Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

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



You do not know what you are talking about on this issue.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Can you find a case where there are three people involved in a murder where one is suppose to have confessed to a crime and then implicates a completely innocent person while not implicating those actually involved?

There are cases where under police coaching where a guilty party, while working alone, might implicate somebody fed to them by the police but even there I can only think of one. That one is Charles Boney.
 
Vixen said:
If Amanda is going to lie about not having any food or water or comfort breaks, and brutally intimidated by hourly tag teams over 53 hours, I bet she's also lying about anything she can think of to gain public sympathy.

I do not believe a single word Amanda says. She, Raff and Rudy are master liars, enjoying the rumpus.
Click to expand...

Takes one to know one, right? Could you give two cites by credible sources for AK saying she was "brutally intimidated by hourly tag teams over 53 hours"

Thanks in advance
 
Grinder said:
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.
Click to expand...

So we are all agreed it is a lie.
 
Grinder said:
Takes one to know one, right? Could you give two cites by credible sources for AK saying she was "brutally intimidated by hourly tag teams over 53 hours"

Thanks in advance
Click to expand...

To be clear though, she was treated roughly . . . .You agree?
 
Kauffer said:
Back on this? You had no citation before and you have no citation now. Why must you continue to lie about Amanda making this claim?

The question posed to you was about Amanda not being permitted to consult with a lawyer for two days. This is a matter of fact, not claim. You ignored it. But what else can you do? You ignore evidence and make stuff up in your posts.
Click to expand...

Really? Did she ask for one? IIRC she insisted she did not need a lawyer.
 
Numbers said:
I have now read both media articles and I disagree with your analysis as presented in your posts.

Neither article directly quotes the lawyer's reference to the police contact hours and questioning in closing remarks. Thus there are two issues: 1) the potential for rhetorical effects, including some hyperbole, in the closing remarks and 2) the potential that the media reports have abridged or distorted (without malicious intent) the lawyer's statements. I suggest that rhetorical effects are traditional in lawyer's closing arguments, certainly in the US, and probably more so in Italy.

Thus, I do not consider that the statements as reported in the media necessarily reflect the most accurate and precise rendering of the content of the defense arguments. In fact, to my (limited) knowledge, there is no document stating how much time Amanda actually was questioned and/or interrogated as a proportion of her total police contact time. If you are aware of such a document, please cite it.

In terms of the media articles you have cited, both contain either inaccuracies or lacunae which lead me to question their total commitment to accuracy and precision required to fully understand the legal situation at the time, which was the at or about the end of the first-instance trial in December, 2009. Here are some inaccuracies that misrepresent the situation and would mislead the uninformed reader:

1. The Guardian refers to 2 judges a jury of 6 in this case. That is misleading. The Italian system, as applied to this case, provided for a judicial panel of 2 professional (career) judges and 6 lay judges. There was no jury as in the US or UK sense. The only qualification of the 6 lay judges for a first-instance trial, AFAIK, is that the must be Italian citizens and have completed elementary education. The lay judges are not interviewed prior to trial with an intent to eliminate any biased individual, nor are they forbidden from using or viewing non-trial information about the case. The lay judges and the professional judges together render judgment by a majority vote.

2. The Seattle article was somewhat incomplete in stating that Amanda's parents were the target of a defamation suit by police for repeating Amanda's statements that she had been mistreated to a UK reporter (Follian, IIRC). What is more significant, and is omitted from the article, is that Amanda was charged with a serious crime, calunnia, for stating in open court that she had been mistreated by the police. In fact, the series of trials in Italy for this alleged offense is continuing to this day. The point is that Amanda was prosecuted for making a complaint in court of mistreatment by the police; however, the proper course of action for the Italian authorities, according to the European Convention on Human Rights and ECHR case-law, would have been to launch an independent and thorough investigation of her claims of mistreatment. I find this failure of completeness a serious defect of the article, since the lack of such information denies the reader a fuller understanding of some of the peculiarities of the Italian judicial system compared to the US system.

Furthermore, since the hyperbole in the closing statements occurred at the approximate end of the trial, while the misconduct of the authorities, including the forensic malpractice or fraud by Stefanoni, occurred early in the case (in 2007 - 2008), I fail to see the relevance of the hyperbole, if it was in the closing statements, to the actions of the authorities. I do believe you are in your posts blaming the victims and their defense teams for the prior actions and misconduct of the Italian authorities.
Click to expand...

Face it you didn't know they were saying it and they were. It is ridiculous to doubt the report because they referred to the 6 lay judges as jurors which essentially they were.

The fact that the PI story didn't include every charge doesn't bring the report of the lawyer's remark to question.

The GD was pushing this factoid and that's a fact.

If I produced the transcript, you'd question the court reporter.
 
Grinder said:
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!
Click to expand...

She was not so dumb as to name Rudy, as that would really put her at the scene of the crime. How else would she know it's Rudy?
 
Vixen said:
She was not so dumb as to name Rudy, as that would really put her at the scene of the crime. How else would she know it's Rudy?
Click to expand...

Can you cite anything of substance entered at any of the trials which suggest that Amanda was a criminal mastermind? I'm not talking about the continual evidenceless assertions....
 
Vixen said:
She was not so dumb as to name Rudy, as that would really put her at the scene of the crime. How else would she know it's Rudy?
Click to expand...

You said she was dumb just a few posts ago, oh well. Well she could have said what I told you yesterday. She could have said that Meredith had told her Rudi was coming over for sex but she had held back the information because she didn't want to damage her reputation or that she knew Rudi and was sure he hadn't done it. Or she could have just kept maintaining her innocence and that she hadn't met Patrick that night and he would confirm it but there was another black man that knew Meredith.

But saying she was there and that someone she knew wasn't there killed MK and couldn't have left any evidence was way smarter.
 
Vixen said:
Really? Did she ask for one? IIRC she insisted she did not need a lawyer.
Click to expand...

You understand nothing. She gets a lawyer. She does not have to ask for one, though in this case she was told it would be worse for her if she did.

For a valid waiver to operate, certain conditions must exist. They did not here.

She was denied a lawyer for two days and had no opportunity to prepare for the Matteini hearing. Gross violations of Article 6.

But go ahead and make an attempt to argue why she was not entitled to a lawyer, if you dare. But try not to suggest that she needed to ask for one and didn't and so it's ok. That would be silly.
 
Vixen said:
Really? Did she ask for one? IIRC she insisted she did not need a lawyer.
Click to expand...

You remember wrong. She was told if she asked for a lawyer she'd be in prison for thirty years.

Why are you relying on your memory? Were you there?
 
Kauffer said:
You understand nothing. She gets a lawyer. She does not have to ask for one, though in this case she was told it would be worse for her if she did. For a valid waiver to operate, certain conditions must exist. They did not here.

She was denied a lawyer for two days and had no opportunity to prepare for the Matteini hearing. Gross violations of Article 6.

But go ahead and make an attempt to argue why she was not entitled to a lawyer, if you dare. But try not to suggest that she needed to ask for one and didn't and so it's ok. That would be silly.
Click to expand...

So Amanda says, to explain away her own crass arrogant recklessness.
 
Vixen said:
Er, Steve Moore & Jim Clemente. Go back a few pages.
Click to expand...

Err they aren't AK and they aren't above hyperbole as I pointed out in the past.

They were on the right side so Bill says it doesn't matter.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

How is anyone going to know about it? Since everyone will simply assume that the suspect is lying and he/she will get additional charges brought against him/her for making an accusation. What a wonderful system the Italians have! The abuse victims are punished for complaining about their abuse. The police refused to allow Patrick to reopen his bar after his release in retaliation for his filing a civil suit against them and also for the Daily Mail article. And it cannot even be considered a complaint unless the proper procedures are followed even when you claim the abuse in open court. Do you know how the fascists got their reputation?

Hint: It wasn't for respecting human rights.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom