• 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.
So, suggesting to a person that she was suffering from amnesia from a traumatic experience is just a normal action for an interpreter. Do you think that it is normal that the "mediation" you describe only seems to work in one direction? Why didn't this "interpreter" helped Amanda's version instead of the police version? She could very well said to the police something like: "Sometimes people are wrongly suspected of murder, maybe what she's saying is true. Once I stole a cookie from the jar but my parents didn't believe my story in spite of it being true, imagine what I could have said if I was subjected to an interrogtion in the middle of the night."

So no, she was not mediating, she helping the police with the interrogation.
 
Machiavelli said:
Even if the police breaches your rights (a point of law), you are not allowed to decide to "react" to this by baring a knife and stab someone.
Click to expand...

This is a complete red herring.

First of all, you could do so if the act is somehow incited by the police or in self defense.

Second, such an act would ordinarily be unconnected to the police violation of your rights and is not the kind of harm that the ECHR procedural rights are intended to guard against. In contrast, a false confession or accusation elicited by the police during interrogation is exactly the kind of harm that the right of access to counsel and right to remain silent are intended to guard against, and further, would be directly linked to the police violation (via interrogation regarding the subject matter being investigated by the police).

The ECHR does not contain a right not to stab people, but if it did, and the availability of counsel was intended to protect this right, then if the police violated your right to counsel and this caused you to stab someone, then you would definitely have a good ECHR case.

In fact, the ECHR does contain a right to remain silent, and the right to counsel is intended to guard this. Because the police violated Knox's right to counsel, they therefore denied her right to remain silent, resulting in the false accusation.

Sorry, but your hair-splitting won't work.
 
Vibio said:
A reality check for the Americans: concerning your own country... just so you know...

Not only are interrogations not legally required to be recorded in the majority of jurisdictions in the US, there is this too:

"The right to a competent interpreter for anyone who does not understand the language of the court (especially for the accused in a criminal trial) is usually considered a fundamental rule of justice. Therefore, this right is often guaranteed in national constitutions, declarations of rights, fundamental laws establishing the justice system or by precedents set by the highest courts. However, it is not a constitutionally required procedure (in the United States) that a certified interpreter be present at police interrogation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_interpretation
Click to expand...

It looks like you were so keen on your highlight that you skipped the bit before it:

"Therefore, this right is often guaranteed in national constitutions, declarations of rights, fundamental laws establishing the justice system or by precedents set by the highest courts."

Why wouldn't the police want an interpreter? They would want to be understood and to understand wouldn't they?

In Ms Knox's case, Donnino interfered in the interrogation. That's a no no.
 
Machiavelli said:
The police hires also cultural mediators and psychologists mediators, their activity is also absolutely normal. There are people paid to help overcoming cultural religious or social obstacles or psychological obstacles of informants which may hinder their cooperation. This is everyday work.
Click to expand...

LOL. They also hire paranormalists, like Madame Carlizzi.
 
Vibio said:
A reality check for the Americans: concerning your own country... just so you know...

Not only are interrogations not legally required to be recorded in the majority of jurisdictions in the US, there is this too:

"The right to a competent interpreter for anyone who does not understand the language of the court (especially for the accused in a criminal trial) is usually considered a fundamental rule of justice. Therefore, this right is often guaranteed in national constitutions, declarations of rights, fundamental laws establishing the justice system or by precedents set by the highest courts. However, it is not a constitutionally required procedure (in the United States) that a certified interpreter be present at police interrogation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_interpretation
Click to expand...

We should sign up for the ECHR thing, then, because it's definitely guaranteed in that document.
 
Machiavelli said:
The police hires also cultural mediators and psychologists mediators, their activity is also absolutely normal. There are people paid to help overcoming cultural religious or social obstacles or psychological obstacles of informants which may hinder their cooperation. This is everyday work.
Click to expand...

I thought you said Ms Knox was being interviewed as a witness and that all her "incriminating" statements were a complete shock to the police who were surprised and astonished by her completely voluntary and entirely uncoerced transformation in front of them, as they talked kindly to her, held her hand and made her tea and gave her cakes?
 
Vibio said:
That will never happen. The US is accountable to no one.
Click to expand...

Well, we do have our Supreme Court. Which appears to be approximately 8,000 times more competent than the Italian supreme court.

Fun Facts:

Crazy US Supreme Court saying: "We can't define obscenity, but we know it when we see it"

Crazy Italian Supreme Court saying: "It's impossible to rape a woman wearing jeans"
 
Last edited:
What does America's system have to do with the price of fish Vibio? This thread is about a case in Italy. Do you consider the Italian justice system to be fair and transparent?

I'm loving the way Machiavelli keeps using terms like "normal" and "everyday" to describe the actions of Amanda's "interpreter". It's like he's trying to hypnotise us.
 
Vibio said:
I know it's tough facing the reality of how incredibly twisted the US justice system is, but do continue to point fingers.....
Click to expand...

I am an American and I want to fix some of the major problems with the US legal system. Why don't you want to try to fix problems with the Italian legal system?

Some of the stuff which in theory is suppose to be part of the Italian legal codes are great. Problem is that they do not seem to be followed. Instead, Machiavellian tries to use twisted logic to defend not actually following them.
 
Machiavelli said:
The police hires also cultural mediators and psychologists mediators, their activity is also absolutely normal. There are people paid to help overcoming cultural religious or social obstacles or psychological obstacles of informants which may hinder their cooperation. This is everyday work.
Click to expand...

Their public ministers also attend conferences like this, just to keep abreast of the issues which interest them....


 
MDDVS said:
So, suggesting to a person that she was suffering from amnesia from a traumatic experience is just a normal action for an interpreter. Do you think that it is normal that the "mediation" you describe only seems to work in one direction? Why didn't this "interpreter" helped Amanda's version instead of the police version? She could very well said to the police something like: "Sometimes people are wrongly suspected of murder, maybe what she's saying is true. Once I stole a cookie from the jar but my parents didn't believe my story in spite of it being true, imagine what I could have said if I was subjected to an interrogtion in the middle of the night."

So no, she was not mediating, she helping the police with the interrogation.
Click to expand...

This.

In fact, IMO Anna Donnino participated in calunnia.
 
Bill Williams said:
This needs to be continually bumped, or pegged to Machiavelli.

Machiavelli is openly admitting that Knox did not have a translator that night of the interrogation, but someone intent on softening her up.

Please remember, Machiavelli/Yummi is one of the chief purvayors of the pro-guilt lobby. And even he admits what Donnino did wrong. The only difference, is that he does not see it as wrong.

ETA - Machiavelli has now given conflicting testimony. Doninno says that Amanda did not want to talk, yet Mignini says she does. Donnino says that this unwillingness to talk needed to be met with "mediation" so as to get her to implicate herself. Yet, Mignini says Amanda freely and without coercion needed to talk, to "rid herself of a burden."
Click to expand...

Machiavelli said:
1. I didn't give any testimony. I was not there. I point out reports and evidence, don't give testimony. Correct yourself and stop trying to twist the words of others.

2. Donnino implied Amanda appeared as she was reluctant to telll something she knew. This does not conflict at all with Mignini's report. In fact they are talking about two different events, at two different times. Donnino talks about the initial moments of Amanda's interrogation (20:40-01:45), Mignini arrived at the Questura after 2am when the interrogation was alredy over and she had already "talked".

3. It is obvious that Knox had an interpreter, not a translator. A translator is a different job. Translation and communication are two different tasks.
Click to expand...

Mignini's testimony is NOT that Amanda requested to continue to talk. Mignini's testimony (which youtranslated into English) is NOT that Amanda requested that she be able to continue to make spontaneous statements.

Mignini's testimony is that he intuited that she looked like she wished to make further spontaneous statements. So he offered to help, he took the initiative, he uttered the first words on the subject to her based on his gut instinct, "If you wish to continue, I will act as if only a notary."

Mignini specifically says it happened this way to satisfy the law.

Amanda acted the same way to Donnino and Mignini, by your own translation and by your own words upthread.

Donnino was neither a translator nor an interpreter (in fact in the legal community there is no distinction - and you know it.)

She was a mediator introducing content foreign to Amanda into what ended up on the memorandums.

Deal with it.
 
Machiavelli said:
By the way, it is FALSE that AK/RS had no representation at the Guede's trial.

In fact, they were fully represented. By now, people should know this.
Click to expand...

By who?

This is where you get into trouble, Machiavelli. Making assertions like this with no content or citation.

By Mignini?
 
Bill Williams said:
Mignini's testimony is NOT that Amanda requested to continue to talk. Mignini's testimony (which youtranslated into English) is NOT that Amanda requested that she be able to continue to make spontaneous statements.

Mignini's testimony is that he intuited that she looked like she wished to make further spontaneous statements. So he offered to help, he took the initiative, he uttered the first words on the subject to her based on his gut instinct, "If you wish to continue, I will act as if only a notary."

Mignini specifically says it happened this way to satisfy the law.

Amanda acted the same way to Donnino and Mignini, by your own translation and by your own words upthread.
(..).
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. Mignini and Donnino as you cite them were talking about two different moments.
The rest of your post is made up nonsense, like the rest of your raving.
 
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