Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Show me! Show me all the many, many, many, many apologies.

I am sure this will come as a surprise to Patrick.

We all await citation of this astonishing revelation.

What possible good would it do to show you them? You still have not answered many questions, and have not at all responded when shown you are in error. You just ignore anything favourable, which in this case means you ignore the whole case.

Why would anyone respond to any of your requests, when you have so many asked of you backed up?

 

[Vixen]

I also think this is where the US consulate should have been more active, they should have ensured their citizen was not deprived of access to counsel.

Possibly, because it never happened.

 

[zotz]

Once he was arrested they would have to read him his rights, only at that point.

In England you can be brought in "for questioning" for up to 24 hours without charge, 48 hours for serious crimes like murder. The duty solicitors only come in once you are under arrest. A friend of mine was on call 24/7 for this purpose.

So you can be dragged out of your home in handcuffs, kicked and beaten, and thrown into a cell with only snarling police for company. But it is OK because you are not under arrest and therefore you have no need for an attorney because you are just being detained for questioning. As long as you don't call it being "under arrest" then your rights are not being violated.

My, how convenient!

 

[Vixen]

There is no dispute about the deprivation of access to a lawyer. Mignini officially authorised the denial of access, (as he was required to). This is officially documented. I think this was a tactical error by him. Had he allowed the spontaneous declaration would be more convincing, but since he officially continued to refuse access to a lawyer for a further two days (during which Knox produced her written 'clarifications'), his turning up at the police station in the early hours to obtain a spontaneous declaration can be seen as part of a deliberate and continued policy to restrict access to counsel.

Nota Bene: "Spontaneous declaration" is the Italian translation, and means the same, as "voluntary witness statement".

Amanda voluntarily wrote the email home, made the claim Patrick was the murderer/rapist of Mez and wrote yet a second one, cramming it determinedly into the cop's hand, calling it "a present" (the same cop who purportedly slapped her around). These were not presented as evidence in court, except in the context of Patrick's civil claim.

Amanda then requested a session with PM Mignini, in a further attempt to dig herself out of an ever deeper hole.

Drop the fantasy, "the cops beat me up and made me do it."

 

[Vixen]

Others have already pointed out that Amanda apologized for dragging into it but it is really not her fault. It is the fault of corrupt Italian police officers more interested in closing a case than actually solving a crime. Then, once they get there, they cannot admit they made a mistake.

There are plenty of similar cases in that respect. Have you ever heard of Charles Erickson or Ryan Ferguson? The Norfolk Four? In each case, false confessions were obtained and then used to arrest others.

There is nothing new with this case and plenty of other cases have similarities.

Blaming it on the police is no apology at all.

The police released Patrick as soon as they realised Amanda framed him.

When will she take responsibilty for her own actions?

 

[Desert Fox]

Drop the fantasy, "the cops beat me up and made me do it."

Eric C. Wilson, on of the Norfolk Four, in his trial, when asked about his confession, stated that under the interrogation of Detective Glenn Ford, that if he was asked if he murdered President John F. Kennedy that he would have told the cops that he handed Oswald the gun.

 

[Desert Fox]

Blaming it on the police is no apology at all.

The police released Patrick as soon as they realised Amanda framed him.
When will she take responsibilty for her own actions?

That is incorrect, they actually did not accept the multiple witnesses who put him in the bar at the time and if fact tried to prevent witnesses from testifying in hius favor. They tried to argue that the witnesses were unconvincing as well.

 

[Vixen]

So you can be dragged out of your home in handcuffs, kicked and beaten, and thrown into a cell with only snarling police for company. But it is OK because you are not under arrest and therefore you have no need for an attorney because you are just being detained for questioning. As long as you don't call it being "under arrest" then your rights are not being violated.

My, how convenient!

That's right. If some malicious felon claims to have witnessed you raping and murdering (or planting a terrorist bomb), then you are likely to be handcuffed and detained at a police station for questioning.

The police are under a code of conduct. Beating up a suspect will see them disciplined and charged with assault.

Neither Patrick, nor Raff, and not even Amanda, lodged a complaint about police brutality.

 

[LondonJohn]

That's right. If some malicious felon claims to have witnessed you raping and murdering (or planting a terrorist bomb), then you are likely to be handcuffed and detained at a police station for questioning.

The police are under a code of conduct. Beating up a suspect will see them disciplined and charged with assault.

Neither Patrick, nor Raff, and not even Amanda, lodged a complaint about police brutality.

And in England, this is impossible without the person actually being arrested first. Therefore you have the right to legal assistance from the moment the handcuffs are slapped upon you.

Do you know nothing about this issue?

 

[Grinder]

Indeed, I have not yet read the article. Nor have I read the specific in-court statements that the article is based on. However, have you considered the possibility the media account may be a distortion (not necessarily intentional) of what was said in court? Have you checked your media source against court documents? Even relatively reliable media may make reporting errors.

I gave Madison's 53 hours etc. and you questioned whether she misunderstood, the lawyers didn't say it or some other tripe. My original point being that the GD had made this claim not necessarily in court.

So I go and find TWO reports one the Guardian and the other the Seattle PI and you now want court records, which in this case would mean the transcript which I've never seen.

I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the GD was pushing this meme or factoid for years and before the first verdict.

 

[Vixen]

Eric C. Wilson, on of the Norfolk Four, in his trial, when asked about his confession, stated that under the interrogation of Detective Glenn Ford, that if he was asked if he murdered President John F. Kennedy that he would have told the cops that he handed Oswald the gun.

Political crimes, such as assassinations and terrorism are not really analogous to homicide investigations. Different procedures apply. Look at the Guildford Four, police arrested and charged any old Sinn Fein activists, as British Army personnel were involved.

There was no political reason to nail Amanda.

 

[Vixen]

And in England, this is impossible without the person actually being arrested first. Therefore you have the right to legal assistance from the moment the handcuffs are slapped upon you.

Do you know nothing about this issue?

They can handcuff anyone they feel needs restraining.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Wow, this is still going on?

It's been like 4 months since the definitive verdict of absolute innocence

Amanda is happily celebrating her birthday, living a productive life, not to mention the few millions book deal.

4 months and the guilters still drone about their imaginary sleazy satanic murder fantasies?

Wake up and smell the coffee, ppl
You're not going to be sore losers for the rest of your life, are you?

 

[LondonJohn]

Once he was arrested they would have to read him his rights, only at that point.

In England you can be brought in "for questioning" for up to 24 hours without charge, 48 hours for serious crimes like murder. The duty solicitors only come in once you are under arrest. A friend of mine was on call 24/7 for this purpose.

You're so hopelessly wrong on this.

If the police in England suspect you of a crime, they are required to do one of two things: 1) Interview you under caution (which gives you the right to remain silent and the right to legal counsel) without arresting you, or 2) Arrest you and interview you under arrest (which also gives you the right to remain silent and the right to legal counsel). If the latter, then the police have up to 24 hours to detain you (whether in a single block or cumulative separate blocks of detainment), or to apply for extensions under certain circumstances. At the end of the maximum allowed period, the suspect must be charged or released.

If someone is taken to a police station in England for questioning as a suspect of a criminal act, that person is required in law to have been arrested and cautioned, and to have the right to silence and the right to a solicitor. Right from the very start.

I get the horrible feeling that you are confusing "arrest" and "charge" - which would be a very embarrassing mix-up to make.

 

[Desert Fox]

Political crimes, such as assassinations and terrorism are not really analogous to homicide investigations. Different procedures apply. Look at the Guildford Four, police arrested and charged any old Sinn Fein activists, as British Army personnel were involved.

There was no political reason to nail Amanda.

Crash and burn on your part. . . .You might actually want to read up on the Norfolk Four
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norfolk_Four

The issue is that he would have confessed to anything after the interrogation and he was more seasoned than Amanda.

 

[Vixen]

That is incorrect, they actually did not accept the multiple witnesses who put him in the bar at the time and if fact tried to prevent witnesses from testifying in hius favor. They tried to argue that the witnesses were unconvincing as well.

IMV That's more to do with Amanda's voluntary statement having "the ring of truth" about it: the scream, the "blurry flashing images", the emotional agitation.

It was only on identifying Rudy's DNA, it became apparent Patrick was simply substituted for Rudy, to throw police off the scent.

 

[LondonJohn]

They can handcuff anyone they feel needs restraining.

Jesus. You wrote: "you are likely to be handcuffed and detained at a police station for questioning." Are you now pretending you didn't write the second part of that sentence? Pathetic.

 

[Antony]

That's right. If some malicious felon claims to have witnessed you raping and murdering (or planting a terrorist bomb), then you are likely to be handcuffed and detained at a police station for questioning.

... and in Patrick's case, denied a lawyer.

The police are under a code of conduct. Beating up a suspect will see them disciplined and charged with assault.

Not in Italy. All they need do is wipe the videotape and deny everything. Then issue charges against the suspect if s/he says anything.

Vixen, you must understand that a "code of conduct" implies safeguards which did not exist in Amanda's case. Are you really unable to understand this is or are you putting on an act?

 

[Vixen]

You're so hopelessly wrong on this.

If the police in England suspect you of a crime, they are required to do one of two things: 1) Interview you under caution (which gives you the right to remain silent and the right to legal counsel) without arresting you, or 2) Arrest you and interview you under arrest (which also gives you the right to remain silent and the right to legal counsel). If the latter, then the police have up to 24 hours to detain you (whether in a single block or cumulative separate blocks of detainment), or to apply for extensions under certain circumstances. At the end of the maximum allowed period, the suspect must be charged or released.

If someone is taken to a police station in England for questioning as a suspect of a criminal act, that person is required in law to have been arrested and cautioned, and to have the right to silence and the right to a solicitor. Right from the very start.

I get the horrible feeling that you are confusing "arrest" and "charge" - which would be a very embarrassing mix-up to make.

The police have the catch all phrase, say someone looks like they are going to bolt, of "I am arresting you under suspicion".

Quite often people make an appointment to turn up at the police station at a given time.

However, should you decide off your own bat to walk in and give a statement, the police have no obligation to refuse to take it.

ETA You might have a right to legal counsel whilst not charged, but the onus is on you to arrange it.

 

[Grinder]

Of course she's not going to mention her partner in crime, any more than he mentioned his. Once Amanda & Raff made a pact to shift all blame on Rudy, that's when Rudy began shifting blame onto them.

Buckled is not an Italian word. They probably meant she was unable to keep up her facade of innocence, so became hysterical and blamed Patrick.

Amanda according to you cleaned up but left evidence of Rudi on purpose. If she did, why if not to have him caught?

I would love a transcript of the press conference or a video and have one of the ace translators let us know what was said. The term buckled was widely reported by the English and American press.

At least you admit how egregious that remark was and that it clearly indicates that they abused her and prompted her to finger Patrick. Thanks!