Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Ken Dine]

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.

Uh, OK, but why not type "greater defense (GD)" at least once to give other posters here a head's up as to what your acronym even refers to?

I often feel that you behave like a SBT.

Now, if I was positive what "PR" meant, then all would be good? Possibly, "Public Relations," but that isn't absolutely clear by its context?

So then, "GD" (Greater Defense) means anything said or written about the case, including all legal arguments, official court filings and media reports in support of Amanda & Raffaele?

That is indeed a very powerful acronym!

IMHO, GD I A C O $

 

[Bill Williams]

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?

.... not quite.

By placing herself at the scene of the crime she is actually arguing for her innocence, so she's a liar. And because of being a liar, the PLE and Mignini believe her and rush off to arrest Lumumba. Because she's a liar. And an actress.

 

[RWVBWL]

Uh, OK, but why not type "greater defense (GD)" at least once to give other posters here a head's up as to what your acronym even refers to?
<snip>

Weird for me to defend a legend like The Grinder,
but Ken Dine, he wrote this a few pages back at 11:00am L.A. time this mornin'...

The GD (greater defense) in and out of court exaggerated things and I don't believe it helped their cause. I think they helped back the PLE/ILE against the wall and made it even harder for them to back down and may have stimulated some of the extra "work" they performed.

I think that he plans on usin' it often.

 

[RWVBWL]

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?

Wow, great post Zotz!
Though Billy Williams disagrees, I think that you nailed it!

 

[Ken Dine]

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?

You must, because my head hurts!

 

[acbytesla]

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?

I wish most of V's posts made that much sense.

 

[Planigale]

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 do not seem to know your rights, You cannot be detained without being arrested. These are your rights if detained / questioned.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/332266/CodeC-NoRE.pdf
Note
The police must let you talk to a solicitor at any time, day or night, when you are at a police station.
If you have asked for legal advice the police are usually not allowed to ask you questions until you have had the chance to talk to a solicitor. When the police ask you questions you can ask for a solicitor to be in the room with you.

Charging is something hat happens after arrest, detention and questioning if the police / CPS decide they have sufficient evidence to bring a case.

You do not have to be arrested to be interviewed under caution. This may occur (and often does) by appointment.

 

[Planigale]

Possibly, because it never happened.

Vixen. There is no doubt about this Mignini officially made the decision to refuse access to a lawyer for Knox / Sollecito. I do not know about Lumumba. There is no dispute about this, the police / authorities accept this. This was apparently allowable under Italian law for the PM to do. I think ECHR will take a differing view.

 

[Kauffer]

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

So, according to you, before she signed any statements. So, she gets a lawyer.

But, actually, she was a suspect much earlier - on the 2nd. This is confirmed in testimony by Ficarra and, elsewhere by Mignini. They were also tapping her phones by the 3rd.

Your statement is wrong.

 

[Kauffer]

These are the PR agents speaking on her behalf. Moore secured an ABC News (?) slot on the strength of "I'm ex-FBI, and I affirm Amanda was tortured".

Citations for all your claims please.

And in particular, for your original one, which was about what Amanda claimed.

Need to be reminded about this, or can you remember on your own?

 

[Planigale]

So, according to you, before she signed any statements. So, she gets a lawyer.

But, actually, she was a suspect much earlier - on the 2nd. This is confirmed in testimony by Ficarra and, elsewhere by Mignini. They were also tapping her phones by the 3rd.

Your statement is wrong.

There are a series of escalating points at which Knox should have become an official suspect and according to Italian law had to have had a lawyer (and cannot refuse to have one).
1) Withdrawal of 'alibi' by Sollecito. 2) When they informed Knox that Sollecito had withdrawn his alibi. 3) When they told Knox they had evidence she was there at the time. 4) When she broke and admitted to her presence. I think that the ECHR will take the view that once the police began questioning her after 1) and telling her that she had no alibi and they know she was there she was de facto a suspect and entitled to the rights thereof. That is prior to her admission.

 

[Antony]

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

Really? Then what is all this talk about "suspicious behaviour" leading up to the all-night interrogation session? Buying underwear, kissing her boyfriend, eating pizza, allegedly knowing details about the murder.

You guilters try to have it both ways. 4 days of piling suspicion on herself, but - oh no - taking the police completely by surprise with her "voluntary" statements on 5-6 November.

And what did the police do after she allegedly came up with her confession/accusation, thus becoming unequivocally a suspect? Why, they typed it up for her (in Italian) and demanded she sign it. All still without a lawyer, video recording, or advising her of her rights. Isn't that true?

 

[Strozzi]

thats it in one sentence.
it sums up the guilters party ability to think deeper.
they dont have the ability to think past the Daily Mail level thinking. so the same arguments remain, stuck in time, at the Matteini level courts of hearsay 2007-8. they dont have the ability it seems, to go past the Edgardo Giobbi mental-esp-gut instinct approach to solving crimes, and instead ignore DNA and forensics. its like re-reading 2007-2008 over and over.
but its running out of gas, the cancellation of the hate sites and dropping numbers 100 to 83...to 67 peaks..proves this.

the ISC report is awaited but I'll guess it will be short and basically say it was a mistake all along, and in hindsight stupid. an embarrassment for the system report wont accomplish anything.

moving on.....
Migninni will continue to wasted taxpayer money and be a ignorant employee whose not too good at his job etc..etc.. Edgardo Giobbi will continue to use Gut-Instinct like a medieval inquisitor and maybe leave the Amanda picture on the wall at the SCS.... Rudy will walk with a free college degree and maybe a book deal...etc..etc..the product of the Italian System in this long drawn out life ruining case.

I wonder if someone will at least change a law, so its mandatory recording of interrogations in murder cases. If nothing else comes from this case, that would be a good improvement. I give Stefonani that crumb she at least video taped the Forensic fiasco....I guess she didnt have the Budget Cuts Migninni and the Perugia pack had for recording.

I wish an Italian writer would write a magazine article to show the Italian public that there was money in the Perugia police budget to operate the police headquarters' record system in late 2007, while quoting Mignini claiming that it was not done due to budget reasons, and then contrast that hypothetical expense of recording the interrogation with the millions of Euros spent taking this case in the wrong direction. The article could list various regular or exceptional expenses incurred in trying to manufacture evidence to support Mignini's version of the case. The list would include, for example, the consulting fee paid to the head of the scientific police's fingerprint analysis unit to serve as "expert" witness to manufacture a false claim that the foot smear on the thick bathmat is Sollecito's footprint, the $170,000 spent to produce Mignini's animation of the crime; the money spent to record and screen/summarize 39,000 Sollecito-family phone calls, etc.

 

[Mr Fied]

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

I know what you mean.

How could anybody be considered normal and intelligent if all they ever do is spout lie after lie.

I mean someone would have to be some sort of sociopath to continually spout lies even after their claims have been shown to be complete lies.

Some people just like to make stuff up from nowhere to get attention I guess.

 

[Mr Fied]

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 can only be brought in "for questioning" if you have been arrested, otherwise you are free to leave.

Once arrested you have the right to a lawyer.

You can be arrested on suspicion of.......... detained and questioned and then later can be charged and held under a court order once the relevant time has passed.

You cannot be held for 24/48 hours without being arrested.

 

[Mr Fied]

You do not seem to know your rights, You cannot be detained without being arrested. These are your rights if detained / questioned.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/332266/CodeC-NoRE.pdf
Note
The police must let you talk to a solicitor at any time, day or night, when you are at a police station.
If you have asked for legal advice the police are usually not allowed to ask you questions until you have had the chance to talk to a solicitor. When the police ask you questions you can ask for a solicitor to be in the room with you.

Charging is something hat happens after arrest, detention and questioning if the police / CPS decide they have sufficient evidence to bring a case.

You do not have to be arrested to be interviewed under caution. This may occur (and often does) by appointment.

On this point.

Unless you want to do so voluntarily you have no obligation to attend.

If the police want to force the issue and get you in for questioning against your wishes then they need to execute an arrest.

 

[Strozzi]

Got it




It doesn't give them credit at all. Apparently my point is not being made or it just doesn't resonate.

The GD (greater defense) in and out of court exaggerated things and I don't believe it helped their cause. I think they helped back the PLE/ILE against the wall and made it even harder for them to back down and may have stimulated some of the extra "work" they performed.

I agree that various GD advocates exaggerated things. I cringed at times watching videos of some of the pro-defense speakers during interviews wherein I knew they were exaggerating or downright wrong. The best defense is sober precision, as you see consistently in Chris H's comments.

 

[andreajo]

I agree that various GD advocates exaggerated things. I cringed at times watching videos of some of the pro-defense speakers during interviews wherein I knew they were exaggerating or downright wrong. The best defense is sober precision, as you see consistently in Chris H's comments.

In this case there is no need for hyperbole, since the verifiable facts are bizarre enough without ornamentation.

Chris H and many others who post here and elsewhere with scrupulous research and honesty make it possible for a reader to get a fairly clear understanding of the body of evidence and the progress of the case through the courts.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen. There is no doubt about this Mignini officially made the decision to refuse access to a lawyer for Knox / Sollecito. I do not know about Lumumba. There is no dispute about this, the police / authorities accept this. This was apparently allowable under Italian law for the PM to do. I think ECHR will take a differing view.

If this was allowable under Italian law, then Mignini did nothing illegal. AFAIAA the police followed correct protocol. Personally, I consider Anna Donnino a little borderline.

 

[Vixen]

You can only be brought in "for questioning" if you have been arrested, otherwise you are free to leave.

Once arrested you have the right to a lawyer.

You can be arrested on suspicion of.......... detained and questioned and then later can be charged and held under a court order once the relevant time has passed.

You cannot be held for 24/48 hours without being arrested.

OK, fair enough. However, in Amanda's case she had not been arrested as of that point she made her confession of witnessing the murder.