Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

No - give a precise citation for where you assert that others have pointed to a 53 hour non stop interrogation.

If it's a video, provide the link and indicate the relevant portion, eg: "from 12:23 to 14:52", for example. If it's a document, provide the link to a document.

Your citation less claims are tiresome.
 
Kauffer said:
No - give a precise citation for where you assert that others have pointed to a 53 hour non stop interrogation.

If it's a video, provide the link and indicate the relevant portion, eg: "from 12:23 to 14:52", for example. If it's a document, provide the link to a document.

Your citation less claims are tiresome.
Click to expand...


Oh, pur-leese!

http://youtu.be/fSTdH3wsDJE
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wow. Marriott must be really quick on the trigger, since Amanda's note stating that the cops had hit her was written just a few hours after she was arrested.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's your story? - she strolled in to report a crime? Why would she do that? Why would she, under no pressure, not being interrogated, voluntarily do that?

But, as a minimum and this would be according to you, she gets a lawyer at exactly that point, but you see, she doesn't get one. She doesn't get one for two days. She's now in custody, indisputably, so the law requires her to have a lawyer.
 
Vixen said:
Yeah. Sounds like some paranoid Hollywood fuelled movie. Memento or Arlington Park.
Click to expand...

So what is it that makes you think of a paranoid Hollywood movie? Is it the bit about picking up the first knife we find, and it turning out to have the victim's DNA on it?

No it can't be that. There's another twist that I didn't mention: we arrested your boyfriend, but inconveniently we don't have any evidence against him. So having left the murder scene in a complete mess, 6 weeks later we make a special trip back to collect a single missing piece torn from the victim's underwear - and it turns out to have his DNA on it! Just what we need!

Does that sound like the plot of a paranoid Hollywood movie?
 
Vixen said:
Oh, pur-leese!

http://youtu.be/fSTdH3wsDJE
Click to expand...

You do this with any regard for the truth?

The video link you posted at 2:00 mins, has Steve Moore saying the following, and I quote:

"They interrogate her for 53 hours in 5 days"

That's the only context in which 53 hours is mentioned.

Do you have any regard for your own personal integrity?
 
Last edited:
Kauffer said:
That's your story? - she strolled in to report a crime? Why would she do that? Why would she, under no pressure, not being interrogated, voluntarily do that?

But, as a minimum and this would be according to you, she gets a lawyer at exactly that point, but you see, she doesn't get one. She doesn't get one for two days. She's now in custody, indisputably, so the law requires her to have a lawyer.
Click to expand...


Ah but most pro-guilt commentators don't appear to even realise - far less actually understand - this part of the police/PM choreography. The reason why Knox and Sollecito were denied access to legal counsel from the moment they entered the police HQ on 5th November until literally moments before their first court appearance on 8th November is that Mignini improperly (and very probably unlawfully) abused a section of the criminal code that is clearly designed to be only applicable in extraordinary circumstances where providing an arrested person with access to counsel might be significantly detrimental to justice (e.g. Mafia suspects with crooked lawyers using those lawyers to intimidate witnesses or communicate messages to other arrested persons).

And of course the pliant judges made no more than a token effort to get Mignini to justify his abuse of this exceptional clause (he never even lodged a written reasoning, as mandated). It's another huge red flag against Mignini and his culpability in this sorry saga, and I suspect it will potentially be of great interest to the ECHR.
 
Vixen said:
IIRC it was collected 18.12.2007, the same day as the bra clasp.
Click to expand...

OK I see where you are coming from. You mean the sweatshirt. So I'll give you that the sweatshirt had been left lying around for six weeks. That the Italian forensic scientists failed to collect the clothes the victim had been wearing but rolled up the sweat shirt and stuffed it in a laundry basket I'll accept. This certainly means it was at risk of contamination. So happy to exclude this. That leaves the bloody handprint of Guede - no concerns about DNA contamination there and it has a time print.

This so much convinces me that the forensic science was competently performed.
 
Vixen said:
Antony said:
Oh, you've got this on videotape, have you?
Click to expand...

No requirement to tape it.
Click to expand...

Sorry to labour this, but you've stated what Amanda did with the certainty either of someone who was there, or someone who's seen the video recording of the interview.

Of course, you and your friends keep telling us the police had no obligation to video anything - but from what you're posting, it seems that they very kindly did exactly that and allowed you a privileged viewing (one way or another).

Would you be kind enough to tell us what happened to the video recording afterwards?
 
LondonJohn said:
Ah but most pro-guilt commentators don't appear to even realise - far less actually understand - this part of the police/PM choreography. The reason why Knox and Sollecito were denied access to legal counsel from the moment they entered the police HQ on 5th November until literally moments before their first court appearance on 8th November is that Mignini improperly (and very probably unlawfully) abused a section of the criminal code that is clearly designed to be only applicable in extraordinary circumstances where providing an arrested person with access to counsel might be significantly detrimental to justice (e.g. Mafia suspects with crooked lawyers using those lawyers to intimidate witnesses or communicate messages to other arrested persons).

And of course the pliant judges made no more than a token effort to get Mignini to justify his abuse of this exceptional clause (he never even lodged a written reasoning, as mandated). It's another huge red flag against Mignini and his culpability in this sorry saga, and I suspect it will potentially be of great interest to the ECHR.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is correct and as scandalous as you suggest - Mignini actually tried to justify withholding both Raffaele and Amanda's right to a lawyer on these grounds and never filed the paperwork. Raffaele's father's lawyer tried to get to him before the first hearing but was turned away. There is zero chance the ECHR will find that Amanda's Article 6 rights were not violated in this regard. The case law is compelling.
 
Kauffer said:
You do this with any regard for the truth?

The video link you posted at 2:00 mins, has Steve Moore saying the following, and I quote:

"They interrogate her for 53 hours in 5 days"

That's the only context in which 53 hours is mentioned.

Do you have any regard for your own personal integrity?
Click to expand...


What? The average full-time working week is 35 hours. Mr Moore is claiming Amanda was interrogated a continuous ten hours a day over five days.

That from eight in the morning to eight at night, if we assume one-hour for lunch and four 15-minute comfort breaks.

Assuming another hour for an evening meal and an hour to wash and then sleep for eight hours, pro-Knoxers are seriously claiming Amanda "was interrogated for 53 hours with tag teams every hour".

A clear fraudulent claim, as Amanda arrived at the cop shop circa 22:30, chatted to the police from about 23:30 including giving a voluntary witness statement naming Patrick as a killer-cum-rapist, whom she was very scared of, which was typed up and signed by 00:45. Less than three hours.

So much for hourly tag teams over five consecutive days non-stop, except to eat, wash and sleep.

If the "innocent" campaign has to be predicated on a pack of lies, what an insult to the genuinely innocent and wrongly convicted!
 
Last edited:
Antony said:
So what is it that makes you think of a paranoid Hollywood movie? Is it the bit about picking up the first knife we find, and it turning out to have the victim's DNA on it?

No it can't be that. There's another twist that I didn't mention: we arrested your boyfriend, but inconveniently we don't have any evidence against him. So having left the murder scene in a complete mess, 6 weeks later we make a special trip back to collect a single missing piece torn from the victim's underwear - and it turns out to have his DNA on it! Just what we need!

Does that sound like the plot of a paranoid Hollywood movie?
Click to expand...

Look at it another way. You're a hardnosed cop dealing with scum every day who will spit at you, tell blatant lies, steal, cheat, kill.

There is a murder. A couple of guys are hanging around outside with cleaning material and yet have some how not got round to calling the police.

They have no alibi. They switched off their phone just before the murder (as did Jodi Arias); their footprints and blood mixed with the victim's are all over the murder scene.

Are you beginning to understand what makes a cop tick?
 
Last edited:
Kauffer said:
Yes, this is correct and as scandalous as you suggest - Mignini actually tried to justify withholding both Raffaele and Amanda's right to a lawyer on these grounds and never filed the paperwork. Raffaele's father's lawyer tried to get to him before the first hearing but was turned away. There is zero chance the ECHR will find that Amanda's Article 6 rights were not violated in this regard. The case law is compelling.
Click to expand...

Really? What stopped Papa Raff from just turning up with a lawyer?

All the roommates did, so is clearly Italian custom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom