Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

They can't and they won't. This prosecution and persecution is not based on logic but on wild speculation and some bizarrely creative minds. Sure, it is possible that a young woman would have such incredible sexual power that she could get two young men of incredibly short acquaintance to kill for her. Please find another example we ask. They can't and they won't.

That is one difference that I definitely note. . . .
How much do those who are pro guilt even look at other cases. It looks like they largely try to ignore them. hose of us who argue the pro guilt side often though bring up cases where police have prosecuted the wrong defendant(s) in similar cases.

 

[Kauffer]

The treatment of Lumumba

It should be quite the model for the pro guilt people to consider the treatment of Patrick Lumumba in the light of even their sure and certain knowledge of his innocence. The police treatment, the fake witness, the arrogant speciousness of the judge's report. It's the same format as for Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito. No one cares properly to test the evidence but more even than that, they will find a liar or two to testify against him. These guilters cannot see the patterns, the near perfect similarities.

 

[Planigale]

It was the police's fault they believed Amanda?

Yes. There is a good quote from a policeman involved in a false confession where he says "I was the professional in the interview it was my responsibility to ensure that a false confession was not made". (Paraphrase). In the UK the interview techniques are designed to avoid this happening. A specific danger is asking questions like 'just picture yourself there and describe what happened'.

 

[Diocletus]

The subsequent documents don't matter at all, because the rights were violated and the rights violation was continuing until counsel was provided. None of it can be used. I've never understood why they allowed the subsequent statements to be used, because they denied her counsel for three days, and therefore no conviction can be premised on these statements regardless of whether Knox wrote them on her own volition.

Further to the above.

The Italian supreme court has already decided that it Italy violated Knox's rights.

Yup. The Italian Supreme Court decided that at least by the time of the 5:45 statement, Knox was a "suspect" (even under Italian law, an indagata). This violation continued unabated until she got counsel three days later. Yet, the Italian courts convicted Knox of callunnia at least in part based on the 5:45 and subsequent statements, made when Knox was a suspect, in custody, under a continuing denial of counsel.

The only way Italy escapes from having hoisted itself on its own petard is if it can somehow convince the court to rule that Knox wasn't a suspect when she signed the 1:45 statement, and the subsequent statements are irrelevant to the conviction, i.e., the 1:45 statement wholly sustains the callunnia conviction.

 

[griffinmill]

The only way Italy escapes from having hoisted itself on its own petard is if it can somehow convince the court to rule that Knox wasn't a suspect when she signed the 1:45 statement, and the subsequent statements are irrelevant to the conviction, i.e., the 1:45 statement wholly sustains the callunnia conviction.

You have this backward. The only way AK can prevail is if her lawyers can somehow the ECHR she was a suspect.

I understand the 20 people here believe that as dogma, but I don't see how it will hold up in a court of law.

 

[Bill Williams]

The only way Italy escapes from having hoisted itself on its own petard is if it can somehow convince the court to rule that Knox wasn't a suspect when she signed the 1:45 statement, and the subsequent statements are irrelevant to the conviction, i.e., the 1:45 statement wholly sustains the callunnia conviction.

You have this backward. The only way AK can prevail is if her lawyers can somehow the ECHR she was a suspect.

I understand the 20 people here believe that as dogma, but I don't see how it will hold up in a court of law.

I think I agree with griffinmill on this. But Knox's lawyer will use what Italy has already decided, as per Diocletus's post.

 

[Bill Williams]

It should be quite the model for the pro guilt people to consider the treatment of Patrick Lumumba in the light of even their sure and certain knowledge of his innocence. The police treatment, the fake witness, the arrogant speciousness of the judge's report. It's the same format as for Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito. No one cares properly to test the evidence but more even than that, they will find a liar or two to testify against him. These guilters cannot see the patterns, the near perfect similarities.

Was either of Lumumba's business or home treated as a crime-scene, the way Raffaele's apartment was? Was Lumumba's interrogation videotaped or transcribed?

 

[Diocletus]

You have this backward. The only way AK can prevail is if her lawyers can somehow the ECHR she was a suspect.

I understand the 20 people here believe that as dogma, but I don't see how it will hold up in a court of law.

Sorry, but they don't seem to place a burden on the defendant.

Anyway, why wasn't she a suspect while the cops were typing up the statement?

 

[Bill Williams]

That statement means they really wanted to get Patrick so why did they drop the case against him and not frame him as you claim the did to Amanda? If they could falsify evidence and suborn perjury against Amanda they could do it to Patrick.

There is a point where framing anybody is a futile endeavor. Amanda is with one person alone in his apartment. Patrick is in his bar surrounded by customers. DOH!!!!

All the had to do was arrest Raffaele and throw the same charges against him as they did Amanda. All this, after even the 5:45 am Nov 6 statement still said that it was unclear if Raffaele was involved or not....

..... so (IMO) the only reason to arrest him on the basis of what they had at 5:45 am Nov 6 was the alibi he gave Knox.

Of course the claim is that Raffaele had withdrawn his alibi prior to the 1:45 am statement.... which acc. to Raffaele (cf. his book) he had not done. Not really. At his own interrogation he could not distinguish Wed from Thurs, and the cops (rather than assisting him in gleaning info) simply jumped on this as an excuse to say, "Raffaele is no longer vouching for Amanda."

As per Raffaele's current appeals document to Cassazione: if they are going to use that to convict Amanda - what does this have to do with him?

This is a bit like the Russ Faria case, where Faria has an iron-clad alibi with four friends with whom he was playing cards. No matter - at closing the prosecutor implied that the four "alibis" were un-indicted co-conspirators. And then left it at that.

This lead to the bizarre situation on a FaceBook thread, where one of these alibis was chatting with a prosecutor.... the alibi-guy wanted to know why he'd not been charged, and then it got weird.

 

[griffinmill]

Sorry, but they don't seem to place a burden on the defendant.

Anyway, why wasn't she a suspect while the cops were typing up the statement?

It's not a matter of placing burden at all. They will most likely accept the determination of the police that she wasn't a formal suspect based on the principles of law in the Italian system for investigating a murder.

To the extent they do weigh in subjectively, they will probably notice that AK, by her own testimony, was asked to leave the precinct that night, and that the police didn't want to talk to her. They will also note that the police didn't have much reason to formally suspect her of actual involvement until she made a statement that both put herself at the scene of the crime and falsely accused another man of murder. If they were to further speculate she was coerced, they will note she never filed charges of coercion or being struck. Lastly, they will see that she voluntarily corroborated her own callunia while not being questioned.

I doubt very much this will all be waved away because the ECHR makes a highly subjective determination that in the fluid course of her questioning that night the police should have made an instantaneous decision she was a culprit, not a witness.

I understand your arguments, I just think they're wishful at best, delusional at worst.

 

[Diocletus]

It's not a matter of placing burden at all. They will most likely accept the determination of the police that she wasn't a formal suspect based on the principles of law in the Italian system for investigating a murder.

To the extent they do weigh in subjectively, they will probably notice that AK, by her own testimony, was asked to leave the precinct that night, and that the police didn't want to talk to her. They will also note that the police didn't have much reason to formally suspect her of actual involvement until she made a statement that both put herself at the scene of the crime and falsely accused another man of murder. If they were to further speculate she was coerced, they will note she never filed charges of coercion or being struck. Lastly, they will see that she voluntarily corroborated her own callunia while not being questioned.

I doubt very much this will all be waved away because the ECHR makes a highly subjective determination that in the fluid course of her questioning that night the police should have made an instantaneous decision she was a culprit, not a witness.

I understand your arguments, I just think they're wishful at best, delusional at worst.

Personally, I think theyre more likely to notice that the police started questioning her only after obtaining a "retraction" of her alibi, and also, that every element of the arrest warrant was in place before she signed the 1:45 statement.

They won't give a damn whether she filed a collateral action, because the Italian courts were obligated to exclude the statements regardless.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is a recurring theme of your Machiavelli. Why do you believe Rudy Guede is innocent?

I believe they are all guilty.
We were talking with AmyStrange about her beliefs.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Probably because Amanda accused him of murder.

So the police's main mistake was believing Amanda? Well lots of others have made that mistake.

-

That doesn't explain why they said the next day that she finally broke and told them what they already knew to be true,

d

-

 

[Kauffer]

It's not a matter of placing burden at all. They will most likely accept the determination of the police that she wasn't a formal suspect based on the principles of law in the Italian system for investigating a murder.

To the extent they do weigh in subjectively, they will probably notice that AK, by her own testimony, was asked to leave the precinct that night, and that the police didn't want to talk to her. They will also note that the police didn't have much reason to formally suspect her of actual involvement until she made a statement that both put herself at the scene of the crime and falsely accused another man of murder. If they were to further speculate she was coerced, they will note she never filed charges of coercion or being struck. Lastly, they will see that she voluntarily corroborated her own callunia while not being questioned.

I doubt very much this will all be waved away because the ECHR makes a highly subjective determination that in the fluid course of her questioning that night the police should have made an instantaneous decision she was a culprit, not a witness.

I understand your arguments, I just think they're wishful at best, delusional at worst.

She was a suspect because:
1) An order for her arrest ("to be taken") had been given (Giobbi)
2) She was being bugged
3) Police don't do background interviews with people late at night and very early in the morning and...
4) She had already been interviewed for about 40 hours over the previous three days (so they had a lot of "background" from her already).

Additionally, it would appear that Lumumba's bar was being bugged, which would mean he was a suspect too. Incidentally, when did he get a lawyer?

What time, exactly, do you think she became a suspect? Presumably, it wasn't three days later, when she did get to see a lawyer and finally got to learn she was in serious trouble.

Do you really think the ECHR is going to look at this, her application and the case law and conclude that everything is all fair and reasonable and hunky dory and voluntary?

 

[AmyStrange]

-

You, as other Knox advocates, keep on diverting the discourse upon such unjustified criticism, I believe this shows you are still a bit confused about who did what and who said what.
The police arrested Lumumba. The reason why they arrested him immediately instead of waiting is rather obvious to me. I am not saying that one cannot criticize the decision. I say that it makes no sense to state that the decision was crazy. The bottom line is that they arrested him because they had to take a decision, a decision may be taken on incomplete information and may depend on various cautionary criteria, contrasting dangers that need to be weighted, and this may happen within a short time. It was a cautionary decision, taken in the night and based solely on Knox's 05.45 statement. It would be legally compulsory anyway, once they decided to declare Lumumba a suspect, and if they considered Amanda's statements as a somehow relevant piece of evidence.
As for keeping him in jail for two weeks, this I not "their" decision because the police and prosecution don't have a power to release suspects. It was the investigating judge who decided. Lumumba was legally an innocent person but the Italian law allows to keep innocents in jail on cautionary grounds; a cautionary measure is usually not withdrawn in one day.

-

First of all, I'm not a big fan of Amanda. I just believe Raffaele and her are probably innocent, and you still haven't proven that the De Felice quote is wrong,

d

-

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)

In this case, it's not even necessary for there to be any kind of conflict, because the national courts have already decided that Knox was questioned and/or made statements after her right to counsel had attached and was violated. The ECtHR will simply apply its well-settled law to hold that all statements made after the right to counsel attached were unusable to convict her of a crime. No fuss, no muss.

The Court stated that the hand written memorials are usable in any charge (suggesting they may "illuminate" her implication), that the 01.45 statement is usable contra alios even in the charge of murder, while the 05.45 statement is not usable in the case of murder, while courts didn't rule anything against their use in the case of calunnia, Diocletus.

Are you expecting the ECHR to state that the Cassazione got it wrong?

 

[acbytesla]

Sorry, but they don't seem to place a burden on the defendant.

Anyway, why wasn't she a suspect while the cops were typing up the statement?

Normally the burden of proof is on the prosecution Diocletus, but that is usually NOT the case for appeals. It is the burden of the whomever is appealing to prove their case otherwise the status quo is accepted.

I like Bill, agree with Griffin on this point. Knox must prove that she was a suspect. However, I don't actually believe that is too difficult.

 

[acbytesla]

-


-

First of all, I'm not a big fan of Amanda. I just believe Raffaele and her are probably innocent, and you still haven't proven that the De Felice quote is wrong,

d

-

I'm not a fan of Amanda's either. I don't dislike her, I just don't know her. But I do strongly believe that this is a travesty of justice and the Perugian authorities are total idiots with bizarre imaginations. They remind me of the some of the backwater courts in the South.

This a disgrace to justice and Italy. I would feel ashamed if I was an Italian citizen.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Well, then you should apply it to Rudy Guede, declare him innocent, and also demand the acquittal of all those who allegedly committed crimes while you were not there (basically all convicted criminals).

-

I have written here many times that I have my doubts that Rudy killed Meredith. He just doesn't have a history of that kind of violence.

But, there is a lot more physical evidence that he was there when Meredith died than there is of Raffaele and Amanda, and he never called for help. That bothers me.

He might have been telling the truth in that Skype call be made to his friend, and Raffaele and Amanda might actually have been there and killed her, I just don't see it. I just can't convince myself, like you can, that they're probably guilty.

I always try to question my assumptions, and you should too.

The skeptic should always be skeptical of their own assumptions also,

d

-

 

[griffinmill]

Personally, I think theyre more likely to notice that the police started questioning her only after obtaining a "retraction" of her alibi, and also, that every element of the arrest warrant was in place before she signed the 1:45 statement.

They won't give a damn whether she filed a collateral action, because the Italian courts were obligated to exclude the statements regardless.

To assume that a "retraction" of her alibi automatically branded her a formal suspect in a murder investigation -- instantaneously within the course of simultaneous questioning of RS -- seems a little farfetched to me. I can't imagine questioning anyone, in any police investigation, on their alibi would ever necessitate their being branded a formal suspect. And in this case, the police were getting their information in real time with no opportunity to step back and reflect. Not to mention, AK was effusive in absolutely non coerced, totally voluntary statements that what she said under alleged coercion was correct.

But you have your opinion. I doubt it holds much legal sway, but we'll see. As to whether the ECHR will ignore AK not filing a formal complaint of coercion or physical abuse, I think you're wrong. The fact she didn't weakens her argument that she was coerced significantly, but perhaps the law doesn't allow the ECHR to make those types of subjective judgments.