• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Numbers said:
The timing of actions of the ECtHR is not readily predictable. They have a large volume of applications from the 47 states of the Council of Europe (and in particular, from Italy, Ukraine, Russia, and Turkey). There are only 47 judges (1 from each state) and, of course, a large staff of lawyers and others who assist them.

The actions of the CSC and the ECtHR are not bound together in any legal sense. Possibly the CSC would be influenced by an ECtHR action, but that is a supposition. The panel of judges of the CSC who will hear the case in March are not the same individuals who overturned the Hellmann acquittal and ordered the 2nd second-level trial (in the Nencini court). The judicial actions of this new CSC panel are also not readily predictable, IMO. One must await developments.
Click to expand...
It is not really about the predictability of the ECHR, it is simply down to the logistics of processing applications and prioritising cases. I believe the slander application was submitted just over a year ago, at this stage it obviously has not passed through the admissibility phase as if it had it would be reported in the media, therefore if does become a case it become of the thousands waiting for a judgement.
 
anglolawyer said:
He is talking about video and audio. I am talking about audio only. Try and answer Welshman's question, will you?
Click to expand...


Who'd'a thunk it?! Selective quotation from Vibio?! Taking quotes out of context to mendaciously try to argue a point?!

I guess the constant use of the term "Knoxians" was a clue as to this poster's "argument" style and rhetoric.......
 
Chris_Halkides said:
On p. 119 of Follain's book (Death in Perugia), he describes how a conversation between Raffaele and Amanda was surreptitiously recorded at the station on 4 November. Dempsey (Murder in Italy) describes the same recorded conversation on pp. 125-126. We've been through this before.
Click to expand...


I somehow think it's a fair bet that if the Perugia State Police's nice new HQ was capable of sound-recording conversations in waiting rooms, it was more than capable of at least sound-recording interrogations in interview rooms.

Could it be that Vibio is either ignorant or flat-out lying when (s)he spouts the claim that the police HQ was not technologically capable of at least sound-recording those interrogations of Sollecito and Knox? Inquiring minds want to know.... :rolleyes:
 
CoulsdonUK said:
It is not really about the predictability of the ECHR, it is simply down to the logistics of processing applications and prioritising cases. I believe the slander application was submitted just over a year ago, at this stage it obviously has not passed through the admissibility phase as if it had it would be reported in the media, therefore if does become a case it become of the thousands waiting for a judgement.
Click to expand...


Why would it have been reported in the media if it had passed through the admissibility phase? As far as I know, the ECHR doesn't issue press releases to this effect - I suspect they merely inform the applicant and his/her lawyers.
 
LondonJohn said:
Who'd'a thunk it?! Selective quotation from Vibio?! Taking quotes out of context to mendaciously try to argue a point?!

I guess the constant use of the term "Knoxians" was a clue as to this poster's "argument" style and rhetoric.......
Click to expand...

It's funny how us 'know nothings' stick around to address guilter questions while they keep running away or retreating into Machiavellian obscurity. There is a very simple, fundamental reason for that.
 
Whether it's video and or audio: it requires an investment that not even the State of NY has been able to pass. Nor are taped interrogation a requirement in homicide cases. And this is 2014...today recording equipment costs practically nothing. But we're not talking about casual use. We are talking about taped material (video or audio) that must meet standards in order to be used in court.

Duh.
 
Last edited:
Vibio said:
Whether it's video and or audio: it requires an investment that not even the State of NY has been able to pass. Nor are taped interrogation a requirement in homicide cases. And this is 2014... where recording equipment costs practically nothing. But we're not talking about casual us. We are talking about taped material (video or audio) that must meet standards in order to be used in court.

Duh.
Click to expand...



(S)he moves the goalposts! (S)he shoots! (S)he misses!
 
Vibio said:
Whether it's video and or audio: it requires an investment that not even the State of NY has been able to pass. Nor are taped interrogation a requirement in homicide cases.
Click to expand...

Video and audio are two different things. Audio just requires a decent tape recorder while video requires positioning, lighting, maybe panning and who knows what. You are the 'know nothing' who argues dishonestly and refuses to address Welshman's very simple question. What really frustrates me is the certain knowledge that you will refuse to draw the proper inference from the difficulty of the question - that Mignini is a liar - and the further implications that flow from that.

ETA oh, I see you edited your post (surreptitiously) just after I quoted it. So what you are saying is you actually believe Mignini. You really think they didn't have the money. Really?
 
Last edited:
Vibio said:
Whether it's video and or audio: it requires an investment that not even the State of NY has been able to pass. Nor are taped interrogation a requirement in homicide cases. And this is 2014...today recording equipment costs practically nothing. But we're not talking about casual use. We are talking about taped material (video or audio) that must meet standards in order to be used in court.

Duh.
Click to expand...

I hope you confirm or deny you transated Nencini as Sallyoo.
Main posters for TJMK should be transparent.
 
anglolawyer said:
Video and audio are two different things. Audio just requires a decent tape recorder while video requires positioning, lighting, maybe panning and who knows what. You are the 'know nothing' who argues dishonestly and refuses to address Welshman's very simple question. What really frustrates me is the certain knowledge that you will refuse to draw the proper inference from the difficulty of the question - that Mignini is a liar - and the further implications that flow from that.
Click to expand...


Indeed. And for sound recording, the admissibility issues are all based on two things: 1) the recording is sufficiently clear as to enable the words spoken to be accurately understood; 2) the chain of evidence of the recording media is properly observed - in the UK, I think the machinery records to two simultaneous cassette tapes, one of which is sealed and the other of which is used to create the transcription (thus if there are disputes over either the transcription or the source recording, the second tape can be unsealed in the presence of the defence).

As you say, the cost of purchasing and installing this type of audio sound recording equipment is loose change to a large police force, and minimal training is required to operate it. I believe that many UK forces are already upgrading from cassette tape to a digital recording system that creates CD-Rs (plus of course most larger police stations already have video recording facilities in place).

Frankly, it's utterly fatuous (and almost certainly a lie) to suggest that there were not even basic cassette recording facilities in place in the Umbria State Police's HQ building in Perugia in 2007. So the question must therefore become: why weren't recordings apparently made of these critical interrogations? Mignini unfortunately badly exposed himself and his police chums when he blustered about "budgetary constraints" related to the cost of the recording media! As you and many others have said, he could have either said "The Perugia HQ is not equipped for audio recordings" or "It's not usual to record these sorts of interrogations". But of course either of those would likely be an even bigger lie than the "we couldn't afford the cassette" zinger :rolleyes:
 
Vibio said:
You are laughably wrong.
Click to expand...

The last interview under caution I attended, in 2013, did not take place in a specially designed and equipped room, but in a hotel room. All the interrogators brought along was a dual spool tape recorder that will have cost peanuts.
 
anglolawyer said:
The last interview under caution I attended, in 2013, did not take place in a specially designed and equipped room, but in a hotel room. All the interrogators brought along was a dual spool tape recorder that will have cost peanuts.
Click to expand...


And of course that recorder and the procedures associated with it and the cassette tapes will have been fully compliant with UK law on recording interviews (i.e. the relevant section of PACE), otherwise it would have been essentially pointless to use it in the first place. I don't know what Vibio imagines a law-compliant interview tape recorder looks like (let alone what (s)he thinks it costs.....), but it's an extremely basic piece of kit that uses bog-standard compact cassettes to record to. The only "special" thing about it is that it records to two cassettes simultaneously - for reasons previously explained.
 
anglolawyer said:
The last interview under caution I attended, in 2013, did not take place in a specially designed and equipped room, but in a hotel room. All the interrogators brought along was a dual spool tape recorder that will have cost peanuts.
Click to expand...


ROTFLMAO Could you just imagine if that had been done in this case... the Knoxians would be howling: "the cheap tape recorder ( it "cost peanuts") was not up to standards for interrogating a suspect", "those pauses are where the tape was erased", "if you listen closely you can hear her being coached"....

I'm Queen Marie as much as you are an Anglo Lawyer.
 
Last edited:
Voice recordings

I suggest searching Massei using the term "transcri" or other appropriate search terms I found this on p. 20:
"...of the tapped telephone conversations and voice recordings arranged by the Office of the Public Prosecutor in Perugia in the course of the preliminary investigations, the transcription of which had been requested.

"(These voice recordings were made at Police Headquarters in Perugia, appropriately prepared, where the co-tenants of Meredith Kercher, the boys of the apartment below that one occupied by the murdered girl, and the English girlfriends of the English student involved in the Erasmus Programme, had gathered on the afternoon of November 2, 2007." (highlighting mine)
 
Last edited:
Vibio said:
ROTFLMAO Could you just imagine if that had been done in this case... the Knoxians would be howling: "the cheap tape recorder was not up to standards for interrogating a suspect", "those pauses are where the tape was erased", "if you listen closely you can hear her being coached"....

I'm Queen Marie as much as you are an Anglo Lawyer.
Click to expand...


Did you get the part where he said "dual spool"? That means that one of the tapes is sealed in the presence of the person being interviewed (and his/her lawyer if present). That's exactly to safeguard against the sort of police misconduct you mention, and for you to imply here that any reasonably-understandable tape recording is not better than nothing at all is....well..... laughable.

ROTFLMAO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom