Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Antony said:
This is what's known as arguing from incredulity. You can't believe it happened, so you don't see any need to look at the facts. The police wouldn't pursue an innocent person, so why bother with a trial?

Vixen, this exchange started with your assertion: "an innocent person ... has an alibi." In other words, someone who, for whatever reason, can't prove what they were doing at the time the crime was committed, doesn't have the benefit of the presumption of innocence. Have you ever heard of the expression "burden of proof"?

What were you doing on the evening of 1st November 2007?
Click to expand...

I know exactly what I was doing, and with official witnesses. I certainly would not need to change my alibi umpty-nine times or ask someone to lie for me as Amanda asked of Raff. Or so he said.
 
Vixen said:
I know exactly what I was doing, and with official witnesses. I certainly would not need to change my alibi umpty-nine times or ask someone to lie for me as Amanda asked of Raff. Or so he said.
Click to expand...

Those official witnesses obviously are in on the crime and need arresting too.

The real question is - why would they lie like that for you?
 
Vixen said:
I know exactly what I was doing, and with official witnesses. I certainly would not need to change my alibi umpty-nine times or ask someone to lie for me as Amanda asked of Raff. Or so he said.
Click to expand...

Why don't you give a timeline for these "umpty-nine times" changing alibis? Might help you crystallise things in your mind. It might help the rest of us see this case in a different context. Times, dates and nature of the change on each occasion please.
 
Vixen said:
Amanda was told she was a suspect as soon as she confessed to witnessing the crime and leading the alleged assailant there. The witness statement interview was promptly halted.

As for the advice you should refuse to comment to police. Absolutely. If you are guilty.

An innocent person upholds the law and has an alibi.
Click to expand...

It is a violation of Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3c for police to interrogate a suspect without a lawyer by pretending or acting as if that person is a witness. The ECHR case-law on this includes Brusco v. France 1466/07 and Shabelink v. Ukraine 16404/03.

The interrogation was not stopped; Amanda signed a statement, written in Italian legal language, recording the falsehoods she was coerced to utter. According to CPP Article 63, if she were a witness being questioned, as soon as she had made any incriminating oral disclosure, the questioning should have been stopped and she should have been advised that she was now a suspect (that investigations would be carried on against her) and advised to get a lawyer. The police did not follow this Italian procedural law, and instead had Amanda sign an Italian-language statement they had prepared (typed or computer-printed) so we can be sure that there was a violation of Convention article 6.1 with 6.3c committed, as this statement was used to convict her of a crime.

To compound this issue, as Amanda was definitely a suspect after her statement to police, PM Mignini proceeded to question her in order to generate a bogus "spontaneous statement" which he obviously intended to sneak into the Italian judicial system as though it were not a violation of the suspect's will. Again, there was no lawyer present for Amanda, so again this was a violation of CPP Article 64 and, with the conviction for calunnia, of Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3c.
 
Planigale said:
Not true. Please give any reference to this other than your imagination.
Click to expand...

Been there, done that. You should be able to search the thread in this topic.

There is a CCTV tape obtained by Italian tv showing such a grainy figure wearing a quilted jacket similar to the one Rudy was captured in in Germany.
 
Vixen said:
WTBH, paid shill Steve Moore to whoever would listen, virtually "ibid".

Why, are you now revising history?

Version #Umptynine.
Click to expand...

Amanda was interrogated in total for slightly longer than 53 hours, but not non stop. You were asked to cite where that claim of 53 hours non stop was made.

You haven't.
 
Numbers said:
It is a violation of Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3c for police to interrogate a suspect without a lawyer by pretending or acting as if that person is a witness. The ECHR case-law on this includes Brusco v. France 1466/07 and Shabelink v. Ukraine 16404/03.

The interrogation was not stopped; Amanda signed a statement, written in Italian legal language, recording the falsehoods she was coerced to utter. According to CPP Article 63, if she were a witness being questioned, as soon as she had made any incriminating oral disclosure, the questioning should have been stopped and she should have been advised that she was now a suspect (that investigations would be carried on against her) and advised to get a lawyer. The police did not follow this Italian procedural law, and instead had Amanda sign an Italian-language statement they had prepared (typed or computer-printed) so we can be sure that there was a violation of Convention article 6.1 with 6.3c committed, as this statement was used to convict her of a crime.

To compound this issue, as Amanda was definitely a suspect after her statement to police, PM Mignini proceeded to question her in order to generate a bogus "spontaneous statement" which he obviously intended to sneak into the Italian judicial system as though it were not a violation of the suspect's will. Again, there was no lawyer present for Amanda, so again this was a violation of CPP Article 64 and, with the conviction for calunnia, of Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3c.
Click to expand...

The incriminating documents were not in front of the court.

Amanda insisted in giving Insp. Ficarra a "gift": a statement she wrote of her own volition, at her leisure. The onus was on her to take responsibilty for her actions.
 
Vixen said:
The problem with rape is proving it. Whilst it's highly unpleasant for a guy to be so accused, he has a high chance of being cleared, especially as it is often the word of one person against another.

Rudy is a thoroughly disgusting person, who not only sexually assaulted Mez, but tried to claim it was consensual. It is stomach turning.

There was also a blond hair down there.

I'd need to revise on the DNA. However, if the bra clasp was contaminated, then so was Mez' sweater, as it was collected the same time by the same filthy cops.
Click to expand...

Not true. Why do you bother coming here when you do not know even the most basic facts of this case? Not collected the same time. Not collected by the same police.
 
Kauffer said:
You obviously don't understand what makes for a valid waiver. Both Italian law and the convention cover this. On the whole, you need a lawyer to help you decide to refuse a lawyer.

Otherwise, we'd have a raft of cases like this one considered safe where the police claim a suspect was only a witness who said something spontaneously to make themselves a suspect, was offered a lawyer but refused one. They cannot do this.

This is the essence of a prominent guilters myth: Amanda shows up uninvited to the questura, is asked, since she's there, to go over a few details and almost immediately and without provocation, tells the police she was at the apartment and heard her boss raping and possibly killing Kercher - and we all agree the last part cannot be true. Only the truth of the first part is in dispute.

Why on earth would she do this? Your sociopathic, careful planning, thoroughly evil, calculating murderess, just walks into an interrogation as she's done many times before for long hours having previously given nothing away and gives it all up in a heartbeat, whilst under no pressure at all. How extraordinary! How utterly unbelievable!
Click to expand...


She was an entirely voluntary witness, up to the point she calumniated Patrick.

Sure, some people won't go into a police station without a lawyer. However, should you choose to stroll into a police station, to report a crime, for example, there is no legal obligation for the police to advise you to wait until a lawyer is present.

In the UK they only need to "advise you of your rights" once they have put you under arrest.
 
Vixen said:
The incriminating documents were not in front of the court.

Amanda insisted in giving Insp. Ficarra a "gift": a statement she wrote of her own volition, at her leisure. The onus was on her to take responsibilty for her actions.
Click to expand...

Your post is uninformed. Dayanan v. Turkey 7377/03 requires that a person in custody be provided with a lawyer for consultations from the beginning of custody. The Italian authorities did not provide a lawyer to consult with Amanda while she was in custody, and her writings during that period, made without legal counsel, cannot be used to convict her of anything. Their use for a conviction would be a violation of Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3c.
 
Kauffer said:
Amanda was interrogated in total for slightly longer than 53 hours, but not non stop. You were asked to cite where that claim of 53 hours non stop was made.

You haven't.
Click to expand...

It's lying by omission for pro-Knoxers to constantly claim to the media she was "interrogated for 53 hours, with a different tag team every hour".

Look up the Steve Moore youtube video.
 
Numbers said:
Your post is uninformed. Dayanan v. Turkey 7377/03 requires that a person in custody be provided with a lawyer for consultations from the beginning of custody. The Italian authorities did not provide a lawyer to consult with Amanda while she was in custody, and her writings during that period, made without legal counsel, cannot be used to convict her of anything. Their use for a conviction would be a violation of Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3c.
Click to expand...

Amanda was not in custody.
 
Vixen said:
WTBH, paid shill Steve Moore to whoever would listen, virtually "ibid".

Why, are you now revising history?

Version #Umptynine.
Click to expand...

There is no claim that she was interrogated for 53 hours non stop. Do you accept that this was a false statement you posted? If you do not post a quote we can assume you have none.
 
Vixen said:
I know exactly what I was doing, and with official witnesses. I certainly would not need to change my alibi umpty-nine times or ask someone to lie for me as Amanda asked of Raff. Or so he said.
Click to expand...

Oh not to worry. I'm sure there's something horrible that's happened at a time when you weren't in the presence of anyone who can't be doubted. Maybe just your boyfriend - we'll arrest him too. Then we'll go to your house and take the first kitchen knife we find and keep testing it in a lab full of the victim's DNA, with ever greater amplification, until we get a positive match.

Our courts will rule that the result is valid unless you can prove contamination - oh, did I say? You'll be in jail all this time and won't get to see a lawyer until moments before the judge orders you to be held for the next year.

While we're doing this, we'll feed the newspapers with stories about what a dreadful person you are, including how you changed your alibi umpty-nine times. Sounds familiar?
 
Numbers said:
It is a violation of Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3c for police to interrogate a suspect without a lawyer by pretending or acting as if that person is a witness. The ECHR case-law on this includes Brusco v. France 1466/07 and Shabelink v. Ukraine 16404/03.

The interrogation was not stopped; Amanda signed a statement, written in Italian legal language, recording the falsehoods she was coerced to utter. According to CPP Article 63, if she were a witness being questioned, as soon as she had made any incriminating oral disclosure, the questioning should have been stopped and she should have been advised that she was now a suspect (that investigations would be carried on against her) and advised to get a lawyer. The police did not follow this Italian procedural law, and instead had Amanda sign an Italian-language statement they had prepared (typed or computer-printed) so we can be sure that there was a violation of Convention article 6.1 with 6.3c committed, as this statement was used to convict her of a crime.

To compound this issue, as Amanda was definitely a suspect after her statement to police, PM Mignini proceeded to question her in order to generate a bogus "spontaneous statement" which he obviously intended to sneak into the Italian judicial system as though it were not a violation of the suspect's will. Again, there was no lawyer present for Amanda, so again this was a violation of CPP Article 64 and, with the conviction for calunnia, of Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3c.
Click to expand...


It was not an interrogation. It was Amanda insisting on informing police, Patrick did it. She gladly signed a confession to this effect, that she was there.

As of that point, the interview was terminated, and the Italian police followed correct legal procedure.

Amanda did not file a complaint, variously she told the court and the American ambassador she was treated fairly and the police, "were only doing their job".

The claims of brutality and torture are a transparent self-serving lie. As Curt Knox signed up with a PR agency, no doubt, Amanda was advised to tell these unkind lies about the police to evade justice and garner public sympathy predicated on fraud.
 
Vixen said:
There is a CCTV tape obtained by Italian tv showing such a grainy figure wearing a quilted jacket similar to the one Rudy was captured in in Germany.
Click to expand...


Hi Vixen,
What's this Rudy followin' Meredith from inside the car park stuff you mention?

Don't ya know that before your time here,
RoseMontague, Danceme and I, amongst others,
shredded this accusation a few years ago, waaay back in what was it, the 3rd or 4th Continuation here on The JREF,
err The ISF?

What are we on now,
The 17th Continuation?!?

Thanks, Agatha,
for the warnin',
and not The Suspension!!!


Rudy Guede has,
per Italian Frank Sfarzo of Perugia Shock, a very distinctive walk.
I got 1 too, as my old Grandma Ruth, RIP,
mentioned at Grandpa Eddie's funeral many, many years ago.

You too mighta seen Rudy's distinctive walk if you saw him in Court,
if you had attended Court back in 2008 and 2009,
like Frank Sfarzo did,
ok?

That is not Rudy Guede...

Keep an open mind.

Right before 9:00pm,
why do you think that "poor Rudy" is followin' err, heading towards Meredith?
To go smoke a fatty, err spinello with her since her boyfriend Giacomo was outta town,
try + get her hammered and have sex with her, even though he did not bring over a condom?

Where are Amanda and [SIZE="-10"]Raff[/SIZE] at the time?
Playin' some video movie or cartoon?

Didn't Amanda just find out,
a few minutes before the CCTV vid,
that she did not have to work that night.

Didn't she even have a chat with 1 of [SIZE="-10"]Raff[/SIZE]'s gal pals
just a few minutes earlier too than this CCTV footage you mention?

What,
did Rudy Guede just stroll on over from his flat, the kabob joint or the basketball court
and talk with Amanda too as [SIZE="-10"]Raff[/SIZE] showered?

Heya sweetie,
I'm gonna head on over to Mez's place,
pack your boyz kitchen knife, I'll see ya there?

Do you really believe that Amanda was packin' that huuuge kitchen knife,
gettin' ready to meet up with Guid-O, as he, if it was him, was shown on the CCTV,
headin' straight towards the car park's exit, towards a single girl walkin' along a highway late at night,
whose name was Meredith?

Heck,
how would they even know Guid-O even ever arrived yet?
Rudy never ever even called or texted Amanda or The [SIZE="-10"]Raff[/SIZE].

Yet he talked by phone to Carlos,
1 of the Spanish Dudes
the night before on Halloween, IIRC,
and yes I do, I do recall correctly,
dear Vixen...

What,
did Amanda and [SIZE="-10"]Raff[/SIZE] just get lucky that Rudy too,
along with Mez, was there?

Do you really think,
that all alone for the 1st time ever at her own apartment,
Meredith was gonna let "poor Rudy" in for a "date"?

Don't you think it odd that Amanda and [SIZE="-10"]Raff[/SIZE]
were not seen at any time on the CCTV video?

Weren't Amanda
and [SIZE="-10"]Raff[/SIZE],
per Curatolo hangin' outside arguin'
as "poor rduy" had some oral luv with Meredith?

Gosh,
I really need to go ride some waves,
even though it's small at the moment here in Los Angeles.
See ya Vixen!
XX, RW
 
Last edited:
Antony said:
Oh not to worry. I'm sure there's something horrible that's happened at a time when you weren't in the presence of anyone who can't be doubted. Maybe just your boyfriend - we'll arrest him too. Then we'll go to your house and take the first kitchen knife we find and keep testing it in a lab full of the victim's DNA, with ever greater amplification, until we get a positive match.

Our courts will rule that the result is valid unless you can prove contamination - oh, did I say? You'll be in jail all this time and won't get to see a lawyer until moments before the judge orders you to be held for the next year.

While we're doing this, we'll feed the newspapers with stories about what a dreadful person you are, including how you changed your alibi umpty-nine times. Sounds familiar?
Click to expand...


Yeah. Sounds like some paranoid Hollywood fuelled movie. Memento or Arlington Park.
 
Vixen said:
It was not an interrogation. It was Amanda insisting on informing police, Patrick did it. She gladly signed a confession to this effect, that she was there.

As of that point, the interview was terminated, and the Italian police followed correct legal procedure.
Click to expand...

Oh, you've got this on videotape, have you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom