Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[bagels]

I have never said it was not an acquittal. Stop misquoting me. The kids were not found innocent, nor exonerated. The charges were dropped under Section 530 para 2, due to insufficient evidence. That puts them back in the position they were before the trial. They are subject to being charged again for the same crime, as 530 para 2 is a lower court jurisdiction, which does not include the restriction of double jeopardy as an exoneration would.

There are no procedural differences between the acquittals.

 

[Bill Williams]

I have never said it was not an acquittal. Stop misquoting me. The kids were not found innocent, nor exonerated. The charges were dropped under Section 530 para 2, due to insufficient evidence. That puts them back in the position they were before the trial. They are subject to being charged again for the same crime, as 530 para 2 is a lower court jurisdiction, which does not include the restriction of double jeopardy as an exoneration would.

I'm glad you now agree it was an acquittal. Next we have to work on your belief that it was a "dropping of the charges".

 

[Vixen]

The issue with the confession is:

-The police didn't record a single moment of it
-Amanda didn't have any inside information (she didn't even mention the break-in)
-The police say what she told them is what they already knew to be correct
-Amanda wrote to the police pleading with them to not hit her and yell at her when she "answered wrongly"
-Amanda was not the only witness they coerced. They got another guy to say Patrick wasn't in his bar serving customers, even though he was. This is overlooked by practically everybody but is a huge piece of information.

Amanda wandered into the questura voluntarily. Why would the police record it? As soon as she confessed to being at the murder scene, her voluntary utterings were officially terminated, as her status changed to legal suspect.

The memoriale was an example of Amanda's crafty manipulative behaviour.

AIUI Patrick's bar was very quiet and he didn't get customers until getting on to ten, so it might have looked closed to a passerby, if no-one was around.

Nobody made Amanda go to the police station, make her accusations and then follow it up with a note ("a gift").

 

[Bill Williams]

I have never said it was not an acquittal. Stop misquoting me. The kids were not found innocent, nor exonerated. The charges were dropped under Section 530 para 2, due to insufficient evidence. That puts them back in the position they were before the trial. They are subject to being charged again for the same crime, as 530 para 2 is a lower court jurisdiction, which does not include the restriction of double jeopardy as an exoneration would.

There are no procedural differences between the acquittals.

So far no one can quote anything which answers the question: "If there is a 'what's next' associated with either a 1st paragraph acquittal or a 2nd paragraph acquittal, what is the difference in the 'what's next'?"

What is the remedy for an acquital and are there any difference in remedy between the two types?? So far what we've run into is that there is Italian legal literature which discusses, sometimes at length, what a court is trying "to signal" by using one over the other - if, indeed, both are theoretically available to them.

As for the 7 1/2 year legal process involving Knox/Sollecito, there is far from any sort of coalescing thought as to what Marasca-Bruno were trying "to signal".

However, most, if not all Italian legal types seem to agree - both 1 and 2 are definitive acquittals in law.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, for the 10th time, articles that are published in the top forensic journal in the world are peer reviewed BEFORE they are published. The list of the other top forensic scientists who do the review before confirming it for publication in the top forensic journal in the world are not necessarily made public.

This implies it is a better source of information than PMF and TJMK and the opinion of a community college lab tech who works for the prosecution. Lol I can't believe I needed to say that.

Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni is one of Italy's leading forensic experts. She was part of the the Disaster Investigations Teams sent to identify victims of the South Asian tsunami in 2004. She had to pass a series of stringent state tests to join the scientific police in Rome.

 

[bagels]

Amanda wandered into the questura voluntarily. Why would the police record it? As soon as she confessed to being at the murder scene, her voluntary utterings were officially terminated, as her status changed to legal suspect.

The memoriale was an example of Amanda's crafty manipulative behaviour.

AIUI Patrick's bar was very quiet and he didn't get customers until getting on to ten, so it might have looked closed to a passerby, if no-one was around.

Nobody made Amanda go to the police station, make her accusations and then follow it up with a note ("a gift").

This is what a real police statement looks like: https://viewfromll2.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/jay-interview-1-2-28-99.pdf


1. You have the absolute right to remain silent
2. Anything you say or write may be used against you in a court of law
3. You have the right to talk with a lawyer at any time, before any questioning, before answering any questions, or during any questioning.
4.If you want a lawyer and cannot afford to hire one, you will not be asked any questions, and the court will be requested to appoint a lawyer for you.
5. If you agree to answer questions, you may stop at any time and request a lawyer, and no further questions will be asked of you.

I have read the above explanations of my rights, and fully understand it

I am willing to answer questions, and I do not want any attorney at this time. My decision to answer questions without having an attorney present is free and voluntary on my part.


Followed by a full recorded transcript.

 

[Bill Williams]

Amanda wandered into the questura voluntarily. Why would the police record it? As soon as she confessed to being at the murder scene, her voluntary utterings were officially terminated, as her status changed to legal suspect.

You really do need to read Saul Kassin.

You also need to read what Giuliano Mignini said. You see, the issue in law is not that they were or were not "voluntary", it is whether or not they were spontaneous.

Please remember that. But it is Giuliano Mignini who told CNN's Drew Griffin in 2010 that Amanda's "utterings" were not terminated when she became a suspect. In fact, he offered to act "as if only a notary" so that these utterings could be recorded, and they resulted in the 5:45 am memorale.

Please at least get that part right. Her utterings were not terminated. And all it would have taken to record them, were the flipping of a switch - Amanda was specifically taken into the interrogation room by Ficarra. Amanda did not wander into the room by herself.

 

[Vixen]

This is what a real police statement looks like: https://viewfromll2.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/jay-interview-1-2-28-99.pdf


1. You have the absolute right to remain silent
2. Anything you say or write may be used against you in a court of law
3. You have the right to talk with a lawyer at any time, before any questioning, before answering any questions, or during any questioning.
4.If you want a lawyer and cannot afford to hire one, you will not be asked any questions, and the court will be requested to appoint a lawyer for you.
5. If you agree to answer questions, you may stop at any time and request a lawyer, and no further questions will be asked of you.

I have read the above explanations of my rights, and fully understand it

I am willing to answer questions, and I do not want any attorney at this time. My decision to answer questions without having an attorney present is free and voluntary on my part.


Followed by a full recorded transcript.

<sigh> You only get read the Miranda when you are told you are being arrested.

 

[bagels]

<sigh> You only get read the Miranda when you are told you are being arrested.

Not true.

 

[Vixen]

You really do need to read Saul Kassin.

You also need to read what Giuliano Mignini said. You see, the issue in law is not that they were or were not "voluntary", it is whether or not they were spontaneous.

Please remember that. But it is Giuliano Mignini who told CNN's Drew Griffin in 2010 that Amanda's "utterings" were not terminated when she became a suspect. In fact, he offered to act "as if only a notary" so that these utterings could be recorded, and they resulted in the 5:45 am memorale.

Please at least get that part right. Her utterings were not terminated. And all it would have taken to record them, were the flipping of a switch - Amanda was specifically taken into the interrogation room by Ficarra. Amanda did not wander into the room by herself.

Mignini, as state prosecutor for the region (= US District Attorney) had his room kitted out with recording equipment. AIUI it was Amanda who requested a session with Mignini, and as per protocol he sat back and listened without asking questions. The police did everything by the book.

Ficarra asked Amanda whether she could compile a list of persons frequenting the cottage whilst she was waiting in the lobby for her boyfriend. She's innocent, so why shouldn't she co-operate?

 

[Vixen]

Not true.

Not true, because...?

 

[bagels]

Not true, because...?

Because it's false? A suspect in an interrogation requires a Miranda warning.

 

[Bill Williams]

Mignini, as state prosecutor for the region (= US District Attorney) had his room kitted out with recording equipment. AIUI it was Amanda who requested a session with Mignini, and as per protocol he sat back and listened without asking questions. The police did everything by the book.

We've come a long way from you conspiratorializing about Peter Gill - and then not willing to do anything about it.

And, no, the account that Mignini himself relates is that he was called into the room by (probably Ficarra) because they believed she'd implicated herself. Amanda never asked to see Mignini - when he came in she thought he was the mayor. The reason, though, they continued Mignini himself makes clear to Drew Griffin - he intuited that Amanda needed to keep making spontaneous remarks. It was crucial that Mignini put it that way, because to preserve this "spontaneity", he needed her to say nothing about the session, other than blurt out more spontaneous stuff.

If it had been as you said, Mignini would have had to refuse to listen to her until he got her a lawyer; as he tells Griffin was the reason why the first session had to stop - Amanda had no lawyer. Hear that? Mignini quoted the law to Griffin why it had to stop; until at least a lawyer was present.

Ficarra asked Amanda whether she could compile a list of persons frequenting the cottage whilst she was waiting in the lobby for her boyfriend. She's innocent, so why shouldn't she co-operate?

Ficarra asked her about the males in her contact list and in recent calls. Amanda complied. When Ficarra got to Knox's, "See you later", response to Lumumba, Ficarra thought they'd hit the jackpot. Knowing she was innocent, Amanda complied but tried to correct Ficarra on what "See you later" meant to an American. When Anna Donnino (the translator who said she acted like a mediator) arrived, she was no help. Instead, she told Amanda she probably had amnesia.

 

[Grinder]

Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni is one of Italy's leading forensic experts. She was part of the the Disaster Investigations Teams sent to identify victims of the South Asian tsunami in 2004. She had to pass a series of stringent state tests to join the scientific police in Rome.

Could you provide her education history, boards she is on, papers she has published, her position on the tsunami team and any publications for which she performs peer review?

Even the Disaster Investigations Teams sent to identify victims of the South Asian tsunami needed to have technicians. Steffi was that and nothing more.

Is she as much of a leading forensic expert as Novelli and Pascali?

 

[Grinder]

Miranda generally is only required after arrest.

When Must The Police Read Me My Miranda Rights?
Disclaimer
By: LawInfo
The Miranda warning is usually given when a person is arrested. However, the Miranda Rights attach during any “custodial interrogation” (when a person is substantially deprived of their freedom and not free to leave) even if the suspect hasn't been formally arrested. However, the police do not have to advise you of your Miranda rights before asking any question. If a person is not in police custody, no Miranda warning is required and anything the person says can be used at trial if the person is later charged with a crime. This exception most often comes up when the police stop someone on the street to question him or her about a recent crime or the person blurts out a confession before the police have an opportunity to deliver the warning. If a person believes that he or she is a potential suspect in a crime, then it may be wise to politely decline to answer questions, at least until after consulting an attorney.

 

[bagels]

Amanda was in a custodial interrogation IMO. However I will concede to the ECHR if and when they weigh in.

 

[Vixen]

We've come a long way from you conspiratorializing about Peter Gill - and then not willing to do anything about it.

And, no, the account that Mignini himself relates is that he was called into the room by (probably Ficarra) because they believed she'd implicated herself. Amanda never asked to see Mignini - when he came in she thought he was the mayor. The reason, though, they continued Mignini himself makes clear to Drew Griffin - he intuited that Amanda needed to keep making spontaneous remarks. It was crucial that Mignini put it that way, because to preserve this "spontaneity", he needed her to say nothing about the session, other than blurt out more spontaneous stuff.

If it had been as you said, Mignini would have had to refuse to listen to her until he got her a lawyer; as he tells Griffin was the reason why the first session had to stop - Amanda had no lawyer. Hear that? Mignini quoted the law to Griffin why it had to stop; until at least a lawyer was present.



Ficarra asked her about the males in her contact list and in recent calls. Amanda complied. When Ficarra got to Knox's, "See you later", response to Lumumba, Ficarra thought they'd hit the jackpot. Knowing she was innocent, Amanda complied but tried to correct Ficarra on what "See you later" meant to an American. When Anna Donnino (the translator who said she acted like a mediator) arrived, she was no help. Instead, she told Amanda she probably had amnesia.

Whereupon the astute Amanda immediately pretended that she did! LMAO. Her memory only suddenly came back whilst in prison after a visit from a nun, whereupon she happily realised she had been fast asleep throughout the whole crime. LOL.

 

[bagels]

Whereupon the astute Amanda immediately pretended that she did! LMAO. Her memory only suddenly came back whilst in prison after a visit from a nun, whereupon she happily realised she had been fast asleep throughout the whole crime. LOL.

A few days ago I was heavily researching the early days of the investigation and reading as many early statements as I could and all the surrounding info. From what I discovered the police were never once interested in what Amanda and Raff were doing the night of the murder. It didn't appear to be of any interest to anybody until a week later during the interrogation. I think this is what allowed the memories to fade and become so easily manipulated with a few slaps and stories about traumatic amnesia from the interrogators.

 

[Vixen]

Could you provide her education history, boards she is on, papers she has published, her position on the tsunami team and any publications for which she performs peer review?

Even the Disaster Investigations Teams sent to identify victims of the South Asian tsunami needed to have technicians. Steffi was that and nothing more.

Is she as much of a leading forensic expert as Novelli and Pascali?

From the UK National Careers Service page for Forensic Scientist:

Entry requirements
To start work, you would usually need a degree or postgraduate award in forensic science. You can also get into this career with a science-based degree. Degrees related to chemistry, biology, life sciences, applied sciences or medical sciences are likely to be the most appropriate, depending on the type of forensic work you want to do.
If you want to specialise in electronic casework (recovering data from computers, mobile phones and other electronic equipment), you may be accepted with experience and qualifications in computing, electrical engineering, electronics or physics.
There may be opportunities to start with a company as a forensics lab support assistant if you have qualifications, such as HND, BTEC or A levels in science, together with relevant work experience. As with all forensics vacancies, there will be tough competition for jobs.- See more at: https://nationalcareersservice.dire...s/ForensicScientist.aspx#sthash.CuKC5nwh.dpuf

My highlight in bold.

 

[Grinder]

Amanda was in a custodial interrogation IMO. However I will concede to the ECHR if and when they weigh in.

She was certainly a suspect before she finished her statement. As soon as she started with being there they needed to cut it off. The ISC ruled the statements were not admissible only the notes delivered later. The idiot Massei allowed Patrick's calumnia trial at the same time so the judges heard the statements written in Italian and signed by Amanda.

It is totally obvious to any reasonable person that the police guided the interrogation. The alleged neutral translator testified that she helped Amanda remember. Please.