Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Shall I repeat the question:

When, precisely, did Sollecito have the first chance to communicate/confer with his lawyer(s) after the time of his arrest and detention in the early hours of 6th November 2007?

As a fleshing-out of that question: when did Sollecito have a chance to communicate/confer with his lawyer(s) between his arrest/detention and his appearance before the court three days later?

As I said before, it would be better all round if you would a) read the question(s) properly, b) provide concise and unambiguous answers, and c) not address something entirely different in your answer. It is, after all, you who have repeatedly claimed that Sollecito "did confer with his lawyers" in (presumably, from the context of your assertion - give that you're trying to minimise the Migini censure as a "minor administrative error" with no real-world adverse consequences for Sollecito) an acceptable and "normal" time frame after his arrest.

So, go ahead. Have a go at actually answering the question. OR..... withdraw your claim that Sollecito had/has nothing to complain about regarding any denial of access to a lawyer on the part of Mignini. I look forward to seeing one or the other forthwith.

You can bully me all you like, "John", I can only quote what is in the news reports.

 

[Vixen]

Hopefully Mignini is allowed to do as you say.

What's your point?

The point is, it's not over until it's over.

 

[Vixen]

He did not consult with his counsel after arrest or during the interrogation as a suspect. They omitted written notice that he COULDN'T consult an attorney. How was he to contact an attorney while be held in solitary? He was held as the equivalent of a Mafia member.

Provide the transcript please.

You need to refer to Mignini's defence at the CSM who provided the police trancript of verbal instruction as evidence of no intent of non-compliance with protocol.

 

[Vixen]

You don't understand the Marasca motivations report at all. You're totally wrong.

You also still have no comprehension of the presumption of innocence and the state's burden of proof. Sad.

You have a presumption of innocence before trial.

This is why people like yourself, or Bruno & Marasca should not be let anywhere near a criminal murder case as you have no understanding of what constitutes evidence and how to assess it.

 

[acbytesla]

"You spent three years in jail" for committing a serious crime, as reflected in the sentencing.

What are you talking about? Neither Raffaele or Amanda committed a serious crime. Amanda's sentence was in fact exceptional for callunia. It reflected a maximum amount more to minimize the state's screw up. It certainly will be determined by the ECHR as a violation of Amanda's rights. And everyone knows it including the Bruno Marasca court that just exonerated both of them for murder.

I keep seeing the Italian authorities dance around the fact that they know that both Amanda and Raffaele should have been provided counsel even before the November 5th interrogation. But they keep trying to say it was a minor error, and oversight but they know damn well it was not.

 

[acbytesla]

You have a presumption of innocence before trial.

This is why people like yourself, or Bruno & Marasca should not be let anywhere near a criminal murder case as you have no understanding of what constitutes evidence and how to assess it.

No, you have presumption of innocence through the trial. There is a difference . This is why you shouldn't be allowed ever to sit in judgment of others.

 

[Vixen]

Unfortunately, Vixen is making up a story out of whole cloth. Sollecito should have been able to have been visited in detention by his lawyer(s) as early as the morning of 6th November.

And in fact (associated with, but unrelated directly with, the reasons for the Mignini censure) there's also a strong case to be made that Sollecito should have been cautioned and given access to a lawyer the previous evening (5th November), when it became clear that the police were accusing him of having repeatedly lied to them about Knox's whereabouts on the night of the murder. After all, this shows de facto that the police considered Sollecito to be, at the very least, a suspect of lying to the police to obstruct an investigation: a pretty serious criminal offence in itself.

Raff voluntarily declined a lawyer in the early stages, like Amanda, and unlike everybody else, presumably because he thought demanding a lawyer was indicative of guilt. Come on, his father's a professional himself. Are you seriously claiming they had no idea they could, without needing a certificate in writing from the police?

 

[Vixen]

No, you have presumption of innocence through the trial. There is a difference . This is why you shouldn't be allowed ever to sit in judgment of others.

Each of the merits courts - Massei, Nencini - found case proven on basis of evidence (facts found). Two politician, civil law judges, Bruno and Marasca, with no experience of serious crime, decreed the evidence was there, but so what? Bungling incompetents, or corrupt politicians? You decide.

 

[Grinder]

Nencini described Rudy as an "expert burglar".
Nencini wrote tone poems about the fact that an "Expert burglar" like Rudy would not have used the window to enter.
Every judge says that Rudy is a burglar.
This Vixen BS is becoming preposterous
Vixen should get a grip

Just Marasca is repeating defense and prosecution arguments, Nencini said that even if the defense contention that Rudi was a professional burglar was correct it wouldn't explain the entry through the window.

 

[Grinder]

You need to refer to Mignini's defence at the CSM who provided the police trancript of verbal instruction as evidence of no intent of non-compliance with protocol.

Where is this transcript?

 

[acbytesla]

Each of the merits courts - Massei, Nencini - found case proven on basis of evidence (facts found). Two politician, civil law judges, Bruno and Marasca, with no experience of serious crime, decreed the evidence was there, but so what? Bungling incompetents, or corrupt politicians? You decide.

Really? Why are you deliberately omitting Hellman? And out of curiosity, how many actual witnesses testified during the Nencini's trial? No, you as always ignore the facts you don't like. But in the end it doesn't matter since Bruno Marasca's ruling is the only one that counts. It's over.

 

[Grinder]

What are you talking about? Neither Raffaele or Amanda committed a serious crime. Amanda's sentence was in fact exceptional for callunia. It reflected a maximum amount more to minimize the state's screw up. It certainly will be determined by the ECHR as a violation of Amanda's rights. And everyone knows it including the Bruno Marasca court that just exonerated both of them for murder.

I keep seeing the Italian authorities dance around the fact that they know that both Amanda and Raffaele should have been provided counsel even before the November 5th interrogation. But they keep trying to say it was a minor error, and oversight but they know damn well it was not.

The issue at the CSM was AFTER arrest. The ISC said the first two statements couldn't be used but I have not seen anything about providing an attorney BEFORE the interrogation started.

Calunnia can have a sentence of up to 6 years IIRC and that isn't minor. Amanda's was increased by Hellmann to the cheers of even some here as being aggravated but it never made sense to me.

Anyone who with a denunciation, complaint, demand or request, even anonymously or under a false name, directs a judicial authority or other authority that has an obligation to report, to blame someone for a crime who he knows is innocent, that is he fabricates evidence against someone, shall be punished with imprisonment from two to six years. The penalty shall be increased if the accused blames someone of a crime for which the law prescribes a penalty of imprisonment exceeding a maximum of ten years, or another more serious penalty.​

 

[Grinder]

Each of the merits courts - Massei, Nencini - found case proven on basis of evidence (facts found). Two politician, civil law judges, Bruno and Marasca, with no experience of serious crime, decreed the evidence was there, but so what? Bungling incompetents, or corrupt politicians? You decide.

Do you have the history of all cases the aforementioned judges have been involved with?

Here many judges are politicians in that they are elected. Some of out best Supreme Court Justices were politicians before being put on the Court.

It could be that people read the back and forth on this case and realized that the PGP couldn't put together a timeline, couldn't explain the knife having no blood but DNA, put faith in a drugged witness who had denied knowledge when first interviewed and had testified in two other serious cases, couldn't demonstrate how the alleged killers communicated and many other inconsistencies. In addition, unlike other labs doing LCN DNA this lab and the technicians didn't follow proper protocol as demonstrated by the ICSI's own video. They may have been further upset that the prosecutor denied access to attorneys after the arrest not to mention not designating them as suspects early enough. Perhaps they disdain from the three compatibles equals a match concept employed in this case. Perhaps they thought when a footprint tested negative for blood then it was, well, not blood. When the bra clasp test showed several unidentified people's alleles, they wanted to know how those got there as well. Maybe they wondered why a stain found under Meredith wasn't tested and didn't buy Massei's "DNA can't be dated".

 

[Grinder]

Raff voluntarily declined a lawyer in the early stages, like Amanda, and unlike everybody else, presumably because he thought demanding a lawyer was indicative of guilt. Come on, his father's a professional himself. Are you seriously claiming they had no idea they could, without needing a certificate in writing from the police?

What do you mean declined? When did the state first offer either one of them a lawyer? Raf's family did talk to their family lawyer and he didn't see a need for the kids to hire one.

 

[Vixen]

Is it my opinion only,
or has been Grinder calling Burleigh a liar with regards to the Diaz Incident?

Kinda insinuating that Nina Burleigh might have totally fabricated and lied about this particular incident? Whoa!

That seems to be a pretty gnarly accusation against a well respected journalist.
My humble opinion only.
Hmmmm.

Gotta run,
got some drinkin' + editin' surfix to do as I listen to The Best of The Best of Patsy.
Enjoy...

That said,
Good evenin',
or day, to ya'all!
RW

Ya mean, like "Crazy"? Problem with journalists like Nina is, they think they've stumbled on a scoop - so eager was she to find Amanda innocent - when actually, it turns out to be nothing more than leaping to conclusions.

Do you have any newspaper clippings about the supposed Diaz incident, which AIUI happened FOUR YEARS before the murder?

No-one else has had any luck.

Whoops, looks like Nina gilded the lily, in her breakneck zeal in putting forward her take "Rudy is the only perp". It's what we scientists call "the halo effect" error. Your conclusion seeming to uphold your prejudiced beliefs. Confirmation bias, in US speak.

 

[Vixen]

Aahhhh. I see. Now you speak of "conviction" whereas before you spoke off burglar. In your bubble there are only convicted fellons and innocent people. Serial killers are not serial killers until they're convicted?

Interesting. Does accountancy "work" this way as well?

Picture the scene....

Husband driving as 200km per hour
Wife:- "You're speeding!"
Husband:- "No I'm not. Where's the conviction?".

I can think of examples involving theft. Can you?

That's right, I can confidently and correctly say I have never had a speeding ticket, and I challenge you to claim I have ever broken the speed limit.

You are aware that amongst decent people, bearing false witness against thy neighbour, is frowned upon.

Only a scoundrel does that.

 

[Vixen]

Nencini described Rudy as an "expert burglar".
Nencini wrote tone poems about the fact that an "Expert burglar" like Rudy would not have used the window to enter.
Every judge says that Rudy is a burglar.
This Vixen BS is becoming preposterous
Vixen should get a grip

Well there you go. An expert burglar certainly wouldn't shin up a wall without a drainpipe, with a 4KG rock in his pocket.

I sent some Christmas presents to my folks in the Old Country last week. It was bloody heavy and I had to take an item out as it was just over 2KG and has to go via Royal Mail overground, if over. If 2Kg is too heavy for airmail, what hope for a slight 20 year old grounded in someone's bumpy garden?

 

[Grinder]

Ya mean, like "Crazy"? Problem with journalists like Nina is, they think they've stumbled on a scoop - so eager was she to find Amanda innocent - when actually, it turns out to be nothing more than leaping to conclusuons.

Do you have any newspaper clippings about the supposed Diaz incident, which AIUI happened FOUR YEARS before the murder?

No-one else has had any luck.

Whoops, looks like Nina gilded the lily in her breakneck zeal in putting forward her take "Rudy is the only perp". It's what we scientists call "the halo effect" error. Your conclusion seeming to uphold your prejudiced beliefs. Confirmation bias, in US speak.

The alleged break in and fire happened about two or three weeks before the murder. Nina also has details of the CT situation wrong which I pointed out earlier when his testimony was posted in English.

I glad you've been paying attention to my criticisms but please get alleged facts correct.

Nina worked her book focus on Rudi and his background. While I wouldn't be stunned if aspects of the Diaz report are true it is troubling that not one corroborating source has been brought forward. Of course, it doesn't really have anything to do with the murder. Just like a noise ticket has nothing to do with it.

At this moment I forget if CT said he saw Rudi at Merlin or Domus but IIRC Nina had them mixed up as I posted a while back. Did she lie about that? No she just got it wrong. Her account of Prato also varies from her own account.

 

[Grinder]

Well there you go. An expert burglar certainly wouldn't shin up a wall without a drainpipe, with a 4KG rock in his pocket.

I sent some Christmas presents to my folks in the Old Country last week. It was bloody heavy and I had to take an item out as it was just over 2KG and has to go via Royal Mail overground, if over. If 2Kg is too heavy for airmail, what hope for a slight 20 year old grounded in someone's bumpy garden?

new high of ridiculous analogies. No one has ever contended he climbed the wall with rock in his pocket. What is you obsession with drainpipes? The video clearly demonstrated that Rudi could have stood on the bottom sill and reached the top window.

 

[Vixen]

What are you talking about? Neither Raffaele or Amanda committed a serious crime. Amanda's sentence was in fact exceptional for callunia. It reflected a maximum amount more to minimize the state's screw up. It certainly will be determined by the ECHR as a violation of Amanda's rights. And everyone knows it including the Bruno Marasca court that just exonerated both of them for murder.

I keep seeing the Italian authorities dance around the fact that they know that both Amanda and Raffaele should have been provided counsel even before the November 5th interrogation. But they keep trying to say it was a minor error, and oversight but they know damn well it was not.

No that's not what Mignini's censure is about. It was about omitting to put something in writing, by oversight.

ISTM Raff's defence were grasping at any straw (cf Bongiorno complaining about Nencini) and no doubt, looking through his case file, they could not find the note. They thought, aha! that annuls it all.

However, in his defense, Mignini was able to produce a police transcript which proves Raff was informed verbally of his rights, and did meet with his counsel.

It was a censure, because of the technical breach, and not an indictment of police corruption.