Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito
- Thread starter acbytesla
- Start date
- Status
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Italy is the criminal?
Sorry, forgive my stupidity.
Sorry, forgive my stupidity.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,578
Surfing the web at Raf's place
"Amanda and Raffaele told us that on November 1 they watched Amelie and then, more or less, Stardust. Indeed the VLC reader does show the viewing of Amelie and then of Stardust, but it doesn't give a date. The last access to Stardust is November 6. Raffaele and Amanda were in jail, so the police, while working at the computer, opened Stardust (everyone needs a break). The problem is that access canceled the record of the previous one. So, if really Raffaele and Amanda watched that movie, instead of, for instance, going to kill Meredith, the proof was in the computer. But the police, by mistake, canceled it. It's not that the running of a movie can really be an alibi, it can run by itself. But, for a number of reasons, it would have been a heavy clue. It would have been. Interesting that Raffaele --along with Amanda-- was still under interrogation and the police were already using his computer, as you probably read around. In the morning of the 6 they weren't really working on it, they were using it to surf the web. Murder of the english girl: two have been stopped. Like this the officers were reading, from the Ansa site. And they could add: and we are using their computer."
Perugia Shock, September 27, 2009
"Amanda and Raffaele told us that on November 1 they watched Amelie and then, more or less, Stardust. Indeed the VLC reader does show the viewing of Amelie and then of Stardust, but it doesn't give a date. The last access to Stardust is November 6. Raffaele and Amanda were in jail, so the police, while working at the computer, opened Stardust (everyone needs a break). The problem is that access canceled the record of the previous one. So, if really Raffaele and Amanda watched that movie, instead of, for instance, going to kill Meredith, the proof was in the computer. But the police, by mistake, canceled it. It's not that the running of a movie can really be an alibi, it can run by itself. But, for a number of reasons, it would have been a heavy clue. It would have been. Interesting that Raffaele --along with Amanda-- was still under interrogation and the police were already using his computer, as you probably read around. In the morning of the 6 they weren't really working on it, they were using it to surf the web. Murder of the english girl: two have been stopped. Like this the officers were reading, from the Ansa site. And they could add: and we are using their computer."
Perugia Shock, September 27, 2009
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,578
can you rephrase?
I am not sure what you are asking. People who are held in custody are sometimes eligible for compensation.
Vixen,
I am not sure what you are asking. People who are held in custody are sometimes eligible for compensation.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
I am puzzled as to how Hellmann at the appeal stage would know compensation is due? I can see that in Italy if you've spent time on remand and you are cleared you are guaranteed compensation.
If Hellmann-Zanetti were so sympathetic, why not just acquit of calumny completely? I cannot see why they would be interested in covering the backs of the police and prosecutors. It doesn't come out of their pockets.
Grinder
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 10,033
It would seem from Hellmann's comments that he was shunned by other judges as well as prosecutors for his court's acquittal. With the exception of one commentator here everyone thought the Calumnia conviction made absolutely no sense even before Hellmann increased the sentence.
My comment expressed my feeling that he would throw something to the state that would at least reduce the financial burden. Since Hellmann lives there, it makes sense that even a retired judge would want to minimize the hostility from the police et al.
ETA - Your first graph makes no sense.
Last edited:
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Vixen said:
Vixen - did you not answer your own question, with the statement which followed it?
Until I understood the nature of the Nov 5/6, 2007, interrogation(s), I was the one who thought the calumny conviction by Hellmann (with regard to Lumumba) made sense. Now I do not. There is reason to believe that if it had been Section 5 of the Supreme Court hearing Hellmann's acquittal back in March 2013, then the ISC would have simply confirmed the acquittals, AND annulled the calunnia conviction.
Grinder is essentially correct: it is now not very far-fetched to think that a judge, even in acquitting, would throw something the way of the cops/prosecutor. In essence Hellmann (back then) gave the cops the benefit of a doubt, that they'd not done anything criminal in extorting a "confession" from Knox.
Indeed, in one of the early secret recordings of Knox, her family and lawyers.... they briefly discussed filling out the paperwork to have the cops charged with hitting Knox at interrogation. The counsel came back that in the pro-charge phase of this wrongful-prosecution, the defence did not want to do anything to stir the pot against the police.
All of this is now a consistent story, as Grinder has pointed out. Hellmann is to be admired for speaking out as to how he was treated by peers following coming to a verdict (an acquittal) based on the evidence.
Of all the people vindicated by the March 27, 2015, action of Italy's highest court, Hellmann is near the top of the list.
Last edited:
carbonjam72
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,324
Hi Vixen, Welcome to the forum.
Does your post mean you think Amanda "lied" by implicating Patrick?
Or, do you accept that the police are to blame for coercing her statements from the night of November 5, 2007?
Not sure where you're coming from.
Do you have an opinion as to guilt or innocence for Amanda & Raf?
Strozzi
Graduate Poster
The Interrogation
Vixen, I note that Amanda was taken into the interrogation room at about 11 pm on Nov 5, 2007. She was interrogated for two hours by several police officers and then at about 1 am police interpreter Anna Donino joined them. None of the police officers spoke much English and Amanda spoke little Italian - she had been in Italy 6 weeks by this time. The interrogation became very nasty. Amanda wrote in her book that she was shouted at, called a liar, told that the police had proof she had been at the cottage even though she knew she was not there. Amanda was threatened that if she didn't tell the truth she would go to prison for 30 years and never see her family again.
Amanda was not at the cottage the night of the murder and insisted on that for more than two hours from 11 pm until after interpreter Anna Donnino arrived at about 1 am. The police did not want to believe Amanda. Twice Amanda was hit by police officer Ficarra to "help her remember".
Donino testified in court that when she arrived at about 1 am the situation was chaotic. Amanda was still insisting that she was not at the cottage when Donino arrived. Donino took it upon herself to try to persuade Amanda that she was there but did not remember it because she was traumatized. The police and police interpreter Donino eventually convinced Amanda that her memory was wrong, causing Amanda to doubt her own memory. They convinced Amanda she was somewhere she was not. They messed with her mInd, drew out answers to leading questions, and created a false accusation.
I believe the police told (implied to) Amanda that the person with whom she exchanged the 'see you later' message (Patrick Lumumba) was the killer. Amanda did not have that thought before late that night. She did not go into the interrogation room on the night of Nov 5 thinking Patrick was involved. She was not afraid of Patrick until far into the police-manipulated construction. The police manipulated the three-hour interrogation to that point and late in the interrogation when Amanda understood what the police were leading to she became terrified of Patrick and essentially hallucinated answers to the police's questions as the lead her through the murder where they claimed she was present.
Mignini in a recently-recorded discussion explains away how the police interrogation led to the police-shaped and extracted accusation against Lumumba. Mignini refers to the 20-year-old American girl astutely manipulating the (noble) police interrogators. He is a sick man.
Please note that for at least two hours in a nasty police interrogation Amanda was ably to hold true. It took the arrival of the police interpreter to convince Amanda she was there but did not remember it because she was traumatized.
Vixen, I note that Amanda was taken into the interrogation room at about 11 pm on Nov 5, 2007. She was interrogated for two hours by several police officers and then at about 1 am police interpreter Anna Donino joined them. None of the police officers spoke much English and Amanda spoke little Italian - she had been in Italy 6 weeks by this time. The interrogation became very nasty. Amanda wrote in her book that she was shouted at, called a liar, told that the police had proof she had been at the cottage even though she knew she was not there. Amanda was threatened that if she didn't tell the truth she would go to prison for 30 years and never see her family again.
Amanda was not at the cottage the night of the murder and insisted on that for more than two hours from 11 pm until after interpreter Anna Donnino arrived at about 1 am. The police did not want to believe Amanda. Twice Amanda was hit by police officer Ficarra to "help her remember".
Donino testified in court that when she arrived at about 1 am the situation was chaotic. Amanda was still insisting that she was not at the cottage when Donino arrived. Donino took it upon herself to try to persuade Amanda that she was there but did not remember it because she was traumatized. The police and police interpreter Donino eventually convinced Amanda that her memory was wrong, causing Amanda to doubt her own memory. They convinced Amanda she was somewhere she was not. They messed with her mInd, drew out answers to leading questions, and created a false accusation.
I believe the police told (implied to) Amanda that the person with whom she exchanged the 'see you later' message (Patrick Lumumba) was the killer. Amanda did not have that thought before late that night. She did not go into the interrogation room on the night of Nov 5 thinking Patrick was involved. She was not afraid of Patrick until far into the police-manipulated construction. The police manipulated the three-hour interrogation to that point and late in the interrogation when Amanda understood what the police were leading to she became terrified of Patrick and essentially hallucinated answers to the police's questions as the lead her through the murder where they claimed she was present.
Mignini in a recently-recorded discussion explains away how the police interrogation led to the police-shaped and extracted accusation against Lumumba. Mignini refers to the 20-year-old American girl astutely manipulating the (noble) police interrogators. He is a sick man.
Please note that for at least two hours in a nasty police interrogation Amanda was ably to hold true. It took the arrival of the police interpreter to convince Amanda she was there but did not remember it because she was traumatized.
Last edited:
whoanellie
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,471
I think it's called wicker man.
Beating the proverbial dead horse
The point I tried to make - and no doubt not well enough - is that a person becomes a suspect in the ECHR human-rights view when that person is in the custody of police and is being interrogated: asked questions or otherwise treated in a way to induce self-incriminating or (in some situations) other-incriminating answers.
Formal designation by the State judicial system of the person interrogated as a "witness" or any other category does not change the above principle.
Whether or not the person prior to the initiation of the questioning was suspected of a crime, whether in good faith or bad, is not an issue from the human rights viewpoint. The person under interrogation must be cautioned and told he or she is entitled to counsel at the start of the interrogation, and if the person chooses to waive counsel, must give informed written consent, according to ECHR case-law. ("Informed" may mean the person must have counsel to advise whether or not to waive counsel.)
In terms of the conduct of police during an interrogation, violation of Convention Article 3, the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, is strictly prohibited by ECHR case-law. That is, any violation of Article 3 found by ECHR in a case means that the information gained directly by that interrogation may not be used to convict the person interrogated. If ECHR judges that the violation of Article 3 was severe enough to be considered torture, no secondarily derived information (fruit of the poisoned tree) may be used for conviction of that person or anyone else. Such information could be used in the case of inhuman or degrading treatment, but not if it would be significant in securing conviction or affecting the sentence.
The topic of the effect of violation of Convention Article 3 being somewhat complex, I copy here the relevant paragraphs from CoE/ECHR Guide to Article 6 (Criminal Limb) {in case I have screwed-up the explanation}:
The point I tried to make - and no doubt not well enough - is that a person becomes a suspect in the ECHR human-rights view when that person is in the custody of police and is being interrogated: asked questions or otherwise treated in a way to induce self-incriminating or (in some situations) other-incriminating answers.
Formal designation by the State judicial system of the person interrogated as a "witness" or any other category does not change the above principle.
Whether or not the person prior to the initiation of the questioning was suspected of a crime, whether in good faith or bad, is not an issue from the human rights viewpoint. The person under interrogation must be cautioned and told he or she is entitled to counsel at the start of the interrogation, and if the person chooses to waive counsel, must give informed written consent, according to ECHR case-law. ("Informed" may mean the person must have counsel to advise whether or not to waive counsel.)
In terms of the conduct of police during an interrogation, violation of Convention Article 3, the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, is strictly prohibited by ECHR case-law. That is, any violation of Article 3 found by ECHR in a case means that the information gained directly by that interrogation may not be used to convict the person interrogated. If ECHR judges that the violation of Article 3 was severe enough to be considered torture, no secondarily derived information (fruit of the poisoned tree) may be used for conviction of that person or anyone else. Such information could be used in the case of inhuman or degrading treatment, but not if it would be significant in securing conviction or affecting the sentence.
The topic of the effect of violation of Convention Article 3 being somewhat complex, I copy here the relevant paragraphs from CoE/ECHR Guide to Article 6 (Criminal Limb) {in case I have screwed-up the explanation}:
Last edited:
MichaelB
Muse
- Joined
- May 27, 2013
- Messages
- 555
It's back and even better than the original.....
Hitler's Bunker 2
https://www.youtube.com/embed/slwOgG8TGFw
Hitler's Bunker 2
https://www.youtube.com/embed/slwOgG8TGFw
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
It's called The Wicker Man. Starring the man with three wooden heads (Edward Woodward). Great film.
"Burning Man" is a festival in Nevada. Sollecito went to it a couple of years ago.
anglolawyer
Banned
Numbers
You said:
'The point I tried to make - and no doubt not well enough - is that a person becomes a suspect in the ECHR human-rights view when that person is in the custody of police and is being interrogated: asked questions or otherwise treated in a way to induce self-incriminating or (in some situations) other-incriminating answers.'
If this is indeed how the ECHR classifies suspects then it seems to me wooly-headed. A person becomes a suspect as soon as they are suspected, due not to the laws of the land but those of grammar. OTOH the rights triggered by suspect status only kick in when the suspect is at risk of unfairness, most obviously when detained and when subject to questioning.
Thus, Amanda was a suspect more or less at once but her rights were not infringed until the night of 5th-6th Nov (I ignore rights of privacy, to family life etc and the like)
I continue to wonder where in this conversation the point you are labouring to make fits.
You said:
'The point I tried to make - and no doubt not well enough - is that a person becomes a suspect in the ECHR human-rights view when that person is in the custody of police and is being interrogated: asked questions or otherwise treated in a way to induce self-incriminating or (in some situations) other-incriminating answers.'
If this is indeed how the ECHR classifies suspects then it seems to me wooly-headed. A person becomes a suspect as soon as they are suspected, due not to the laws of the land but those of grammar. OTOH the rights triggered by suspect status only kick in when the suspect is at risk of unfairness, most obviously when detained and when subject to questioning.
Thus, Amanda was a suspect more or less at once but her rights were not infringed until the night of 5th-6th Nov (I ignore rights of privacy, to family life etc and the like)
I continue to wonder where in this conversation the point you are labouring to make fits.
codyjuneau
Muse
.
Grinder posted:
"Which doesn't negate the central aspect of my position which is it wasn't unreasonable for them to arrest them that night. It may not have been following procedure or even illegal but not unreasonable considering what they thought to be true."
I think Numbers believes, and I agree, that without using the illegally (substitute a more appropriate word if you please) obtained obliquely incriminating witness statement from Amanda, the police did not have a reasonable reason, in other words sufficient evidence, to arrest either Raffaele or Amanda.
Grinder hedges by saying 'considering what they thought to be true', which in my opinion is irrelevant, since the courts should be more discerning than to blindly accept what the police 'think to be true'.
Cody
.
anglolawyer
Banned
Ah, OK. So the question is whether the cops reasonably suspected A & R. That explains why I have not followed Numbers' posts. It's because the way the ECHR defines the word 'suspect' is entirely irrelevant to the question.
Right, I am on the side that says they did not reasonably suspect them. I assume we mostly agree they were suspected well before 1.45 a.m. (Katy_did may be an outlier on that one but as she is resorting to cats tramping on keyboards to maintain her position we can dismiss her as irrelevant
- actually, I am an outlier too but at the other end of the spectrum, see below) and I am happy to have that argument all over again but, taking it as read that they were indeed the target of a sting operation on the evening of 5th Nov, these are the reasons why I say they were not reasonably suspected:1 zero forensic evidence had emerged against them in the 3 days of investigations whereas some evidence had emerged against others (I rely mostly on Diocletus to back this up except for the crap in the larger bathroom which they knew not to be A or R's)
2 the assumption that the burglary was staged had become an established fact without any testing or reflection
3 the assumption that, if staged, it could only have been by A was unreasonable (this is not the best point because A was a reasonable enough candidate assuming the burglary was staged)
4 zero genuinely suspicious behaviour following the crime. Specifically, nothing incriminating in the tapped telephone conversations, not even those between A and R
5 no eye witnesses
6 no evidence of cleaning
7 (the 'outlier' point) There are in addition disturbing indicators suggesting that the police may have been cynically framing persons they knew to be innocent, to wit: the failure to seize knives, shoes etc from Patrick's place or from Le Chic and the seizure of a knife from Raf's, all of which is totally baffling considering what Amanda had 'confessed' to was a murder committed by Patrick at which Raf may have been present, she was not sure. There are also Diocletus's observations on information already in their hands by the 6th that pointed to another perp. If someone could square this conduct with genuine suspicion then I would be most interested.
Last edited:
lonepinealex
Muse
Perugia Shock! The Musical!
I did actually start writing a satirical operetta about the trial, but the ISC decision rather took the heat out of the whole thing, so my writing partner and I moved on to other things. I'm glad Amanda and Raffaele are free at last, but it's disappointing creatively.
carbonjam72
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,324
Save me a seat...
Don't give up LPA! The world can always use another great musical comedy!
I'm working on a project as well, although my progress is still highly intangible. I view the acquittals as just another, not even the last chapter in the unfolding drama.
There's a great scene at the end of the movie 'Edward Scissorhands' where Wynona Ryder's character is telling her incredible story from her youth to her grandchildren. It's magical. Just saying.
Don't give up LPA! The world can always use another great musical comedy!
I'm working on a project as well, although my progress is still highly intangible. I view the acquittals as just another, not even the last chapter in the unfolding drama.
There's a great scene at the end of the movie 'Edward Scissorhands' where Wynona Ryder's character is telling her incredible story from her youth to her grandchildren. It's magical. Just saying.
anglolawyer
Banned
'Springtime for Giuliano and It-a-leeee'
Strozzi
Graduate Poster
Why did the PLE assume that a staging of the break-in had to be limited to the 3 current occupants of the cottage and not to another holder of a key? Meredith and Amanda had been living there for six weeks; who occupied their rooms beforehand? Did any of them retain a key? How recently had the locks been changed? Who resided there before Filomena and Laura moved in? What about current or earlier boyfriends, handymen, realtors, or even a relative of the owner? Any of them might have had a key.
Machiavelli, if you see this can you explain it?
Last edited:
- Status