Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[anglolawyer]

But I have presented my testimony about what De Felice said at the press conference. And you don't have any quote from the original statement, nor another Italian person who explains you what he said.
The allegation that the police was already focused on Lumumba is an extraordinary assumption, that would require a solid proof for a reasonable person to believe it.

Like them bugging his bar, for instance. I wonder how they even knew who he was?

ETA and being highly interested in the 8.18 8.36 text exchange between Amanda and ..... Lumumba!

 

[Bill Williams]

What happens to the lying policeman and the prosecutors? Zippo?

There is a common refrain - not just in the AK/RS case but in all wrongful convictions - of......

"So, let's get this straight. You're saying that police, prosecutors, courts and appeals courts are ALL in on this conspiracy?"

I am less concerned with what happens to lying police and dishonest prosecutors after this is exposed. It's just mind-boggling that much of the pro-guilt rationale is that "the system" never gets it wrong.

How many times have PGP quoted the number of judges that either moved the AK/RS case along to the next level or outright convicted them?

For some reason that makes up for a conspicuous lack of forensics involving them in the murder room itself.

Debra Milke and Amanda Knox would have a lot to talk about.

The whole reason why inalienable rights to silence in this midst of allegation, or the burden of proof belonging to the prosecution is because the state has potentially limitless resources to pursue a case. Mignini had his expensive cartoon at trial. They billed Knox (while in prison) for some of the evidence processing against her.

I'm less concerned with going after dishonest judicial personnel, and more interested in the application of basic rights throughout.

 

[Desert Fox]

One of the few dishonest detective I know that was prosecuted was Robert Glenn Ford and that was because he took bribes

 

[AmyStrange]

-

But I have presented my testimony about what De Felice said at the press conference. And you don't have any quote from the original statement, nor another Italian person who explains you what he said.

The allegation that the police was already focused on Lumumba is an extraordinary assumption, that would require a solid proof for a reasonable person to believe it.

-

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but the quote was from an interview with De Felice. If you've got a better source, give it to us, so we can evaluate it ourselves. I'm not willing to assume that you are the only Italian that can translate Italian into English correctly. I have one written translated source and a memory of another TV translator saying basicly the same thing. All you have is your memory and nothing else. You complain about the same thing when all the probably innocent crowd does the same thing.

Like I wrote, if you have a problem with John Chapman and Marco's translation, you really should bring it up with them.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/24505/I-heard-Meredith-scream-says-girl-in-student-sex-murder

As far as the hilited part is concerned, you could say the extraordinary claim that Raffaele and Amanda killed Meredith needs solid proof that they actually did do it, especially if you're going to say with 100% certainty that they did it.

In my opinion, you haven't done that yet. You've made some good points, but none of them have overcome my probabilities,

d

-

 

[Kauffer]

But I have presented my testimony about what De Felice said at the press conference. And you don't have any quote from the original statement, nor another Italian person who explains you what he said.
The allegation that the police was already focused on Lumumba is an extraordinary assumption, that would require a solid proof for a reasonable person to believe it.

According to Stefano Buratti, Lumumba's phone was already bugged before the interrogations on the 5th. Seems like the police "were already focussed" on him, to me. So we have this, we have Giobbi's order for them to be taken, we have prolific bugging of phones, we have a pre interrogation police preparation meeting, we have a pre interrogation surreptitious examination of Mr Sollecito's computer and we have Ms Knox's interrogation starting immediately after she loses (according to the police), her alibi, and all this, contextually, late at night following 3 days of intensive questioning. And then there is de Felice's widely reported comments, which you can't refute because you can't find a source.

I'd say we've got pretty strong grounds to conclude that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito were suspects, don't you?

If you were they, when would you have asked for a lawyer?

So now look at the treatment of suspect Lumumba - seized in the early hours, no lawyer, held in isolation, subject to the lies of a fake witness found by the police and the twisted erroneous logic of Matteini, who didn't have the wit to say, "Look, fellas. How difficult can it be to work out if the pub was open or closed? Go and find out! Go and check with the power company to see if the lights were on etc etc. " She's supposed to be in charge of the investigation after all.

 

[Desert Fox]

According to Stefano Buratti, Lumumba's phone was already bugged before the interrogations on the 5th. Seems like the police "were already focussed" on him, to me. So we have this, we have Giobbi's order for them to be taken, we have prolific bugging of phones, we have a pre interrogation police preparation meeting, we have a pre interrogation surreptitious examination of Mr Sollecito's computer and we have Ms Knox's interrogation starting immediately after she loses (according to the police), her alibi, and all this, contextually, late at night following 3 days of intensive questioning. And then there is de Felice's widely reported comments, which you can't refute because you can't find a source.

I'd say we've got pretty strong grounds to conclude that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito were suspects, don't you?

If you were they, when would you have asked for a lawyer?

So now look at the treatment of suspect Lumumba - seized in the early hours, no lawyer, held in isolation, subject to the lies of a fake witness found by the police and the twisted erroneous logic of Matteini, who didn't have the wit to say, "Look, fellas. How difficult can it be to work out if the pub was open or closed? Go and find out! Go and check with the power company to see if the lights were on etc etc. " She's supposed to be in charge of the investigation after all.

There are several cases where defendants are convicted with iron clad alibis. . . Russ Faria for example.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Can I ask what is Dan O's wicki? Is that www.murderofmeredithkercher.com?

If so, does Dan O manage that all by himself?

Dan O's wiki is a wealth of information which he has put countless hours into accumulating and organizing. I know not many people have helped him when he has asked for help. I once offered but it was above my head (I am old and technically challenged.)

We truly owe much gratitude to Dan O for that website.

 

[Numbers]

We're not talking about "early on". The question is whether they suspected her after she made the (oral) statements that they then typed up and asked her to sign, because if they did (and they did, see arrest warrant), they should have gotten her a lawyer before they had her sign anything. I maintain that {1} the police can almost never ask someone to sign an incriminating statement without procuring counsel, and then use that statement to convict.
Early on, all of the building residents were suspected due to the keyholder/staging issues, but they were all (except Knox) eliminated as suspects before the questioning on the 5th.



Sort of, but not really. {2} The question is when her procedural rights attached under the ECHR. BTW, I just noticed that in addition to the right to asssistance of counsel, the right to remain silent, and the right to a translator, there is also a recognized right not to be incited.



Again, {3} Italian law doesn't matter. And yes, {4} there are situations where police will be questioning a witness and start to suspect that person. The police can continue questioning that person, but if they do so in the absence of counsel, the ECHR prevents them from using the ensuing statements to convict the person.



You can call it spin, but what we're doing is applying the facts of this case to determinable ECHR law. {5} You don't seem to have satisfactory answers to most of these questions, and you're relying on a gut feeling/hope, which is fine, but not impressive.

Diocletus,
{I've added highlighting and numbers to your quote.}

1. Yes. As I read the ECHR case-law, in order for the police to legally question a suspect (interrogate to obtain an incriminating statement) without a lawyer, that suspect must be given a lawyer who will explain his/her rights and the consequences of waiving the right to have a lawyer present during interrogation.

2. From ECHR case-law, the right of a suspect - and Amanda and Raffaele were each suspects when he was called to the police station on Nov. 5 - to an attorney would begin at the "first questioning" - which IMO would be when the interrogation starts. The interrogations in this case were clearly planned and structured by the police; they knew they would (in all likelihood) come up with "incriminating" (even if false) statements. Their likely goal was to imprison Amanda and keep her without a lawyer, before the arrival of her mother on Nov. 6.

3. Italian law does, of course, matter. But Italian law, in particular, CPP Article 188 was broken by the police in the interrogations. The Convention and ECHR case-law are also Italian law, by treaty; in rough analogy, the US Constitution is the law for each US State (one difference, the US Constitution is not a treaty between the US States).

4. Yes. So even if Amanda had been being interviewed, and not interrogated, her "incriminating" statement could not be allowed without her having a lawyer present before it was made. There are ECHR law cases where a person is being "interview", makes an incriminating statement "of his/her own free will", is given a lawyer, and continues to support that statement - until they are able to get into a prison away from the police, or into a court room. The person may fear of what will happen if they retract the statement but are still in police custody.

5. The posters who express opinions that ECHR will not accept Amanda's application, or that the ECHR will merely accept the word of the police or some (violated) Italian law concepts in place of the Convention and ECHR case-law never seem to have any ECHR case-law to support their positions. They may not have researched ECHR judgments in similar cases or ECHR Guides.

ETA: For #3, the ECtHR would probably note in their judgment that the Italian police and court actions were contrary to Italian Constitution provisions so-and-so, and Code of Criminal Procedure provisions so-and-so, but then state that judgment on such matters is not in the ECHR mandate; they will repeat that they are only authorized by the Convention to judge violations of the Convention. That is, the ECtHR is not authorized to hold an CoE State accountable for breaking its own law, only for the consequent violation of the Convention, if any. I have seen this treatment of domestic law violations by domestic authorities in ECHR cases.

 

[Diocletus]

According to Stefano Buratti, Lumumba's phone was already bugged before the interrogations on the 5th. Seems like the police "were already focussed" on him, to me. So we have this, we have Giobbi's order for them to be taken, we have prolific bugging of phones, we have a pre interrogation police preparation meeting, we have a pre interrogation surreptitious examination of Mr Sollecito's computer and we have Ms Knox's interrogation starting immediately after she loses (according to the police), her alibi, and all this, contextually, late at night following 3 days of intensive questioning. And then there is de Felice's widely reported comments, which you can't refute because you can't find a source.

I'd say we've got pretty strong grounds to conclude that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito were suspects, don't you?

If you were they, when would you have asked for a lawyer?

So now look at the treatment of suspect Lumumba - seized in the early hours, no lawyer, held in isolation, subject to the lies of a fake witness found by the police and the twisted erroneous logic of Matteini, who didn't have the wit to say, "Look, fellas. How difficult can it be to work out if the pub was open or closed? Go and find out! Go and check with the power company to see if the lights were on etc etc. " She's supposed to be in charge of the investigation after all.

I'm becoming convinced that none of this matters that much, because I think that it is basically an automatic echr violation for the police to prepare an incriminating statement and provide it to an interogee to sign without assuring assistance of counsel, and then use the statement to convict the person of a crime. The police obviously suspect the person before asking them to sign, and so have a clear obligation to provide counsel before seeking the person's sign off.

Ironically, I might feel differently if the incriminating statement is taped, as opposed to typed out by the cops.

 

[Desert Fox]

I'm becoming convinced that none of this matters that much, because I think that it is basically an automatic echr violation for the police to prepare an incriminating statement and provide it to an interogee to sign without assuring assistance of counsel, and then use the statement to convict the person of a crime. The police obviously suspect the person before asking them to sign, and so have a clear obligation to provide counsel before seeking the person's sign off.

Ironically, I might feel differently if the incriminating statement is taped, as opposed to typed out by the cops.

The legal system needs to be compelled to follow their own rules. . . . .If they violate this, we all have problems. I think an out of control legal system is actually more of a danger to the community than a criminal at large.

 

[moije2]

Conspiracy Theorists!

There is a common refrain - not just in the AK/RS case but in all wrongful convictions - of......

"So, let's get this straight. You're saying that police, prosecutors, courts and appeals courts are ALL in on this conspiracy?"

I am less concerned with what happens to lying police and dishonest prosecutors after this is exposed. It's just mind-boggling that much of the pro-guilt rationale is that "the system" never gets it wrong.

How many times have PGP quoted the number of judges that either moved the AK/RS case along to the next level or outright convicted them?

For some reason that makes up for a conspicuous lack of forensics involving them in the murder room itself.

Debra Milke and Amanda Knox would have a lot to talk about.

The whole reason why inalienable rights to silence in this midst of allegation, or the burden of proof belonging to the prosecution is because the state has potentially limitless resources to pursue a case. Mignini had his expensive cartoon at trial. They billed Knox (while in prison) for some of the evidence processing against her.

I'm less concerned with going after dishonest judicial personnel, and more interested in the application of basic rights throughout.

I love how this accusation re conspiracy is thrown out, even recently Machiavelli has said it. According to the Exoneration Registry there have been some 1400 exonerations. Their site lists areas of cause for the wrongful convictions, which include a large percentage of prosecutorial misconduct and misleading forensic evidence as well as a strong representation of false confessions.

And of course the cry about "all those people must have conspired" etc. What a joke. For what it's worth: http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/ExonerationsContribFactorsByCrime.aspx

 

[Planigale]

Here is what a 48 year old native Italian has to offer this forum.

on the calunnia ... now Machiavelli/Yummi has been trying to explain a very simple point, that the right to lawyer [that she did not have as she was not a suspect for calunnia before she made the calunnia, also because when she made it nobody knew it was a calunnia] is certainly not a shield against her full responsibility for that crime. It is elementary, a no brainer.

Yummi made a great example, that of the stabbing vs the calunnia. If she had stabbed someone instead of committing a calunnia vs someone it would be exactly the same. Calunnia crime was proven and we have now a final judgement and prison sentence, is a voluntary crime committed with malicious intent, a very serious matter. The fact a person may have had right to a lawyer (which she did not) does not authorise her or him to stab another person and certainly does not make the attacker innocent of such crime with the argument that if a lawyer had been there she / he would not have done it. By the way, calunnia was a criminal action carried out over several days, in statements, writings etc. deliberate and malicious and may have harsher penalties than a stabbing.

They do not get it, as I said too stupid and ignorant for my taste ... or they get it but are too biased to admit.

If stupid, they will soon be disappointed by ECHR and rest their case, if only pretending [we must assume they may be pretending as the stupidity level for not getting the above point is uniquely high] they will not be and the ECHR will become their next enemy to fight with idle propaganda.

They should change the name of the forum from International Skeptics to International Stupidest.

Obviously none of them has any idea of what the ECHR really does, its principles and its real life cases, none has written a recourse to ECHR or seriously studied ECHR jurisprudence or history. Similarly, they have no idea of the great history, independence and prestige of the Corte Suprema di Cassazione of Rome or of the fact codified law was practiced for 13 centuries in that same city more than 2,500 years before the US even existed, one of the reasons why they enjoy the rule of law in their countries today instead of living in a tribal society. On second thought, I wonder if they would not prefer that, their attitude vs this case can be safely defined as tribalism.

Like Lewis Caroll he writes good English, but the former intentionally writes nonsense, Popper does it because he has been captured by the great Italian hoax.
I tried to respond to his posts on PMF, but they were never posted. When this repeatedly happened, I emailed four members including him. Two responded with great politeness, but one complained, and I was immediately banned.
Popper did not respond.
Popper, stabbing someone is unequivocally a crime unless in self defence in a knife fight. Agreeing with the police that their proposition may be correct, in this case that Lumuba was at the scene, is a lesser offence, especially outside Italy.

Why not join this forum and help Yummi out?

Responding to posters directly might help you refine your arguments.

England is just about to repeal some but not all of its oldest law, interestingly protecting tenants against exploitation by landlords. Apparently some of it is still useful.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30334812

 

[Numbers]

I'm becoming convinced that none of this matters that much, because I think that it is basically an automatic echr violation for the police to prepare an incriminating statement and provide it to an interogee to sign without assuring assistance of counsel, and then use the statement to convict the person of a crime. The police obviously suspect the person before asking them to sign, and so have a clear obligation to provide counsel before seeking the person's sign off.

Ironically, I might feel differently if the incriminating statement is taped, as opposed to typed out by the cops.

{Highlighting added to quote.}
YES. What you describe is a fundamental violation of ECHR.
And if the statement includes a false allegation against someone, a "calunnia", the person who signs it can not be responsible for the calunnia, because the police had them sign it without the person having a lawyer.

It's that simple, even if the guilters don't see it.

The issues of who was a suspect and when are secondary, but likely of enough interest as "facts of the case" that the ECtHR will go over them in its judgment.

ETA: The same rules would apply to a taped statement. One would need to assure it was truly voluntary, and without a lawyer, that is doubtful. Remember that the police in the US have taped confessions that turned out to be false - they were coerced by earlier mistreatment that was not recorded.

 

[Planigale]

I just watched a youtube video called the Glass Age, where the guys from Mythbusters explore the properties of glass. It's quite interesting and I noticed something where they show with a high speed camera the breaking of a wine glass with a little hammer. Take a look at the video starting from 1:50 on the video. It show how the glass shattered and moved in the same direction as the object that was breaking it. Just as a rock being thrown through a window. Virtually none of it went in the opposite direction. Just like the cottage window.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12OSBJwogFc

And that is what the simulations of the defence expert showed. If the window was broken from the outside the glass fell inside. If the window was broken in the way the police hypothesised from the inside, then glass fell outside. So the lack of glass found outside favours the defence argument, and falsifies the prosecution hypothesis of a faked break in.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I agree about the wiki

We truly owe much gratitude to Dan O for that website.

+1

 

[carbonjam72]

Dan O's wiki is a wealth of information which he has put countless hours into accumulating and organizing. I know not many people have helped him when he has asked for help. I once offered but it was above my head (I am old and technically challenged.)

We truly owe much gratitude to Dan O for that website.

Is it still active? Can someone please post the link?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Kauffer]

And that is what the simulations of the defence expert showed. If the window was broken from the outside the glass fell inside. If the window was broken in the way the police hypothesised from the inside, then glass fell outside. So the lack of glass found outside favours the defence argument, and falsifies the prosecution hypothesis of a faked break in.

Isn't the contention now actually that the rock was thrown from the inside at the outside facing glass of the window opened inwards with the internal shutter behind it, thus permitting both the embedded shard, and glass spraying into the room after rebounding off the shutter. I don't agree with it, but I think that's what they argue.

 

[Bill Williams]

According to Stefano Buratti, Lumumba's phone was already bugged before the interrogations on the 5th. Seems like the police "were already focussed" on him, to me. So we have this, we have Giobbi's order for them to be taken, we have prolific bugging of phones, we have a pre interrogation police preparation meeting, we have a pre interrogation surreptitious examination of Mr Sollecito's computer and we have Ms Knox's interrogation starting immediately after she loses (according to the police), her alibi, and all this, contextually, late at night following 3 days of intensive questioning. And then there is de Felice's widely reported comments, which you can't refute because you can't find a source.

I'd say we've got pretty strong grounds to conclude that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito were suspects, don't you?

If you were they, when would you have asked for a lawyer?

So now look at the treatment of suspect Lumumba - seized in the early hours, no lawyer, held in isolation, subject to the lies of a fake witness found by the police and the twisted erroneous logic of Matteini, who didn't have the wit to say, "Look, fellas. How difficult can it be to work out if the pub was open or closed? Go and find out! Go and check with the power company to see if the lights were on etc etc. " She's supposed to be in charge of the investigation after all.

I do not think the highlighted part is right. (Or is there a police source you have which says this?)

Her interrogation began when Ficarra went out into the hall to confront Knox with perhaps the only bona fide "lie" on record - the soft-drug use in the cottage, particularly the lies all of Meredith's friends, including Knox, told about Meredith's drug use. (Is this not correct?)

Also, did Ficarra not want to go through Knox's mobile one last time - and did not the outgoing SMS from Knox to Lumumba draw Ficarra's attention before Napoleoni came in to say that Raffaele had withdrawn his alibi?

I'm not sure if this timeline interferes with your over all reasoning - but to a reasonable person it would look like Knox was suspected of something at least by the time Napoleoni comes in..... or at least when Napoleoni wants to know why Sollecito is protecting "that cow".

This could very well be a time-honoured police tactic of "divide and conquer" with no particular suspicion in mind. It has been known that cops will accuse even distant-witnesses of everything but the JFK killing just to rattle them and to see where it goes.

A fishing trip. But at the very least they more than likely suspected Knox of something, even it is is the sentiment that, "Knox knows something she's not telling us," which persists to this day. That one persists even in some who don't think either she or Raffaele did anything in relation to the murder - but are hiding something nonetheless.

As an aside, John Follain has a puzzling remark about Mignini in, "A Death in Italy." Perhaps someone can look it up, but it goes something like reporting that when Mignini saw Amanda with her lawyers, he regretted that now the truth will never be known.

The whole thing is puzzling. The thing which is puzzling is that until the appearance before Matteini, Raffaele never really got an answer to: "What's this got to do with me?"

 

[anglolawyer]

Is it still active? Can someone please post the link?

Thanks in advance!

Access is by invitation only I think. Or maybe restrictions only apply to those with editorial rights. Dan can explain all no doubt. It is an excellent resource.

 

[Wannaknow]

It is not that easy

And that is what the simulations of the defence expert showed.

Do you mean the 23 second Pasquali video found on youtube (maybe there is a longer/better version of it ?). The Pasquali video show indeed that the glass fell inside. But does it also show that no glass fell outside ?

If the window was broken from the outside the glass fell inside. If the window was broken in the way the police hypothesised from the inside, then glass fell outside. So the lack of glass found outside favours the defence argument, and falsifies the prosecution hypothesis of a faked break in.

It is not that easy.

a) a person who threw the rock from within may have deliberatedly placed shards of glass on Filomenas rag

b) a person who faked the break in may have thrown the stone from the outside

The lack of glass outside may, of course, be due to the outside shutters being closed, while a person from within threw the stone.

Greetings