Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

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.

Hence the allegations of misconduct on their part at the all night interrogation.

 

[Kestrel]

Implying that asking for a lawyer will make it worse for the suspect is a classic tactic by investigators looking to extract a confession.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

Huh?

It would have been better if you'd taken it to PM. Please take these issues to PM.

 

[Numbers]

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.

Since the Guardian and Seattle PI report these statements were in the closings, try:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-transcripts/

where the closings of Nov. 28 - Dec. 2, 2009 are given in Italian. Rebuttals were presented Dec. 3. By the way, if the prosecution didn't consider the defense statements sufficiently factual, they could counter them in rebuttal, and similarly the I think the defense could rebut the prosecution (not sure of that).

I have not read or attempted to Google translate these closing statements or rebuttals.

Why are you mentioning Madison's statements? Her role in the trial was as a character witness for Amanda, and Madison was not present in Italy Nov. 2 - 8. Her comments would be hearsay and not from a legal representative.

Sorry, my limited command of acronyms does not include the "GD". Please define.

 

[Kestrel]

In Italy it is a crime to allege abuse by the police. The police understand that as long as the abuse happens in an interview room when no recording is being made, it will be their word against a suspect. The courts can be counted on to support the police.

 

[Vixen]

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.

The Italians weren't the only Fascists? That's something in common with Germans and Japanese?

 

[Vixen]

Implying that asking for a lawyer will make it worse for the suspect is a classic tactic by investigators looking to extract a confession.

Amanda was not a suspect until she confessed to witnessing Mez' murder.

 

[Grinder]

Since the Guardian and Seattle PI report these statements were in the closings, try:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-transcripts/

where the closings of Nov. 28 - Dec. 2, 2009 are given in Italian. Rebuttals were presented Dec. 3. By the way, if the prosecution didn't consider the defense statements sufficiently factual, they could counter them in rebuttal, and similarly the I think the defense could rebut the prosecution (not sure of that).

I have not read or attempted to Google translate these closing statements or rebuttals.

Why are you mentioning Madison's statements? Her role in the trial was as a character witness for Amanda, and Madison was not present in Italy Nov. 2 - 8. Her comments would be hearsay and not from a legal representative.

Sorry, my limited command of acronyms does not include the "GD". Please define.

Numbers are you following this? The point was what was being said by the GD (greater defense - including both legal and PR) was an exaggeration. Madison was part of this.

So what if it was hearsay, as you put it? Are you sure there wasn't a hearsay exemption?

I must necessarily return to the subject of the dates of the times of the interrogations of Knox, we have prepared this summary, is a bit 'difficult for me to face this topic because I do not want to fall into the easy juxtaposition of places ... the attempt to discriminate or attempt to use this reason, this method of defense as defined in the first hearing seems to me, the typical method of defense that takes no arguments is to attack the investigators and denigrate them, we do not do this, as I was told yesterday in a timely manner it connects the Sollecito defense ... I want you to do the assessments but not on the people you need to assess what has happened and this is a fact, I have collected with the help of collaborators all that is the story of Amanda on days 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 November and we picked up according to the timetables and the SIT that there are because there are however some are SIT Opening there never closing time and we can see how the first day of 12 hours was available, the 3 is available 8 hours, 4 was available ... it was Sunday, the 4 is when he returns home he feels bad, that this almost fainting becomes pale, there is a witness who says, another 12 hours and this phone call with her cousin Dorothy is that she says the morning of 5 when he was going to 'universities "I last night I finished at nine o'clock" and the first phone with Dorothy always refers to the day on Sunday 4 says: "I have to go to the police" were 9:00 in the morning, was the day of the 4 available again and then begin on 5 and 6 at ten o'clock on the night of 5, an interrogation which then ends the next morning, I calculated 53 hours and 45 minutes in 5 days, 53 hours and was heard 45 minutes.

Please go back to the start of this and you should understand that Madison's remarks were exactly what I was talking about when challenged.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Leopold & Loeb blamed each other. Susan Smith had a Bushy Haired Stranger, Tracey Andrews gave a detailed description of a "road rage" driver and his car, Jodi Arias blamed a pair of intruders wearing ski masks, Mary Bell saw a little boy covered in grass and speedwell, rather like the condition in which she left her victim.

It does appear to be a childishly impulsive act to conjure up a boogie-man what did it.

 

[Grinder]

Oh oh I almost forgot that Vixen was going to give at least one example of a murder knife that tested negative for blood but positive for the victims DNA.

Still waiting.

But by now there should be a wealth of articles written about <Dr. Steffi's groundbreaking work. I'm surprised she hasn't been awarded a Nobel prize.

 

[Desert Fox]

Leopold & Loeb blamed each other. Susan Smith had a Bushy Haired Stranger, Tracey Andrews gave a detailed description of a "road rage" driver and his car, Jodi Arias blamed a pair of intruders wearing ski masks, Mary Bell saw a little boy covered in grass and speedwell, rather like the condition in which she left her victim.

It does appear to be a childishly impulsive act to conjure up a boogie-man what did it.

With Leopold & Loeb, they blamed the other guilty party.
All of the others blamed unnamed individuals.
None of them had a third accomplice they could readily blame.
Want to try again?

 

[Desert Fox]

Amanda was not a suspect until she confessed to witnessing Mez' murder.

She was a suspect from the moment the body was found

 

[Kestrel]

Amanda was not a suspect until she confessed to witnessing Mez' murder.

If Amanda was not a suspect, why were they tapping her phone?

 

[Numbers]

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.

1. The whole topic of apparently exaggerated reports of the number of hours Amanda was questioned is of no legal or practical relevance, except as it might relate to the police misconduct of Nov. 5/6 or afterwards. Sincerely, I cannot understand your point in this discussion. Amanda to my knowledge never said she was questioned for 53 hours; the police records show she was in police contact for 53 hours; the questioning would necessarily be fewer hours than that. Why don't you supply the number of hours you think it was? Maybe another poster here can help you on that, I can't, because I don't know how many hours she was questioned.

2. I am uninterested in "factoids" as generated by either side of the case. I am interested in the facts and the laws, including not only Italian procedural and criminal laws that may apply, but even more so the Convention and ECHR case-law. You are entitled to your interest in "factoids" if that is what you wish to be interested in.

3. Just as in a witness found out to be not telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, the misstatements or lacunae in a media report may be significant. If one important detail is misreported, others may be as well. In my opinion, calling the lay judges a "jury" is a gross misrepresentation. The actual function of those lay judges should be reported so that readers in countries where there really are juries can appreciate the characteristics of the Italian judicial panel in the trial of a murder case or major crime case. Leaving out the fact that Amanda was charged with a very serious crime, calunnia, punishable by up to 6 years imprisonment IIUC, for claiming in court that she had been mistreated by police, is a significant omission. (The charge is actually continuous aggravated calunnia; her conviction for the false statements regarding Lumumba is only for the charge of "simple" calunnia, with no aggravating factors.)

4. This is a skeptics' forum, so questioning the accuracy of reporting of information should be important. In scientific work, for example, every step of the recording of data must be viewed with educated skepticism.

 

[Vixen]

With Leopold & Loeb, they blamed the other guilty party.
All of the others blamed unnamed individuals.
None of them had a third accomplice they could readily blame.
Want to try again?

It obviously happens, otherwise Italy would not have a crime specifically against providing false testimony that sends someone to jail.

There was a supposed group murder in Iceland. One of the women claimed she heard the voice of another guy outside her window the murder night and he and she were arrested.

After a long campaign, they were all exonerated, but police are not looking for anybody else.

 

[Grinder]

4. This is a skeptics' forum, so questioning the accuracy of reporting of information should be important. In scientific work, for example, every step of the recording of data must be viewed with educated skepticism.

Well since the GD exaggerated the number of hours it should be important.

The reporters seem to line up with the Google translation of the closing statement.

You of course can take any subject brought up and state that it doesn't impact ECHR cases but please don't think that only issues that interest you are allowed here.

I put forward that certain exaggerations made by the GD might have hurt them. One of those exaggerations was the number of hours AK was interrogated.

At every turn I've produced sourced facts so if it doesn't interest you then just ignore it.

 

[Numbers]

Numbers are you following this? The point was what was being said by the GD (greater defense - including both legal and PR) was an exaggeration. Madison was part of this.

So what if it was hearsay, as you put it? Are you sure there wasn't a hearsay exemption?

I must necessarily return to the subject of the dates of the times of the interrogations of Knox, we have prepared this summary, is a bit 'difficult for me to face this topic because I do not want to fall into the easy juxtaposition of places ... the attempt to discriminate or attempt to use this reason, this method of defense as defined in the first hearing seems to me, the typical method of defense that takes no arguments is to attack the investigators and denigrate them, we do not do this, as I was told yesterday in a timely manner it connects the Sollecito defense ... I want you to do the assessments but not on the people you need to assess what has happened and this is a fact, I have collected with the help of collaborators all that is the story of Amanda on days 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 November and we picked up according to the timetables and the SIT that there are because there are however some are SIT Opening there never closing time and we can see how the first day of 12 hours was available, the 3 is available 8 hours, 4 was available ... it was Sunday, the 4 is when he returns home he feels bad, that this almost fainting becomes pale, there is a witness who says, another 12 hours and this phone call with her cousin Dorothy is that she says the morning of 5 when he was going to 'universities "I last night I finished at nine o'clock" and the first phone with Dorothy always refers to the day on Sunday 4 says: "I have to go to the police" were 9:00 in the morning, was the day of the 4 available again and then begin on 5 and 6 at ten o'clock on the night of 5, an interrogation which then ends the next morning, I calculated 53 hours and 45 minutes in 5 days, 53 hours and was heard 45 minutes.

Please go back to the start of this and you should understand that Madison's remarks were exactly what I was talking about when challenged.

If you read this italicized statement carefully (and I am presuming it came from one of the lawyers) it notes that the witness statements had opening (start) times but not closing times, so that calculation is not of actual interrogation or questioning times, but of "available" time that Amanda was in police contact.

You are creating your own factoid to attack. Only the lawyers' statements in court are the defense. The statements to the public, especially by family and friends, are not the defense in a legal sense, and they may or may not be accurate in a legal sense. That is generally true in any legal case; what people, even the lawyers, say outside of court, should be taken with some caution. In this case, there was confusion (whether or not intentional is unimportant to me) by some outside of court between "available time" and "time under questioning". If the "civilians" got these technical details wrong, I consider no more noteworthy than if I tried to explain the Higgs boson to somebody and got some (or most) of the details wrong.

 

[Bill Williams]

1. The whole topic of apparently exaggerated reports of the number of hours Amanda was questioned is of no legal or practical relevance, except as it might relate to the police misconduct of Nov. 5/6 or afterwards. Sincerely, I cannot understand your point in this discussion. Amanda to my knowledge never said she was questioned for 53 hours; the police records show she was in police contact for 53 hours; the questioning would necessarily be fewer hours than that. Why don't you supply the number of hours you think it was? Maybe another poster here can help you on that, I can't, because I don't know how many hours she was questioned.

2. I am uninterested in "factoids" as generated by either side of the case. I am interested in the facts and the laws, including not only Italian procedural and criminal laws that may apply, but even more so the Convention and ECHR case-law. You are entitled to your interest in "factoids" if that is what you wish to be interested in.

3. Just as in a witness found out to be not telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, the misstatements or lacunae in a media report may be significant. If one important detail is misreported, others may be as well. In my opinion, calling the lay judges a "jury" is a gross misrepresentation. The actual function of those lay judges should be reported so that readers in countries where there really are juries can appreciate the characteristics of the Italian judicial panel in the trial of a murder case or major crime case. Leaving out the fact that Amanda was charged with a very serious crime, calunnia, punishable by up to 6 years imprisonment IIUC, for claiming in court that she had been mistreated by police, is a significant omission. (The charge is actually continuous aggravated calunnia; her conviction for the false statements regarding Lumumba is only for the charge of "simple" calunnia, with no aggravating factors.)

4. This is a skeptics' forum, so questioning the accuracy of reporting of information should be important. In scientific work, for example, every step of the recording of data must be viewed with educated skepticism.

You are creating your own factoid to attack. Only the lawyers' statements in court are the defense. The statements to the public, especially by family and friends, are not the defense in a legal sense, and they may or may not be accurate in a legal sense. That is generally true in any legal case; what people, even the lawyers, say outside of court, should be taken with some caution. In this case, there was confusion (whether or not intentional is unimportant to me) by some outside of court between "available time" and "time under questioning". If the "civilians" got these technical details wrong, I consider no more noteworthy than if I tried to explain the Higgs boson to somebody and got some (or most) of the details wrong.

You've said it better than me. It's a style of argumentation that I don't get.

I had invited Grinder to answer one of his own questions, a hypothetical he put to me. It may have helped me understand the bee in his bonnet. The line of argument seems to be implying that if Amanda (and by extension, Raffaele) had simply turned over their defence to him in 2008-2009, they would have been acquitted in Dec 2009, rather than waiting 7 1/2 years for what many, myself included, regarded as inevitable.

The reason why it took so long was not because the defence in Perugia did not listen to an American poster to a skeptic service, or because Madison Paxton got a fact wrong.....

...... it took so long because the prosecution offered nothing but judicially generated assertions, and withheld evidence - and at least two, maybe three courts let them get away with it.

Behind the scenes was as Hellmann said (and Machiavelli here in these threads implied) a judicial internecine war within Italy between a "party of the PMs" and the so called party Hellmann was supposed to represent. It had nothing to do with Madison saying 53 when perhaps she should have said 32 - and Amanda said nothing!

It's a style of argumentation here I do not get, elevating (what are at the end of the day) virtual trivialities and inviting speculation on what-ifs that he himself will not answer.

I truly do not get it.

 

[Numbers]

Well since the GD exaggerated the number of hours it should be important.

The reporters seem to line up with the Google translation of the closing statement.

You of course can take any subject brought up and state that it doesn't impact ECHR cases but please don't think that only issues that interest you are allowed here.
I put forward that certain exaggerations made by the GD might have hurt them. One of those exaggerations was the number of hours AK was interrogated.

At every turn I've produced sourced facts so if it doesn't interest you then just ignore it.

1. Do you feel somehow that my comments affect what is allowed in the thread? I assure I do not exercise, or seek to exercise, any such veto.

2. I fail to see how the statements, which in court according to your post, mentioned "available time", hurt the defense. They were already screwed over by the official misconduct, forensic malpractice & fraud, and Massei's misapplication of law (denial of defense requests for evidence, for example) which infringed equality of arms. The exposure of the judicial panel to Amanda's coerced false statements, through the criminal calunnia case and through Lumumba's civil case, would, IMO, be considered such a severe denial of fairness that the provisional murder conviction verdict would need to be considered a violation of Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3c and 6.3e, if it were a final verdict, by the ECHR. I am confident the ECHR will find such a violation for Amanda's calunnia conviction when that application percolates through the ECHR backlog of pending cases.

 

[zotz]

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?

I understand now. The proof that Amanda was at the scene of the crime was that she didn't accuse Rudy. Why? ...because Rudy would put her at the scene of crime. Since we know that Rudy was at the scene of the crime Amanda would have had to be at the scene of the crime in order to know not to name him. So, in order to avoid being placed at the scene of the crime Amanda cleverly stated that she was at the scene of the crime except that Rudy was not there. By saying this she is really saying that she was not at the scene of the crime because if she had been at the scene of the crime she would have accused Rudy of being at the scene of the crime, which, being the clever liar that she is, she didn't do.

Have I got it?