Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

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?

Here is Mignini's original arrest application in English. The time was 8:40 am 6th Nov 2007. Can't find the article re the transcript.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...rrest-Knox-Lumumba-Sollecito-translation1.pdf

 

[bagels]

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.

When Rudy was arrested for his crimes in Milan I'm sure the hammer was taken from him as evidence. Possession of burglary tools is even a criminal offense in some jurisdictions.

 

[Bill Williams]

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

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

First of all - does anyone know if this data dump is being made to any Italian language entity?

If not, the only reason I can think of such a thing is to actually hide stuff in the sheer volume. But what do I know.

The bare fact is as is - someone thinks it's good for the "guilter case" to have them be seen to have the complete record. In English.

Hoots! (Your complaint was obviously the omission of the exclamation point!)

 

[Grinder]

Here is Mignini's original arrest application in English. The time was 8:40 am 6th Nov 2007. Can't find the article re the transcript.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...rrest-Knox-Lumumba-Sollecito-translation1.pdf

Why are you producing the arrest warrant? It wasn't the issue, at least not in this current discussion.

So no transcript of Mignini telling Raf he could just sit and wait for the judge because Mignini knew if Raf were allowed to talk to a lawyer he would pervert the investigation.

 

[Grinder]

First of all - does anyone know if this data dump is being made to any Italian language entity?

If not, the only reason I can think of such a thing is to actually hide stuff in the sheer volume. But what do I know.

The bare fact is as is - someone thinks it's good for the "guilter case" to have them be seen to have the complete record. In English.

Hoots! (Your complaint was obviously the omission of the exclamation point!)

From what I've seen the entire file in Italian is being made available to the PGP and Bruce is angry about it.

 

[Mike1711]

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.​

"...who he knows is innocent..."

How could Amanda Knox possibly have known that Patrick was innocent? Seems the sentence of 3 years is wholly inappropriate in terms of Italian law.

I wish I knew how to use the hilite thingy.

 

[Mike1711]

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.

What on earth are you on about?

 

[Bill Williams]

From what I've seen the entire file in Italian is being made available to the PGP and Bruce is angry about it.

If you wish me to stop saying "hoots", it's perhaps best to not mis-impugn a reaction! Angry!?

Hoots!

 

[Mike1711]

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?

The stone was not 4kg.
In fact an average high school pupil can "shot put" a 12 pound weight about 30 feet. 50 feet is considered good. About 80 feet is the record. Google is your friend.
I reckon I could easily toss the pebble used in the break about 100 feet. Remember to use a "shot put" method is to severely handicap ones distance.

 

[Grinder]

If you wish me to stop saying "hoots", it's perhaps best to not mis-impugn a reaction! Angry!?

Hoots!

I saw this. Is it not genuine?

Re: Amanda Knox Case Public Discussion Forum 2-8-2011

Post by Bruce Fischer » Mon Nov 30, 2015 5:11 pm

It's disturbing to know that the pro-guilt crowd now has the full case file. We have been very careful to protect photos of Meredith. Leave it to some bitter person in Italy to release those images to the idiots. Peter Quennell is the most vile of them all. There is no doubt that he has dreamed of acquiring the images of the young murder victim that he has obsessed over for all of these years. What purpose does it serve to send files to the idiots now that the case is closed? What purpose would it ever serve? Whoever has done so is a ******* who doesn't care at all about preserving anyone's memory. It will only be a matter of time before those images make their way to the internet. Those people simply cannot be trusted. What a sad group of people they are.
​

 

[Mike1711]

I should imagine it was presented to the court.

Imagining is good. Proof is better.

 

[Mike1711]

Ah, ninja-ed.

"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."

It's pretty clear that given that AK wasn't involved as is now proven this clause as quoted above falls short of ANY sentence because....

"...to blame someone for a crime who he knows is innocent,..."

"...knows..."

Obviously the sentence collapses in a whimpering heap even when using the Italian Legal code.

It's patently obvious that this clause is geared towards framing the innocent. In a country with a history of the Mafia it's my guess that it's aimed at this type.

 

[Bill Williams]

"...who he knows is innocent..."

How could Amanda Knox possibly have known that Patrick was innocent? Seems the sentence of 3 years is wholly inappropriate in terms of Italian law.

I wish I knew how to use the hilite thingy.

The real head-scratcher on this point is the Hellmann report. On his section on calunnia, he goes to great length to demonstrate that Knox was under duress - and that the translator, Anna Donnino, abrogated her role (as translator) for two things:

1) (Donnino) did not limit herself to translating, but induced (Knox) to force herself to remember, explaining that she [Amanda] was confused in her memories, perhaps because of the trauma she experienced, makes it wholly understandable that she was in a situation of considerable psychological pressure (to call it stress seems an understatement [appare riduttivo]), enough to raise doubts about the actual spontaneity of her statements....

2) That Donnino translated no questions from the Public Prosecutor (Mignini) to Knox, an admission that Mignini himself had to force out of Donnino to preserve the claimed "spontaneity" of Knox's statements.​

Part #2 is key - because for Mignini to claim that Knox simply blurted things out with no coaching.

But could one really expect that a twenty-year old girl from a foreign country, subjected to interrogation for hours by the police, would be so quick, lucid, and even courageous as to formulate requests of this sort, or indeed even to suppose that she might be in a position to formulate them?
Beyond the formal aspect, the context in which those statements were made was clearly characterized by a psychological situation which for Amanda Knox had become an unsupportable burden: witness Donnino reports that an outright emotional shock on the part of Amanda Knox occurred when the matter of the exchange of messages with Lumumba was raised.​

So far Judge Hellmann is actually understanding things well. Calunnia requires both a mens rea as well as the knowledge of the innocence of the person being named.

So what does Hellmann say?

By “giving up” [Dando “in pasto”] that name to those who were interrogating her so harshly, Amanda Knox probably hoped to put an end to that pressure, now a true torment after long hours, while adding details and constructing a brief story around that name would certainly not have been particularly difficult​

Does this satisfy knowledge of Lumumba's actual innocence? Even Hellmann doesn't really address it.

It is indeed totally illogical to suppose that Amanda Knox, if she actually had been a participant [concorrente] in the crime, could have hoped that naming Patrick Lumumba — whom in such a case she would have known to be entirely uninvolved and far, even physically, from where the crime took place — would have helped her position in any way; it would, if anything, have been easier for her to indicate the real perpetrator, even while stressing her own absolute innocence​

However, this Court does not find that there is any significant objective evidence that, when she made her spontaneous statements and wrote her note, Amanda Knox was in not only a situation of considerable psychological pressure and stress but also even in a condition of not intending or wishing; so that, having accused of such a serious crime a person whom she knew to be innocent​

There is that annoying judicial habit of jumping to the end, "whom she knew to be innocent," without actually saying why he'd come to that conclusion. Just about everything even Hellmann says previous to this seems to be setting out the opposite - that Knox would not have opportunity to know if Lumumba was innocent or not!

 

[Bill Williams]

I saw this. Is it not genuine?

AFAIK it's genuine. Is there any particular reason to substitute "angry" when he said he was "disturbed"?

Warning: I really don't have an appetite to go far on this subthread.

 

[Grinder]

AFAIK it's genuine. Is there any particular reason to substitute "angry" when he said he was "disturbed"?

Warning: I really don't have an appetite to go far on this subthread.

You know this seems a pattern. You challenge, I produce and then you demand the subject be curtailed.

When someone uses the word ******* in a post I think he may just be angry - it is clear he is angry that the file was released. Why it's a big deal or a deal at all that I said angry speaks volumes to your something (any descriptive word would upset you). You need not reply.

 

[LondonJohn]

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

So quote the news reports. What time and date do the "news reports" say that Sollecito was allowed to confer with his lawyers?

I suggest you can't even answer that question, "Vixen" (and what's with the stupid "inverted commas" for people's screen names anyhow? So strange.....).

And if you think that my asking you to defend what you've written, in a totally amenable manner (if slightly frustrated on account of you simply avoiding the questions entirely in your earlier attempt at an answer) is "bullying", then I think you ought to look up the definition of the word.

 

[Mike1711]

Ah, ninja-ed.

The real head-scratcher on this point is the Hellmann report. On his section on calunnia, he goes to great length to demonstrate that Knox was under duress - and that the translator, Anna Donnino, abrogated her role (as translator) for two things:

1) (Donnino) did not limit herself to translating, but induced (Knox) to force herself to remember, explaining that she [Amanda] was confused in her memories, perhaps because of the trauma she experienced, makes it wholly understandable that she was in a situation of considerable psychological pressure (to call it stress seems an understatement [appare riduttivo]), enough to raise doubts about the actual spontaneity of her statements....

2) That Donnino translated no questions from the Public Prosecutor (Mignini) to Knox, an admission that Mignini himself had to force out of Donnino to preserve the claimed "spontaneity" of Knox's statements.​

Part #2 is key - because for Mignini to claim that Knox simply blurted things out with no coaching.

​

So far Judge Hellmann is actually understanding things well. Calunnia requires both a mens rea as well as the knowledge of the innocence of the person being named.

So what does Hellmann say?

​

Does this satisfy knowledge of Lumumba's actual innocence? Even Hellmann doesn't really address it.

​

​

There is that annoying judicial habit of jumping to the end, "whom she knew to be innocent," without actually saying why he'd come to that conclusion. Just about everything even Hellmann says previous to this seems to be setting out the opposite - that Knox would not have opportunity to know if Lumumba was innocent or not!

Thanks Bill. Am I mistaken or is Hellmann on record as expressing regret that he did not turf the Culunnia nonsense in the bin?

 

[Bill Williams]

You know this seems a pattern. You challenge, I produce and then you demand the subject be curtailed.

Curtailed for good reason. It mostly feels like descending down a rabbit hole!

When someone uses the word ******* in a post I think he may just be angry - it is clear he is angry that the file was released. Why it's a big deal or a deal at all that I said angry speaks volumes to your something (any descriptive word would upset you). You need not reply.

Ok, I won't. (Drat.... I did.)

 

[LondonJohn]

You don't think it's a serious matter to accuse a man of rape and murder to the police?

It's not at all a serious matter to have a sizeable group of police literally shouting at you that a) they KNOW you were at the scene of a rape and murder, and b) they KNOW that met up with the murderer and let him into the cottage where the rape and murder took place, and c) you now MUST remember all of this and tell the police the "truth" - in order to protect yourself from even more serious criminal charges and imprisonment, to protect yourself and the community from this evil murderer whom you helped, and to help the police/PM to solve this crime. And at the same time to have the "interpreter" chiming in that you've probably suffered some sort of traumatic memory loss of the whole incident - with the "interpreter" giving a handy example of her own experience to help to convince you that your mind really can play such extreme tricks on you.

Under those circumstances, it's not at all a serious matter to "buckle" (the police's own words) and do nothing more than agree with the version of events that the police are shouting at you is the correct one. Not at all. As the ECHR will almost definitely acknowledge.

 

[Bill Williams]

Thanks Bill. Am I mistaken or is Hellmann on record as expressing regret that he did not turf the Culunnia nonsense in the bin?

AFAIK he's never said he regretted the calunnia conviction. IIRC there was a judge in one of the preceding hearings who expressed regret for passing the case up the line. I don't have a link, and could very will be mistaken, though.

Since the ISC2013 annulment of his decision, as well as after the Nencini conviction Hellmann was very vocal.