffaele's claim that they were not together on the night of Meredith's murder, stating, "I KNOW I told him I didn't have to work that night. I remember that moment very clearly. I also NEVER asked him to lie for me."​

​

*Speculation About His Motives: The narrator wonders why Raffaele would lie, suggesting that he might be scared and trying to disassociate himself from them to find a way out of the situation.​

​

*Overall, the narrator portrays Raffaele as someone who may be acting out of fear and confusion, but they do not accuse him of wrongdoing directly. Instead, they express understanding of the pressure he might be under.​

Yet the Italian courts reconvicted Amanda on the strength of the memoriale.

 

[Stacyhs]

For Italy to continue claiming that she again implicated Lumumba in her memoriale is ludicrous. If anything, it's the exact opposite.

 

[Numbers]

Here's another Adobe AI interpretation of the 1st memoriale in response to specific questions asked by me.

What is the overview of the document?

The document is a written statement by Amanda Knox, dated November 6, 2007, in which she attempts to recount her memories and clarify her involvement in the events surrounding the murder of Meredith Kercher. It reflects her confusion, emotional distress, and uncertainty about her recollections. Key points include:

*Timeline of Events: Amanda provides a detailed account of her activities on November 1, 2007, including spending time with her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, watching a movie, smoking marijuana, and possibly falling asleep. She also describes waking up the next morning and discovering the door to her house open and blood in the bathroom.​

​

*Confession Under Pressure: Amanda discusses a "confession" she made to the police, stating that it was given under extreme stress, exhaustion, and coercion. She claims she was hit in the head and pressured into making statements that she now doubts, including implicating Patrik Lumumba in the murder.​

​

*Confusion and Memory Issues: Amanda repeatedly emphasizes her confusion and inability to fully recall events. She questions the reliability of her own memory and expresses doubt about the truth of her statements, describing them as potentially influenced by dreams or stress-induced imagery.​

​

*Concerns About Raffaele: Amanda expresses confusion about Raffaele's claim that they were not together on the night of the murder. She speculates that he might be lying out of fear and trying to distance himself from her.​

​

*Questions About Evidence: Amanda acknowledges that the police claim to have hard evidence placing her at the scene of the crime but states that she does not understand what this evidence is. She questions the reliability of the evidence and her own memory.​

​

*Denial of Guilt: Amanda repeatedly asserts that she did not kill Meredith and expresses fear and confusion about the situation. She asks questions about the real murderer and the evidence against Patrik or others.​

​

*Overall, the document is a mix of personal reflections, attempts to clarify her actions, and expressions of doubt and fear. It highlights Amanda's emotional state and her struggle to make sense of the accusations and evidence against her.​

Does the document implicate Patrik as the murderer?

*The document does not definitively implicate Patrik as the murderer. The author mentions having "flashbacks" of Patrik as the murderer, but they explicitly state that these seem unreal, like a dream, and they are unsure if these memories are real or fabricated under stress and confusion. The author also questions the reliability of their own memory and acknowledges that they cannot confirm Patrik's involvement with certainty. Therefore, the document does not provide concrete evidence or a clear accusation against Patrik.​

​

*The document does not present any concrete evidence against Patrik. The author mentions having "flashbacks" of Patrik as the murderer, but they explicitly state that these seem unreal, like a dream, and they are unsure if these memories are real or fabricated under stress and confusion. The author also questions the reliability of their own memory and acknowledges that they cannot confirm Patrik's involvement with certainty.​

​

*No physical evidence or corroborating details are provided in the document to substantiate any claims against Patrik. The references to him appear to stem from the author's confused state of mind rather than any factual basis.​

How does the narrator describe Raffaele's behavior?

*The narrator describes Raffaele's behavior as caring and gentle in the past but expresses confusion and concern about his actions during the investigation. Specifically:​

​

*Caring and Gentle: The narrator mentions that Raffaele has "always been so caring and gentle" with them, highlighting a positive relationship prior to the events.​

​

*Confusion About His Statements: The narrator is puzzled by Raffaele's claim that they were not together on the night of Meredith's murder, stating, "I KNOW I told him I didn't have to work that night. I remember that moment very clearly. I also NEVER asked him to lie for me."​

​

*Speculation About His Motives: The narrator wonders why Raffaele would lie, suggesting that he might be scared and trying to disassociate himself from them to find a way out of the situation.​

​

*Overall, the narrator portrays Raffaele as someone who may be acting out of fear and confusion, but they do not accuse him of wrongdoing directly. Instead, they express understanding of the pressure he might be under.​

Yet the Italian courts reconvicted Amanda on the strength of the memoriale.

TomG, thanks for this AI analysis. I don't believe that the AI provides any finding beyond what a human could, but it is clear and well organized.

The Italian courts re-convicted Knox by violating the provisions of the Italian Constitution's Article 111 and CPP Article 533, which require, respectively, that a court to be a neutral party deciding a case and that guilt must be declared by a court only if proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, the re-convicting courts chose to assume a prosecutorial prejudgment that Knox was guilty and that the ambiguities of her statement were indications of guilt.

 

[TomG]

I can't access the Adobe AI without paying so I asked another AI, after uploading the 1st memoriale again:

Does the document justify an arrest of Patrik?

ChatGPT said:

Based on the content of the “Memoriale I – November 6, 2007” you uploaded, the document does not justify the arrest of Patrick (often referred to as “Patrik” in the text).

Here’s why:

Amanda Knox explicitly states that her earlier statements implicating Patrick were made “under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion” and that she was hit in the head when she didn’t remember a fact correctly

memoriale AK 06 11 07

She explains that she had “visions” or “flashes” of Patrick — not memories she could confirm as real. She writes:

“In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images... But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made…”

memoriale AK 06 11 07

Knox repeatedly emphasizes that she is uncertain of the truth and that these images might have been products of confusion, not actual events.

She also asks investigators directly:

“Is there any other evidence condemning Patrik or any other person?” suggesting she herself doubts that her statements could legitimately be used against him.

Conclusion:
The memoriale itself undermines any justification for Patrick’s arrest. It portrays Knox’s mention of him as a confused, unreliable product of coercion, not as credible evidence. In legal or evidentiary terms, this document would not support probable cause for his arrest — in fact, it raises serious doubts about the validity of any accusation against him.

So, if an unbiased interpreter had been present, this is perhaps how the 1st memoriale might have been interpreted, pre-empting any such need to drag Lumumba in kicking and screaming in front of his terrified family. They had already got the meaning of the text message hopelessly wrong, so it's clear that an unbiased interpreter would be mandatory in any retroactive scenario. Is such a scenario even feasible when the memoriale was ignored at the time of writing? I'd argue that you can't catapult yourself back in time to recreate and reinterpret a historical event without restoring Amanda's human rights in terms of an unbiased interpreter and a lawyer present also in that event. Of course, if a lawyer had been present to represent Amanda, the memoriale might not have been written at all.

Hoots

 

[AmyStrange]

I can't access the Adobe AI without paying so I asked another AI, after uploading the 1st memoriale again:

Does the document justify an arrest of Patrik?

ChatGPT said:

Based on the content of the “Memoriale I – November 6, 2007” you uploaded, the document does not justify the arrest of Patrick (often referred to as “Patrik” in the text).

Here’s why:

Amanda Knox explicitly states that her earlier statements implicating Patrick were made “under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion” and that she was hit in the head when she didn’t remember a fact correctly

memoriale AK 06 11 07

She explains that she had “visions” or “flashes” of Patrick — not memories she could confirm as real. She writes:

“In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images... But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made…”

memoriale AK 06 11 07

Knox repeatedly emphasizes that she is uncertain of the truth and that these images might have been products of confusion, not actual events.

She also asks investigators directly:

“Is there any other evidence condemning Patrik or any other person?” suggesting she herself doubts that her statements could legitimately be used against him.

Conclusion:
The memoriale itself undermines any justification for Patrick’s arrest. It portrays Knox’s mention of him as a confused, unreliable product of coercion, not as credible evidence. In legal or evidentiary terms, this document would not support probable cause for his arrest — in fact, it raises serious doubts about the validity of any accusation against him.

So, if an unbiased interpreter had been present, this is perhaps how the 1st memoriale might have been interpreted, pre-empting any such need to drag Lumumba in kicking and screaming in front of his terrified family. They had already got the meaning of the text message hopelessly wrong, so it's clear that an unbiased interpreter would be mandatory in any retroactive scenario. Is such a scenario even feasible when the memoriale was ignored at the time of writing? I'd argue that you can't catapult yourself back in time to recreate and reinterpret a historical event without restoring Amanda's human rights in terms of an unbiased interpreter and a lawyer present also in that event. Of course, if a lawyer had been present to represent Amanda, the memoriale might not have been written at all.

Hoots

Yup, and the fact that they went and arrested him without an investigation proves those cops were idiots.

 

[Stacyhs]

Yup, and the fact that they went and arrested him without an investigation proves those cops were idiots.

It shows a desperate need for the cops and Mignini to provide culprits ASAP and their unprofessionalism. The Perugia keystone cops were way in over their heads.
The AI analyses support the ECHR's conclusion that her memoriale was a retraction and NOT a confirmation as the courts ruled last year.

 

[Numbers]

It shows a desperate need for the cops and Mignini to provide culprits ASAP and their unprofessionalism. The Perugia keystone cops were way in over their heads.
The AI analyses support the ECHR's conclusion that her memoriale was a retraction and NOT a confirmation as the courts ruled last year.

Yes. The Italian courts in their re-conviction MRs also acknowledge or imply that Knox's Memoriales were retractions as stated by the ECHR - but, in the Italian courts' view, only when viewed as defense documents. Those MRs state that viewed as prosecution documents, the Memoriales become accusations against Lumumba, and are "more attractive" as accusations because of their ambiguities, such as Knox's use of the word "dream" to describe her attempts at recall of the facts. Thus, the Italian courts in their re-conviction of Knox for calunnia acknowledged that they abandoned their neutrality - required by Article 111 of the Italian Constitution - in order to seem to justify her re-conviction contrary to the conclusion and spirit of the final ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy.

The Italian courts' re-conviction of Knox for calunnia also violates CPP Article 533, because an Italian court may only declare a person guilty if the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The assumption of those courts that the prosecutorial view must override the defense view because a court arbitrarily decides that is to be the case is not at all compatible with the plain meaning of CPP Article 533.

 

[Numbers]

Yup, and the fact that they went and arrested him without an investigation proves those cops were idiots.

As well as dishonest and unethical.

 

[TomG]

I've been reading Rudy's interview with Mignini 26 March 2008. I'd like anyone's opinion on the significance of the "white car" outside the gates and near the garbage bins that Guede said he encountered when he approached VDP7. We know that there was a white car from the photographs, but who did it really belong to? Rudy has 2 people sitting in the car and an individual "standing there" that he describes as an "idiot" and "Moroccan" according to his narrative. He also describes him as a "drug dealer" he'd seen on Corso Garibaldi according to his prison diary. It looks to me that Rudy has an axe to grind for this individual. Yes, we know that Rudy lied, but sometimes his lies are just a tweak on what might be the truth.

Rudy's description of his attacker was that he had memorable "cheekbones", a Napapijiri jacket, and a hat with a "red stripe". Raffaele isn't Moroccan and doesn't have particularly memorable cheekbones. Both K&S were in custody by the time of the interview, so why didn't he just implicate Raffaele and give Mignini what might be beneficial to him? Who was Rudy trying to implicate, and why? Why would he refer to him as an "idiot"?

Hoots

 

[TomG]

It shows a desperate need for the cops and Mignini to provide culprits ASAP and their unprofessionalism. The Perugia keystone cops were way in over their heads.
The AI analyses support the ECHR's conclusion that her memoriale was a retraction and NOT a confirmation as the courts ruled last year.

Hmmm! I'm not so sure. In fact, the same AI offers conflicting results.

https://chatgpt.com/c/68fb8d0f-62c8-832c-b6a8-7e0bb908c77f

Is the document a retraction?

No — the document is not a retraction.

It is a personal statement or memorandum written by Amanda Knox on November 6, 2007, often referred to as “Memoriale I.” In it, she recounts her confusion about events surrounding the night of Meredith Kercher’s murder, reflects on her prior “confession,” and explains that the statements she made to police were the result of stress, shock, and exhaustion.

While Knox explicitly says she is doubtful of the truth of her earlier statements — and that they were made under duress — this document serves more as a clarification and reflection than a formal legal retraction. In essence, it’s her attempt to explain her confusion and assert her innocence, not an official retraction filed through legal channels.

___________________________________

Is the document a retraction?
ChatGPT said:

Yes — the “Memoriale I – November 6, 2007” functions as a retraction of Amanda Knox’s earlier statement implicating Patrick Lumumba.

Here’s why:

Knox explicitly disavows her prior accusation.
She writes that the statements she made the night before were given “under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion” and that she was “hit in the head when I didn’t remember a fact correctly.”
memoriale AK 06 11 07

➤ This directly undermines the credibility and voluntariness of her earlier “confession.”

She says her identification of Patrick was not based on real memory.
Knox explains:
“In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images... these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made.”
memoriale AK 06 11 07

➤ That’s a clear withdrawal of any firm statement that Patrick was involved.

She insists she doesn’t remember being at the scene.
She states:
“There is no way for me to have known because I don’t remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night.”
memoriale AK 06 11 07

➤ This refutes her earlier statement that placed her there with Patrick.
She questions the reliability of both her own memory and the police evidence.
She writes:
“Is the evidence proving my presence at the time and place of the crime reliable?... I don’t feel I can be used as condemning testimony in this instance.”
memoriale AK 06 11 07

➤ She’s effectively saying her prior statement should not be used against Patrick or anyone else.

Conclusion:
This memoriale is a retraction and clarification written after Knox’s coerced statement implicating Patrick Lumumba. It retracts the accusation, disputes the reliability of her prior “confession,” and states that her mention of Patrick came from confusion and imagined “flashes,” not real memory.

_______________________________

What would it matter if the memoriale was a retraction or not? The probability that it is ambiguous doesn't mean that it is a reiteration of the implication of Lumumba, which is what matters most.

Hoots

 

[Stacyhs]

This just shows the unreliability of AI, but the ECHR also ruled it was a retraction. Regardless, the Nov. 7 memoriale leaves no ambiguity:

"I didn’t lie when I said I thought the killer was Patrick. I was very stressed at the time and I really did think he was the murderer. But now I remember that I can’t know who the murderer was because I didn’t return back to the house."

I agree that it's more important that it's ambiguous and even contradictory. The only thing she wrote that could even be considered a confirmation is the "And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events" part, but even that is very much weakened by the remaining part of the same sentence, "that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me than what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house." Its exclusion reeks of intellectual dishonesty. The vast majority of the Nov. 6 memoriale is questioning those "memories" as real or her imaginings and she even states that she's " very doubtful of the veritity [sic] of my statements."

 

[Numbers]

Hmmm! I'm not so sure. In fact, the same AI offers conflicting results.

https://chatgpt.com/c/68fb8d0f-62c8-832c-b6a8-7e0bb908c77f

Is the document a retraction?

No — the document is not a retraction.

It is a personal statement or memorandum written by Amanda Knox on November 6, 2007, often referred to as “Memoriale I.” In it, she recounts her confusion about events surrounding the night of Meredith Kercher’s murder, reflects on her prior “confession,” and explains that the statements she made to police were the result of stress, shock, and exhaustion.

While Knox explicitly says she is doubtful of the truth of her earlier statements — and that they were made under duress — this document serves more as a clarification and reflection than a formal legal retraction. In essence, it’s her attempt to explain her confusion and assert her innocence, not an official retraction filed through legal channels.

___________________________________

Is the document a retraction?
ChatGPT said:

Yes — the “Memoriale I – November 6, 2007” functions as a retraction of Amanda Knox’s earlier statement implicating Patrick Lumumba.

Here’s why:

Knox explicitly disavows her prior accusation.
She writes that the statements she made the night before were given “under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion” and that she was “hit in the head when I didn’t remember a fact correctly.”
memoriale AK 06 11 07

➤ This directly undermines the credibility and voluntariness of her earlier “confession.”

She says her identification of Patrick was not based on real memory.
Knox explains:
“In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images... these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made.”
memoriale AK 06 11 07

➤ That’s a clear withdrawal of any firm statement that Patrick was involved.

She insists she doesn’t remember being at the scene.
She states:
“There is no way for me to have known because I don’t remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night.”
memoriale AK 06 11 07

➤ This refutes her earlier statement that placed her there with Patrick.
She questions the reliability of both her own memory and the police evidence.
She writes:
“Is the evidence proving my presence at the time and place of the crime reliable?... I don’t feel I can be used as condemning testimony in this instance.”
memoriale AK 06 11 07

➤ She’s effectively saying her prior statement should not be used against Patrick or anyone else.

Conclusion:
This memoriale is a retraction and clarification written after Knox’s coerced statement implicating Patrick Lumumba. It retracts the accusation, disputes the reliability of her prior “confession,” and states that her mention of Patrick came from confusion and imagined “flashes,” not real memory.

_______________________________

What would it matter if the memoriale was a retraction or not? The probability that it is ambiguous doesn't mean that it is a reiteration of the implication of Lumumba, which is what matters most.

Hoots

To make sense of the AI responses, we need to understand the differences between what the AI programs do and what a properly functioning court does based on the facts, the legal definitions of the relevant terms, as well as the relevant laws and legal principles.

Let's start with the legal definition of "retraction". Here's an example of a legal definition of "retraction" and commentary on the form of an "effective" retraction:

Retraction is a term that refers to taking back something that was previously said or written. In legal terms, this can apply to various situations, such as when someone confesses to a crime or when a party anticipates not fulfilling a contract. Essentially, a retraction serves as a way to correct or withdraw a statement that may have caused harm or confusion. For example, if a newspaper publishes an article that contains false information about someone, they might issue a retraction to clarify the truth and minimize any damage done to that person's reputation.
....
A retraction is when someone takes back or withdraws a statement they made, especially if that statement was false or misleading.....
To write an effective retraction, clearly state what the original statement was, explain why it is incorrect, and provide the correct information. Be sincere and straightforward to help rebuild trust with your audience.

One important legal principle involved in any criminal case in a CoE member state - including Italy, in accordance with its Constitution and CPP Article 533 - is that a court may lawfully declare a person guilty of a crime if they are proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In case of contradictory or inconclusive evidence, they must be acquitted (CPP Article 530).

From the viewpoint of human intelligence, the definition of retraction, the form of an effective retraction, and the relevant laws and legal principles, Knox's Memoriale 1 is an ambiguous retraction that, even though ambiguous, cannot be used to lawfully convict her of calunnia (malicious accusation).

 

[Numbers]

To make sense of the AI responses, we need to understand the differences between what the AI programs do and what a properly functioning court does based on the facts, the legal definitions of the relevant terms, as well as the relevant laws and legal principles.

Let's start with the legal definition of "retraction". Here's an example of a legal definition of "retraction" and commentary on the form of an "effective" retraction:


One important legal principle involved in any criminal case in a CoE member state - including Italy, in accordance with its Constitution and CPP Article 533 - is that a court may lawfully declare a person guilty of a crime if they are proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In case of contradictory or inconclusive evidence, they must be acquitted (CPP Article 530).

From the viewpoint of human intelligence, the definition of retraction, the form of an effective retraction, and the relevant laws and legal principles, Knox's Memoriale 1 is an ambiguous retraction that, even though ambiguous, cannot be used to lawfully convict her of calunnia (malicious accusation).

The source of the quote, including the legal definition of "retraction", is:

retraction - Meaning in law and legal documents, Examples and FAQs | LegalBrief AI

A retraction is when someone takes back or corrects a statement they made, often to clarify that it was wrong or misleading.

www.legalbriefai.com

 

[Stacyhs]

I've often wondered why the ECHR did not include her second (Nov. 7) memoriale which is a very clear retraction. After detailing what she and Raffaele had done the night before and the morning/afternoon of Nov. 2, she unambiguously stated:

This is what happened and I could swear by it. I’m sorry I didn’t remember before and I’m sorry I said I could have been at the house when it happened. I said these things because I was confused and scared. I didn’t lie when I said I thought the killer was Patrick. I was very stressed at the time and I really did think he was the murderer. But now I remember that I can’t know who the murderer was because I didn’t return back to the house.

 

[Stacyhs]

I've often wondered why the ECHR did not include her second (Nov. 7) memoriale which is a very clear retraction. After detailing what she and Raffaele had done the night before (which repeated her earlier depositions) and the morning/afternoon of Nov. 2, she unambiguously stated:

This is what happened and I could swear by it. I’m sorry I didn’t remember before and I’m sorry I said I could have been at the house when it happened. I said these things because I was confused and scared. I didn’t lie when I said I thought the killer was Patrick. I was very stressed at the time and I really did think he was the murderer. But now I remember that I can’t know who the murderer was because I didn’t return back to the house.

So how on earth did the police justify holding Lumumba in prison after that statement when they had absolutely nothing else to justify it? IMO, it was because they would be publicly humiliated by their grandstanding Nov. 6 press announcement and their own arrogant belief in their "gut" instinct.

 

[Numbers]

I've often wondered why the ECHR did not include her second (Nov. 7) memoriale which is a very clear retraction. After detailing what she and Raffaele had done the night before (which repeated her earlier depositions) and the morning/afternoon of Nov. 2, she unambiguously stated:


So how on earth did the police justify holding Lumumba in prison after that statement when they had absolutely nothing else to justify it? IMO,
it was because they would be publicly humiliated by their grandstanding Nov. 6 press announcement and their own arrogant belief in their "gut" instinct.

I agree with your statement, but to that I would add that police and the prosecutors (Mignini and others), and subsequently a number of the Italian courts, then proceeded to charge, convict, and re-convict Amanda Knox on the charge of calunnia to coverup the unlawful and illegal actions of the police and Mignini during and immediately after the interrogations that resulted in Knox's statements falsely accusing Lumumba.

For your question on why or how the ECHR discussed Knox's Memoriales of retraction, here are English translation excerpts from the ECHR judgment that may be useful in understanding the ECHR's approach, which appears to regard the two Memoiriales, her lawyers statements at the arrest hearing, and her 9 November letters to her lawyers as a continuing work of clarification of her retraction:

20. At around 1 p.m., the applicant asked the police officers for paper so that she could write a statement in her mother tongue, English. This text was then brought to the attention of the police. In it, she explained that she was in a very confused situation and that she intended to clarify her position. She gave a detailed account of the events of the evening of 1 November 2007, which she allegedly spent in the company of R.S. She essentially stated that she had spent the evening and the night at R.S.'s house. She also stated that she was unable to remember all the details and stated that she had smoked a joint with R.S. during that evening. The other relevant parts of this document read as follows:

"1. (...) regarding this 'confession' from last night, I wish to explain that I seriously doubt the veracity of my statements because they were made while I was in shock and under extreme stress and exhaustion. Not only was I informed that I had been arrested and [would be] imprisoned for 30 years, but I was also hit on the head when I failed to correctly recall an incident. I understand that the police are under a lot of pressure, and I therefore understand the treatment I received. However, it was under this pressure and after hours of confusion that I was able to provide these answers. In my mind, I had seen D.L. in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court, I saw him at the front door of my house. I saw myself in the kitchen, covering my ears with my hands because, in my head, I could hear M.K. screaming. However, and I have said this many times so that I can explain myself clearly: these things seem unreal to me, they seem like a dream and I am not sure if these are events that actually took place or [if they are] dreams that came from my imagination in an attempt to answer the questions (...) that were asked of me. The truth is that I am not sure of the truth and here is why:
.....

21. Shortly thereafter, the applicant was transferred to Perugia prison.

22. On the same day, 6 November 2007, D.L. was imprisoned. Having provided an alibi, he was released two weeks later.

23. Meanwhile, on 8 November 2007, at the hearing to validate the arrest before the preliminary investigation judge in Perugia, the applicant's defence, which contested the arrest, had stated that the applicant's statements to the police on 6 November 2007 did not constitute a confession but merely cooperation with the authorities. They added that the applicant was deeply disturbed and that her recollections were unreliable because she had been disturbed to the point of being deprived of her free will ("capacità di autodeterminazione").

24. On 9 November 2007, the applicant wrote two texts in English, addressed to her two lawyers[2]. The relevant parts of one of these texts read as follows:

"To my lawyers

1. (...) What I would like to offer you is assistance, as I know my position is somewhat confused. I will write to you everything I know as best I can, and in particular, I would like to tell you about this so-called 'confession' that the police received from me. I will begin with this 'confession' because I know it is the most confusing part, and therefore, I will begin with [the account of] that night.
....

What may be of greatest significance to the ECHR is the lack of any sensible and lawful response of the Italian courts to her defense lawyers' statement presented at the arrest hearing (quoted in Paragraph 23 of the ECHR judgment), and during each trial and in the appeals, invoking CPP Article 188. (The Boninsegna court trial being a possible exception, but it was not a trial of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba nor of the police and Mignini for their acts during Knox's interrogations.)

Source: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-189422
Google translation