Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[RoseMontague]

It certainly didn't stop certain parts of those statements coming out in the media.

 

[Grinder]

Vixen you have not produced the alleged police transcript. The fact that Mignini's defense lawyer argued that because Raf was allowed to speak to a lawyer between the murder discovery and his interrogation and that he was told verbally by Mignini he would not being seeing a lawyer until the arraignment (you still haven't explained what good that would have done Raf in solitary) didn't wash with the body and he was found in violation of a very important constitutional protection.

He was held after the interrogation and we know he wasn't a suspect before it started so what would he have discussed with an attorney before he was as suspect? Why do you believe the constitution requires the notice in writing?

 

[analemma]

Rubbish. He'd have had to scramble through a 50cm hole of dangerous jagged glass. Why would he do that if he carried with him a lightweight small sharp-headed hammer, used specifically for breaking glass.

Now Vixen is imagining a hammer into existence.

But Vixen imagines a lot of things

 

[Grinder]

I wonder if part of the remedy (of the now censure of Mignini) of events which occurred early November 2007 was the removal from the file of the earlier statements of Raffaele? I am not at all certain of this but have read the following from page 18.



I do not know which way it directs. Perhaps someone else can make it more clear (yes, I am willing to have someone else do the work I should do because legalese is not my strong point).

Thanks and I guess I won't ask for more help from you , but I don't really follow what occurred on those two pages.

It seems Massei was doing more of his screw the rules as he did by admitting the interrogation statements in the murder trial.

 

[analemma]

No, the professional rock climber, with strong upper body strength and climbing expertise, was significantly tall; Rudy just average height and weedy-looking. The video was doctored, with various frames clipped. We saw the tall Italian rockclimber swing up violently in order to reach the sill. Next clip, he's lounging on the sill. No clip demonstrating how he managed to lever himself up without gripping the bars for balance. Bars not there as of the time of the crime.

There he/she/it goes with the "bars" thing again.
Does he/she/it have another photo to show us.
What about the 3.5 meter height of the window that only spider man can climb?
Are you saying that "the tall Italian rockclimber" was 3.5 meters tall?????
As Grinder and other pointed out, many times, the climber later pulls himself up on the window without the upper bars and shows he could easily get on the sill.
Vixen thinks everything is "doctored"

 

[Grinder]

Now Vixen is imagining a hammer into existence.

But Vixen imagines a lot of things

He was found carrying a little hammer at the nursery trespass. Those little hammers wouldn't do much on a large window that was made of safety glass which is what those little hammers are designed for.

Vixen doesn't want to admit that a strong in-shape athlete could throw a 9 pound rock ten feet through a window. Whether Filomena closed the shutters isn't clear but if she had it would have only taken a few seconds to reach up and open them. Rudi would have been able to see that they didn't close enough to be locked as was testified to.

After the rock went through the window, the inner shutters were blown apart and with them the window frame. Rudi just climbed up and through the open window, which he closed behind him along with the outer shutters.

 

[Bill Williams]

Now Vixen is imagining a hammer into existence.

But Vixen imagines a lot of things

When the Channel 5 climber climbed up to Filomena's window sill, he showed how one could comfortably remove the broken glass from the frame, so as to be able to open the window.

Here it is, 8 years after the horrid crime, and Vixen is extending the victim's family's pain by inventing things.

 

[christianahannah]

Thanks and I guess I won't ask for more help from you , but I don't really follow what occurred on those two pages.

It seems Massei was doing more of his screw the rules as he did by admitting the interrogation statements in the murder trial.

I don't think Raffaele's statements were admitted during trial but am not certain of that fact. I was quickly looking at Massei and saw that references to Raffaele's actions during the time were attributed by other persons statements. I did not look through the whole of Massei just the early part so my assumption may be wrong.

 

[analemma]

Duplicate

 

[christianahannah]

It certainly didn't stop certain parts of those statements coming out in the media.

In the early part (maybe later, too) that was very true either by anonymous sources or by documents deposited with the court. In one of the very first articles about Raffaele's and Amanda's statements they were almost word for word correct. This was the Corriere della Sera article of November 8 or there about.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

Really ? This from the person who helped with Nick Van Der Leek's absurd nonsense book?

 

[Grinder]

I don't think Raffaele's statements were admitted during trial but am not certain of that fact. I was quickly looking at Massei and saw that references to Raffaele's actions during the time were attributed by other persons statements. I did not look through the whole of Massei just the early part so my assumption may be wrong.

I don't believe that his witness "transcripts" have ever been released. We have access to his statement of the sixth but nothing before. At least I've never found those earlier interviews published. We can access Amanda's early witness statements.

Here's a quote from the 4 page Nov. 2nd statement: I’ve been in Italy since the end of September for study purposes, even though occasionally, on
Tuesdays and Thursdays, I work at the Pub named “Le chic”,

So the police were aware from the first interview that she worked at "Le Chic" and most likely that meant Patrick was known to be her boss early on.

 

[Grinder]

In the early part (maybe later, too) that was very true either by anonymous sources or by documents deposited with the court. In one of the very first articles about Raffaele's and Amanda's statements they were almost word for word correct. This was the Corriere della Sera article of November 8 or there about.

The statements from the 6th were published before the ink dried on them.

 

[christianahannah]

The statements from the 6th were published before the ink dried on them.

Yes, I don't remember the exact date but I believe they were first published in the paper I stated above.

But the media and court are two different vehicles for information. I am curious whether Raffaele's statements, any of them, were used during the Massei court.

Adding: Many items can be investigated and written up but not all are usable in court for various reasons - would this be a correct statement?

 

[acbytesla]

Hellmann's report was unceremoniously dumped.

So was the Nencini report. But here's a question for you. Which of the 2 court cases were more thorough? You have argued that Nencini did more than Hellman when in fact his trial was significantly shorter and had a much more limited scope.

Trying to say that somehow Massei and Nencini are credible because crazy Chieffi annulled Hellman misses that with that logic Marasca did the same thing to Nencini and Massei.

Typical of a guilter, selectively omitting the evidence that doesn't support their case. Oooops.

 

[Mr Fied]

Does the highlighted part put an end to the need of the argument as to whether the pair were suspects or not on the night of 5/6 November?

Unless the police can provide proof, written or recorded, that the pair were free to leave at anytime then surely they were "detained" .

You have an interesting point. However, the CSM may be relying on the actual arrest and detention documents prepared after the Nov. 5/6 interrogations in their censure of Mignini, as pointed out by Methos in an earlier post on ISF.

We know that Raffaele was asked (ordered) to come to the police station on the night of Nov. 5, 2007. According to Raffaele's book, Honor Bound, the questioning he was subjected to immediately directed him to "stop covering up" for Amanda. Thus, the police were implicitly treating him as a suspect by suggesting he was hiding knowledge of a crime.

Sorry Numbers, I was thinking more of the ECHR and how it may rule on Amanda's case, rather than Mignini's indiscretions.

The pro guilt argument about the pair being refused legal counsel has been that they were not suspects at the time, and therefore didn't have to be provided with a lawyer. However, as you have shown, CPP Article 104 states that they should have been provided with legal counsel as soon as they were detained.

The Italian authorities may try to argue that the pair were not suspects, but I can't see how they could argue that the pair were not being detained.

 

[Grinder]

Yes, I don't remember the exact date but I believe they were first published in the paper I stated above.

But the media and court are two different vehicles for information. I am curious whether Raffaele's statements, any of them, were used during the Massei court.

Adding: Many items can be investigated and written up but not all are usable in court for various reasons - would this be a correct statement?

Well the PGP have complained for a long time that Raf's early statements were never made available by him. If they had been part of the file, and why shouldn't they be, and the PGP have access ton the whole file now, we should have seen them by now.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well the PGP have complained for a long time that Raf's early statements were never made available by him. If they had been part of the file, and why shouldn't they be, and the PGP have access ton the whole file now, we should have seen them by now.

Your problem is that you're applying logic.

Is says something when PGP continually point to stuff, or claim stuff that actually either does not prove their contentions or ( like Vixen's photo of the lower window) actually refutes yheir point.

Someone is thinking that it's to their benefit to release the entire record - stranger to release it to English-language guilters. Yet it always seems to amount to an "own goal".

Hoots.

 

[Grinder]

Your problem is that you're applying logic.

Is says something when PGP continually point to stuff, or claim stuff that actually either does not prove their contentions or ( like Vixen's photo of the lower window) actually refutes yheir point.

Someone is thinking that it's to their benefit to release the entire record - stranger to release it to English-language guilters. Yet it always seems to amount to an "own goal".

Hoots.

If I were moderator I'd ban for "hoots"

That said, what do you mean by the third graph?

 

[Vixen]

Now Vixen is imagining a hammer into existence.

But Vixen imagines a lot of things

No, it was one of your pip chums who said Rudy had such a small hammer in his possession when accosted at the nursery in Milan.