Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[AmyStrange]

The ECHR doesn't even know yet...

-

Okay; here is my point, we do not know whether there is an ECHR casae relating to Amanda’s slander conviction; we know that lawyers acting on Amanda’s behalf have lodged an application, that is it.

Has ECHR adjudicated that there is a case to be heard? I have no idea and I was hoping that someone could confirm.

I'll drop this as clearly no one posting on this thread has any knowledge of the status of Amanda's slander application to ECHR.

-

I've done an exhaustive search for info on this c, and of course all I found was the announcement of the application to the ECHR for same. All I can say is it's pretty damn obvious that the application hasn't been rejected, because that would be big news.

If anyone has any sources to suggest otherwise, then it's fair to say that her app is still being considered, because the current (provisional) schedule and pending cases of the ECHR does not include the case itself:

http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=hearings/gcpending&c=
http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=hearings/calendar&c=

Here is a link to one of the news items that reported that she had submitted the slander case to the ECHR:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/2...er-conviction-to-european-court-human-rights/

d

-
ETA: from a quick perusal of the cases, it doesn't look like the ECHR moves any quicker then the Italian courts. This may take more than a year or two to even be heard for consideration by them.

WOW: 14,400 cases from Italy pending as of the end of 2013 (99,900 total applications pending before a judicial formation):
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_pending_2013_ENG.pdf

-

 

[Samson]

Michael on PMF dot net says

At no point, has Knox claimed she requested a lawyer and that request was refused.

My understanding was that she asked Mignini if she needed a lawyer, and Mignini said it would make it worse for her.

Can anyone elucidate?

 

[Desert Fox]

Michael on PMF dot net says

At no point, has Knox claimed she requested a lawyer and that request was refused.

My understanding was that she asked Mignini if she needed a lawyer, and Mignini said it would make it worse for her.

Can anyone elucidate?

My gut reaction is that the police will often play that game where they will tell a defendant something along those lines.

 

[carbonjam72]

-


-

I've done an exhaustive search for info on this c, and of course all I found was the announcement of the application to the ECHR for same. All I can say is it's pretty damn obvious that the application hasn't been rejected, because that would be big news.

If anyone has any sources to suggest otherwise, then it's fair to say that her app is still being considered, because the current (provisional) schedule and pending cases of the ECHR does not include the case itself:

http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=hearings/gcpending&c=
http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=hearings/calendar&c=

Here is a link to one of the news items that reported that she had submitted the slander case to the ECHR:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/2...er-conviction-to-european-court-human-rights/

d

-
ETA: from a quick perusal of the cases, it doesn't look like the ECHR moves any quicker then the Italian courts. This may take more than a year or two to even be heard for consideration by them.

WOW: 14,400 cases from Italy pending as of the end of 2013 (99,900 total applications pending before a judicial formation):
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_pending_2013_ENG.pdf

-

Wow, this was great work, thanks for posting it. Does this mean we can just check back with this link to see when the case gets posted?

(Of course I'm assuming it will because its such a gross violation in full view of the world, no country wants to share Italy's shame and disgrace over this).

I looked for something like this but couldn't find it. Great to know the info will be public when its available.

 

[kwill]

Michael on PMF dot net says

At no point, has Knox claimed she requested a lawyer and that request was refused.

My understanding was that she asked Mignini if she needed a lawyer, and Mignini said it would make it worse for her.

Can anyone elucidate?

I believe you're right. It doesn't matter if she asked or not, though -- she was not supposed to be interviewed without one present once they'd decided that she was a suspect. That's their law, if I understand it correctly.

Having a lawyer in the room during the interrogation was their responsibility; that's what all the when-did-she-become-a-suspect stuff is about. The claim that Mignini has been making is that she was just a witness right up until the moment she signed that first draft of the accusation against Lumumba at 1:45 am.

It's a joke. She spent more than 2 hours talking with shifts of police officers, at least part of which happened without any kind of translator -- not even the police-friendly one they eventually brought in.

So, is whats-his-face correct that she never asked for a lawyer? I think so. But it's irrelevant.

 

[Skind]

Michael on PMF dot net says

At no point, has Knox claimed she requested a lawyer and that request was refused.

My understanding was that she asked Mignini if she needed a lawyer, and Mignini said it would make it worse for her.

Can anyone elucidate?

IIRC:

Knox asked if she was supposed to have a lawyer. Any reasonable person would realise that a "Yes" would be followed up by a request for a lawyer, thus this constitutes the initiation of a request for a lawyer.

The police interviewer (Napoleoni IIRC) said (to paraphrase a bit) "They are all busy and having one would make you look like you're guilty".

Boom! If true, this means that the police/prosecution knew that Knox would be entitled to a lawyer and that they had already enquired about the possible availability of one. Also acts as discouragement from seeking a lawyer to imply or threaten any formal or informal sanction.

 

[kwill]

IIRC:

Knox asked if she was supposed to have a lawyer. Any reasonable person would realise that a "Yes" would be followed up by a request for a lawyer, thus this constitutes the initiation of a request for a lawyer.

The police interviewer (Napoleoni IIRC) said (to paraphrase a bit) "They are all busy and having one would make you look like you're guilty".

Boom! If true, this means that the police/prosecution knew that Knox would be entitled to a lawyer and that they had already enquired about the possible availability of one. Also acts as discouragement from seeking a lawyer to imply or threaten any formal or informal sanction.

They knew she was entitled to a lawyer before she asked if she should have one. Italian law isn't fuzzy on this point -- if the person is a suspect, she MUST have an attorney present during police interrogations. It's not optional. The defense they've used on this point is that she wasn't a suspect at any moment during that all night interrogation.

Which is absurd on its face. Why were they tapping her phone that week if she wasn't a suspect?

ETA: Mignini has also argued that everything she said between the 1:45 statement and the 5:45 one came spontaneously from her -- that is, he's trying to say that he DID stop the interrogation at 1:45 (which he had to, because otherwise he'd have been obligated to get an attorney into the room) -- and that nobody questioned her between 1:45 and 5:45. She just started talking and couldn't stop.

It's unbelievable that the guy didn't wear a clown suit into court.

 

[RWVBWL]

"Do I need a lawyer?"

Michael on PMF dot net says

At no point, has Knox claimed she requested a lawyer and that request was refused.
My understanding was that she asked Mignini if she needed a lawyer, and Mignini said it would make it worse for her.

Can anyone elucidate?

BALONEY!

Amanda Marie Knox writes,
in her book 'Waiting to Be Heard', on page 120, this:
The pubblico ministero came in.

Before he started questioning me, I said, "Look, I'm really confused,
and I don't know what I'm remembering, and it doesn't seem right."

One of the police officers said, "We'll work through it."

Despite the emotional sieve I'd just been squeezed through, it occurred to me that I was a witness
and this was official testimony, that maybe I should have a lawyer.
"Do I need a lawyer?" I asked.

He said, "No, no, that will only make it worse. It will make it seem like you do not want to help us."


Hmmmm.
After spending a bitchin' day at the beach,
with the air temp at 94 degrees F, the surf pumping, and a stoked smile on my face
from seein'+photographing sooo many bro's and bro-ettes enjoyin' the ride, well I have to wonder:
What part of what Amanda wrote does [email protected] not understand?
Hasn't he read her book?


Just for fun,
I also looked up that Perugia Shock post I quoted from yesterday, waaay back in April 24, 2008,
and here's the Italian Supreme Courts take on Amanda's lawyer-less interrogations:

Amanda:
They used the statements I made at 1.45 am on November 6
when I didn't not have the presence of an attorney to defend me.
I was questioned again at 5.45 am and gave "spontaneous statements,"
but these are not admissible due to the status I had acquired in the mean time.
Both are violations of Article 63 cpp.

Supreme Court:
Statements released without the proper legal guarantees can't be used contra se (against the person)
--not even against other suspects-- when there is already circumstantial evidence against the person who makes them.

But when the person is heard as a witness the total lock-up (can't be used at all, not against the one who makes them nor against other suspects) provided by Article 63 cpp does not apply.
In this case, the fact that he is just a witness and as such outside the facts protects him from possible abuse by the investigators (Cass.Sez.Un. 13/2/1997).

Arguing from these principles,
the statements you made at 1.45 can only be used contra alios (against another person).
As a result of those statements, the interrogation was suspended and you became "indagata"(a suspect).
The "spontaneous statements" made at 5.45 am are not admissible against you or against other suspects because you had already become "indagata" and you did not have legal protection.
But, the memoir you wrote was a spontaneous defensive act and is admissible against you.

Link:
http://web.archive.org/web/20100807000317/http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Wow, this was great work, thanks for posting it. Does this mean we can just check back with this link to see when the case gets posted?

(Of course I'm assuming it will because its such a gross violation in full view of the world, no country wants to share Italy's shame and disgrace over this).

I looked for something like this but couldn't find it. Great to know the info will be public when its available.

-

You're welcome cj. I assume when (and if) the case is reviewed for consideration (and accepted), it will be put on one of the schedules to which I linked:

PENDING HEARINGS:
http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=hearings/gcpending&c=

CALENDAR OF HEARINGS:
http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=hearings/calendar&c=
-

But WOW! 99,900 total cases (14,400 from Italy alone) as of December 31, 2013 seems like it's going to take forever to be reviewed for consideration:
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_pending_2013_ENG.pdf
-

Also, you can even request to attend a hearing:
http://appform.echr.coe.int/echrrequest/request.aspx?lang=gb

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

They knew she was entitled to a lawyer before she asked if she should have one. Italian law isn't fuzzy on this point -- if the person is a suspect, she MUST have an attorney present during police interrogations. It's not optional. The defense they've used on this point is that she wasn't a suspect at any moment during that all night interrogation.

Which is absurd on its face. Why were they tapping her phone that week if she wasn't a suspect?

ETA: Mignini has also argued that everything she said between the 1:45 statement and the 5:45 one came spontaneously from her -- that is, he's trying to say that he DID stop the interrogation at 1:45 (which he had to, because otherwise he'd have been obligated to get an attorney into the room) -- and that nobody questioned her between 1:45 and 5:45. She just started talking and couldn't stop.

It's unbelievable that the guy didn't wear a clown suit into court.

-

Hmmm... Mignini does have more than a passing resemblance to John Wayne Gacy Jr. (the Killer Clown), in my opinion. It would be interesting to see side by side pictures of them,

d

-

 

[Samson]

There is quite a list they rely on heavily to remain in their comfort zone, but what remains unchallenged during this period 10pm to 6am is that
1. Amanda declared a black basketball player visited the apartment.

Why did she so readily confirm this, when he was presumed to have watched her kill Meredith?

2. Raffaele asked for a calendar to be particular about the evening of 4 nights previously versus 5 nights previously.

Yet the result is trumpeted to the sky that he destroyed Amanda's alibi by saying she went out, and told a load of lies. They really need this appeal to the notion of infallible memory to support their case.

3. Amanda raised the issue of a lawyer.

But Michael finesses this with his statement,

At no point, has Knox claimed she requested a lawyer and that request was refused.

So who is Michael to so comfortably make this statement?

Michael owns a web site dedicated to the incarceration of Amanda and Raffaele, and has made 16,000 posts to this effect since 2008.

Here is part of a recent post, which encouraged me to call him insane, but I may not be clinically correct.

The two knives also suggest to me a prearranged "pact" for a perverse shared intimate experience between Knox and Sollecito, that they would both land the final blows together, upheld by the fact of the deep wound on one side of the victim's neck from Sollecito's knife and a much deeper wound still on the other side from the Knox wielded kitchen knife, Knox being the one that wanted to give the coup de grace. Importantly, Guede was clearly not part of this pact since he did not have a knife. And that fact is very telling about the dynamic of what went down.

Consider...if one knife was considered not to be enough and you're going to use two knives, why not then therefore use three knives? One knife would make sense. Three knives would make sense - three attackers, one knife each. Two knives, when looked at from a purely practical perspective, do not make sense. That's because the two knives were not used out of any practical need. Neither does it make sense if the intent was only ever to scare Meredith. Certainly, having three people with three knives would have a scarier effect then three people with two knives between them. If you want to scare, why go up to two knives but not go up to three, especially if there's three of you to wield them?

Two knives do make sense, when one considers that they were used as part a pact for a special, intimate shared thrill between two lovers. Guede sexually assaulted the victim, but the pact between Knox and Sollecito forbade each other from directly sexually interacting with their victim (they would have considered it cheating on each other). But, they did perform a sexual act, psychologically. Their (permissible between them) sexual act was to symbolically rape their victim by penetrating her with their knives. The ancient Roman short sword used by the Roman legionaries was called the gladius. It was the same word for penis. The Romans saw them as symbolically being the same thing, only one penetrates for love and the other for war. Or consider the not unsubtle sexual symbolism of the vampire who orgiastically penetrates their victim's neck with their fangs. After all, and it's an important point, if the intent was simply to kill her alone, why then not dispense with knives and use a far less bloody and more practical method, especially when you're killing your victim in your own home...a cord for strangulation? It would have been more practical and far less mess would have been made, with far less evidence to manipulate or get incriminated by. The choosing of the knives was deliberate, considered, and tells me they didn't simply want it to be terrifying and brutal, this wasn't just about getting rid of someone one of them didn't like (although, it was also that, it's why Meredith was chosen). It was also a psycho-sexual thrill kill between lovers who wanted to symbolically sexually penetrate (rape) her together in the final moments, their sexual climax.

This narrative tells us something else important. Guede was very deliberately not given a knife before the attack. This tells us that Rudy wasn't simply excluded directly after the attack. He was excluded, by design, before the attack even began. Although, he almost certainly didn't realise this. This pact and exclusion was worked out before even reaching the cottage and that pact was only ever designed to end in one thing...Meredith's murder. This was a planned premeditated murder by Knox and Sollecito.


While this is so offensive it should not be repeated, his dedication to destruction and filth as a website proprietor should be exposed, in the hope that he can be located and brought to some sort of justice when the proof of innocence becomes main stream like old Galileo's crazy theory of a solar centric planetary system..

 

[Desert Fox]

You can always make crap up, it does not make it true

 

[Samson]

You can always make crap up, it does not make it true

Yes, but unfortunately the lies about drug associations have played badly for Amanda, and these people are organised and vicious.

 

[Desert Fox]

Yes, but unfortunately the lies about drug associations have played badly for Amanda, and these people are organised and vicious.

Who not on the pro guilt side takes these seriously?

 

[CoulsdonUK]

-


-

I've done an exhaustive search for info on this c, and of course all I found was the announcement of the application to the ECHR for same. All I can say is it's pretty damn obvious that the application hasn't been rejected, because that would be big news.
If anyone has any sources to suggest otherwise, then it's fair to say that her app is still being considered, because the current (provisional) schedule and pending cases of the ECHR does not include the case itself:

http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=hearings/gcpending&c=
http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=hearings/calendar&c=

Here is a link to one of the news items that reported that she had submitted the slander case to the ECHR:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/2...er-conviction-to-european-court-human-rights/

d

-
ETA: from a quick perusal of the cases, it doesn't look like the ECHR moves any quicker then the Italian courts. This may take more than a year or two to even be heard for consideration by them.

WOW: 14,400 cases from Italy pending as of the end of 2013 (99,900 total applications pending before a judicial formation):
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_pending_2013_ENG.pdf

-

AmyStrange

Thank you for the links.

I have not said Amanda slander case had been rejected. However, as your links confirm there isn’t a case as the application has not be assessed yet, looking at the Fox link the application was filed approximately a year ago. I wonder whether it will be processed by March 2015?

Wow, this was great work, thanks for posting it. Does this mean we can just check back with this link to see when the case gets posted?

(Of course I'm assuming it will because its such a gross violation in full view of the world, no country wants to share Italy's shame and disgrace over this).
I looked for something like this but couldn't find it. Great to know the info will be public when its available.

Do you have any information on the content of Amanda’s slander application or this the highlighted text an aspiration?

 

[AmyStrange]

-

AmyStrange

Thank you for the links.

I have not said Amanda slander case had been rejected. However, as your links confirm there isn’t a case as the application has not be assessed yet, looking at the Fox link the application was filed approximately a year ago. I wonder whether it will be processed by March 2015?

-

To be honest c, I don't know if it will be by that date. It's possible, but I don't think it's probable. 99,900 cases to review are A LOT of cases, but hey, I've been wrong before, and it really does depend on how long it takes to review that many cases.

I guess we'll just have to check the "pending cases" link below periodically to see if it happens by then, or just wait until March of next year (2015) to check:

http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=hearings/gcpending&c=

d

-

 

[lonepinealex]

There is quite a list they rely on heavily to remain in their comfort zone, but what remains unchallenged during this period 10pm to 6am is that
1. Amanda declared a black basketball player visited the apartment.

Why did she so readily confirm this, when he was presumed to have watched her kill Meredith?

2. Raffaele asked for a calendar to be particular about the evening of 4 nights previously versus 5 nights previously.

Yet the result is trumpeted to the sky that he destroyed Amanda's alibi by saying she went out, and told a load of lies. They really need this appeal to the notion of infallible memory to support their case.

3. Amanda raised the issue of a lawyer.

But Michael finesses this with his statement,

At no point, has Knox claimed she requested a lawyer and that request was refused.

So who is Michael to so comfortably make this statement?

Michael owns a web site dedicated to the incarceration of Amanda and Raffaele, and has made 16,000 posts to this effect since 2008.

Here is part of a recent post, which encouraged me to call him insane, but I may not be clinically correct.

The two knives also suggest to me a prearranged "pact" for a perverse shared intimate experience between Knox and Sollecito, that they would both land the final blows together, upheld by the fact of the deep wound on one side of the victim's neck from Sollecito's knife and a much deeper wound still on the other side from the Knox wielded kitchen knife, Knox being the one that wanted to give the coup de grace. Importantly, Guede was clearly not part of this pact since he did not have a knife. And that fact is very telling about the dynamic of what went down.

Consider...if one knife was considered not to be enough and you're going to use two knives, why not then therefore use three knives? One knife would make sense. Three knives would make sense - three attackers, one knife each. Two knives, when looked at from a purely practical perspective, do not make sense. That's because the two knives were not used out of any practical need. Neither does it make sense if the intent was only ever to scare Meredith. Certainly, having three people with three knives would have a scarier effect then three people with two knives between them. If you want to scare, why go up to two knives but not go up to three, especially if there's three of you to wield them?

Two knives do make sense, when one considers that they were used as part a pact for a special, intimate shared thrill between two lovers. Guede sexually assaulted the victim, but the pact between Knox and Sollecito forbade each other from directly sexually interacting with their victim (they would have considered it cheating on each other). But, they did perform a sexual act, psychologically. Their (permissible between them) sexual act was to symbolically rape their victim by penetrating her with their knives. The ancient Roman short sword used by the Roman legionaries was called the gladius. It was the same word for penis. The Romans saw them as symbolically being the same thing, only one penetrates for love and the other for war. Or consider the not unsubtle sexual symbolism of the vampire who orgiastically penetrates their victim's neck with their fangs. After all, and it's an important point, if the intent was simply to kill her alone, why then not dispense with knives and use a far less bloody and more practical method, especially when you're killing your victim in your own home...a cord for strangulation? It would have been more practical and far less mess would have been made, with far less evidence to manipulate or get incriminated by. The choosing of the knives was deliberate, considered, and tells me they didn't simply want it to be terrifying and brutal, this wasn't just about getting rid of someone one of them didn't like (although, it was also that, it's why Meredith was chosen). It was also a psycho-sexual thrill kill between lovers who wanted to symbolically sexually penetrate (rape) her together in the final moments, their sexual climax.

This narrative tells us something else important. Guede was very deliberately not given a knife before the attack. This tells us that Rudy wasn't simply excluded directly after the attack. He was excluded, by design, before the attack even began. Although, he almost certainly didn't realise this. This pact and exclusion was worked out before even reaching the cottage and that pact was only ever designed to end in one thing...Meredith's murder. This was a planned premeditated murder by Knox and Sollecito.

That is proper nuts.

Still, it goes to show what flights of fancy are required to maintain a pro-guilt view of this case. Bizarre.

 

[toto]

There is quite a list they rely on heavily to remain in their comfort zone, but what remains unchallenged during this period 10pm to 6am is that
1. Amanda declared a black basketball player visited the apartment.

Why did she so readily confirm this, when he was presumed to have watched her kill Meredith?

2. Raffaele asked for a calendar to be particular about the evening of 4 nights previously versus 5 nights previously.

Yet the result is trumpeted to the sky that he destroyed Amanda's alibi by saying she went out, and told a load of lies. They really need this appeal to the notion of infallible memory to support their case.

3. Amanda raised the issue of a lawyer.

But Michael finesses this with his statement,

At no point, has Knox claimed she requested a lawyer and that request was refused.

So who is Michael to so comfortably make this statement?

Michael owns a web site dedicated to the incarceration of Amanda and Raffaele, and has made 16,000 posts to this effect since 2008.

Here is part of a recent post, which encouraged me to call him insane, but I may not be clinically correct.

The two knives also suggest to me a prearranged "pact" for a perverse shared intimate experience between Knox and Sollecito, that they would both land the final blows together, upheld by the fact of the deep wound on one side of the victim's neck from Sollecito's knife and a much deeper wound still on the other side from the Knox wielded kitchen knife, Knox being the one that wanted to give the coup de grace. Importantly, Guede was clearly not part of this pact since he did not have a knife. And that fact is very telling about the dynamic of what went down.

Consider...if one knife was considered not to be enough and you're going to use two knives, why not then therefore use three knives? One knife would make sense. Three knives would make sense - three attackers, one knife each. Two knives, when looked at from a purely practical perspective, do not make sense. That's because the two knives were not used out of any practical need. Neither does it make sense if the intent was only ever to scare Meredith. Certainly, having three people with three knives would have a scarier effect then three people with two knives between them. If you want to scare, why go up to two knives but not go up to three, especially if there's three of you to wield them?

Two knives do make sense, when one considers that they were used as part a pact for a special, intimate shared thrill between two lovers. Guede sexually assaulted the victim, but the pact between Knox and Sollecito forbade each other from directly sexually interacting with their victim (they would have considered it cheating on each other). But, they did perform a sexual act, psychologically. Their (permissible between them) sexual act was to symbolically rape their victim by penetrating her with their knives. The ancient Roman short sword used by the Roman legionaries was called the gladius. It was the same word for penis. The Romans saw them as symbolically being the same thing, only one penetrates for love and the other for war. Or consider the not unsubtle sexual symbolism of the vampire who orgiastically penetrates their victim's neck with their fangs. After all, and it's an important point, if the intent was simply to kill her alone, why then not dispense with knives and use a far less bloody and more practical method, especially when you're killing your victim in your own home...a cord for strangulation? It would have been more practical and far less mess would have been made, with far less evidence to manipulate or get incriminated by. The choosing of the knives was deliberate, considered, and tells me they didn't simply want it to be terrifying and brutal, this wasn't just about getting rid of someone one of them didn't like (although, it was also that, it's why Meredith was chosen). It was also a psycho-sexual thrill kill between lovers who wanted to symbolically sexually penetrate (rape) her together in the final moments, their sexual climax.

This narrative tells us something else important. Guede was very deliberately not given a knife before the attack. This tells us that Rudy wasn't simply excluded directly after the attack. He was excluded, by design, before the attack even began. Although, he almost certainly didn't realise this. This pact and exclusion was worked out before even reaching the cottage and that pact was only ever designed to end in one thing...Meredith's murder. This was a planned premeditated murder by Knox and Sollecito.


While this is so offensive it should not be repeated, his dedication to destruction and filth as a website proprietor should be exposed, in the hope that he can be located and brought to some sort of justice when the proof of innocence becomes main stream like old Galileo's crazy theory of a solar centric planetary system..

What you quote strains credibility and is not what the prosecution are now alleging am I not right in saying? I think some of the PGP community want it to be true in the most macabre fashion because it would be such a riveting and extraordinary story. Who would be much interested in a more mundane narrative?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

10 lessons from the Christine Jessup case

A link to lessons learned in the Jessup case.

"10) The need for full and accurate records of interviews with witnesses.
“Hours of untaped interviews might be reflected in a single entry in a notebook or in an incomplete précis or description of the interview contained in a supplementary report,” Kaufman wrote."

 

[carbonjam72]

AmyStrange

Thank you for the links.

I have not said Amanda slander case had been rejected. However, as your links confirm there isn’t a case as the application has not be assessed yet, looking at the Fox link the application was filed approximately a year ago. I wonder whether it will be processed by March 2015?

Originally Posted by carbonjam72
Wow, this was great work, thanks for posting it. Does this mean we can just check back with this link to see when the case gets posted?

(Of course I'm assuming it will because its such a gross violation in full view of the world, no country wants to share Italy's shame and disgrace over this).

I looked for something like this but couldn't find it. Great to know the info will be public when its available.


Do you have any information on the content of Amanda’s slander application or this the highlighted text an aspiration?

You seem married to the idea that the Italian police and Mignini did not abuse their authority and coerce confused statements from 2 vulnerable innocent college students. That the police and MIgnini did it intentionally, and planned their illegal assault in advance. As they and other Italian police seem to do fairly regularly. Why would you side with the criminals (police) in so clear a case of misconduct?

And the interrogation is just the tip of the iceberg. The whole damn system and all the participants well deserve prison time for their behavior in this case, let alone other cases.

Its a system run amok, and in a state of moral collapse. We may have a limited ability to fix it, but it's hardly comprehensible that you will stand around mumbling feeble support for it.

Did you see Amanda's article recently, on what it feels like to be wrongly accused and convicted for a crime you didn't commit? Can you imagine that she and Raf may actually be innocent and have suffered enormously, unjustly, and continue to do so?

Are you able to imagine that possibility, that they're innocent, and does it stir in you any empathy?