• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grinder said:
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.
Click to expand...

Her testimony was hilarious. Yes I told her a traumatic event can give you amnesia but that was just friendly chit chat to lighten the mood ;)
 
bagels said:
Because it's false? A suspect in an interrogation requires a Miranda warning.
Click to expand...


Vixen really ought to look up what being "questioned under caution" by the UK police means. Because a) it happens fairly often (and there's plenty of media reporting of it), and b) it means exactly that someone is cautioned prior to the interrogation starting, but is not arrested.

Ignorance is no defence.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...


Is this really a serious post???

From a Job Centre advert for a roadsweeper: "As with all roadway maintenance vacancies, there will be tough competition for jobs".

:D
 
LondonJohn said:
Vixen really ought to look up what being "questioned under caution" by the UK police means. Because a) it happens fairly often (and there's plenty of media reporting of it), and b) it means exactly that someone is cautioned prior to the interrogation starting, but is not arrested.

Ignorance is no defence.
Click to expand...

UK have Miranda :rolleyes:
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Steffi could never get one of these jobs with her junior college degree.

Before you can start as a trainee you are likely to need an honours degree in a biology or chemistry-related subject. -
 
Grinder said:
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.
Click to expand...


It's worse even than that. All the evidence (not least "interpreter" Donnino's stunning testimony in court) shows clearly and conclusively that the police were aggressively and persistently accusing Knox of not telling them the "truth" about the night of the murder, well before Knox ever even opened her mouth to start the now-infamous "confession./accusation". The police were telling Knox that they knew she had been present at the time of the murder, and that she had met up with the murderer. They were then suggesting (among many other possibilities, including that Knox was deliberately and knowingly lying to them) that Knox might have experienced some form of "traumatic amnesia" - hence Donnino's handy anecdote about having the same phenomenon happen to her when she broke her ankle on a mountainside (which came up in the interrogation well before Knox ever "buckled").

So it's provable that the police MUST have considered Knox a suspect of a criminal offence (whether that offence was perversion of justice, obstruction of justice, protecting an offender, or something directly related to the murder itself) well prior to Knox ever starting her "confession/accusation". And therefore, by definition, the police ought to have formally declared Knox a suspect well before she ever opened her mouth to start that "confession/accusation".

In addition, of course, we have the shocking (and shockingly inept/revealing) words of Perugia Police Chief de Felice, who stated explicitly that Knox had initially given police a version of events which they (the police) knew not to be true, and that she then "buckled" under interrogation and told police "what (they) knew to be correct". The undeniable and unequivocal implication of de Felice's words is that the police "knew" Knox was involved in the murder long before Knox herself "buckled" and made the admission.

I personally think that Knox has a hugely strong case before the ECHR. I think it's clear and demonstrable that Knox was denied her rights on that night, and that the whole interrogation (including the sly, devious sleight-of-hand around the "spontaneous declaration" to Mignini later on) was improper, unlawful and in breach of Knox's right to a fair trial.
 
Grinder said:
UK have Miranda :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Was that a question? If so, then yes - the UK (E&W more accurately) does have its version of Miranda. That's what constitutes in UK-parlance "being cautioned". And its implications are just the same as the US Miranda warning. The police are obliged to caution anyone whom they have reasonable grounds to suspect of having committed a criminal act. Sometimes the caution is accompanied by an arrest, sometimes it's not.

The standard police caution in E&W is:

"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you rely on in court. Anything you do say can be given in evidence."

(Those precise words don't have to be used, but the information they convey must accurately be conveyed).

(Also, there's a strange ambiguity of terms around the word "caution", because a "police caution" is also an official form of punishment for a usually-minor crime: rather than taking a case to court, the person charged with an offence agrees to receive a police caution, which is in effect a very minor form of criminal conviction._
 
LondonJohn said:
Vixen really ought to look up what being "questioned under caution" by the UK police means. Because a) it happens fairly often (and there's plenty of media reporting of it), and b) it means exactly that someone is cautioned prior to the interrogation starting, but is not arrested.

Ignorance is no defence.
Click to expand...

"Miranda" is US law. Italian law is actually stricter: Italian CPP Articles 63 and 64 require warnings which may be more similar to UK law, including if the person under questioning voluntarily says something which generates suspicion. Statements obtained contrary to the procedures of CPP Articles 63 or 64 may not be used against the speaker, and any evidence obtained contrary to a procedural law may not be used (CPP Articles 63, 64, and 191).
 
LondonJohn said:
Was that a question? If so, then yes - the UK (E&W more accurately) does have its version of Miranda. That's what constitutes in UK-parlance "being cautioned". And its implications are just the same as the US Miranda warning. The police are obliged to caution anyone whom they have reasonable grounds to suspect of having committed a criminal act. Sometimes the caution is accompanied by an arrest, sometimes it's not.
Click to expand...

Numbers said:
"Miranda" is US law. Italian law is actually stricter: Italian CPP Articles 63 and 64 require warnings which may be more similar to UK law, including if the person under questioning voluntarily says something which generates suspicion. Statements obtained contrary to the procedures of CPP Articles 63 or 64 may not be used against the speaker, and any evidence obtained contrary to a procedural law may not be used (CPP Articles 63, 64, and 191).
Click to expand...

Bagels brought up Miranda and correctly Vixen said it only applied after arrest.
 
Grinder said:
Bagels brought up Miranda and correctly Vixen said it only applied after arrest.
Click to expand...

But the Italian laws (CPP Articles 63 and 64) relate to all questioning by police.
Cautions* must be given to a witness who becomes a suspect during questioning (that is, makes a statement that the police believe incriminating). If the person should have been questioned as a suspect from the beginning (and this was true for Knox as well as for Sollecito on Nov. 5/6), according to the testimony of Giobbi, none of that person's statements from the questioning may be used. (CPP Article 63)

* That is, the questioning is interrupted, the person must be warned that he or she may become a subject of investigation and advised to get a lawyer. Such statements may not be used against the person questioned.
 
Last edited:
Numbers said:
But the Italian laws (CPP Articles 63 and 64) relate to all questioning by police.
Cautions* must be given to a witness who becomes a suspect during questioning (that is, makes a statement that the police believe incriminating). If the person should have been questioned as a suspect from the beginning (and this was true for Knox as well as for Sollecito on Nov. 5/6), according to the testimony of Giobbi, none of that person's statements from the questioning may be used. (CPP Article 63)

* That is, the questioning is interrupted, the person must be warned that he or she may become a subject of investigation and advised to get a lawyer. Such statements may not be used against the person questioned.
Click to expand...

The discussion was about Miranda. It was not about CPP 63 and 6.

None of the statements were allowed to be used in the murder trial but Massei allowed them in because of the civil suit.

I believe we are all quite aware of the Italian law regarding questioning.

Go back and read the thread. Bagels brought up Miranda and Vixen correctly pointed out Miranda is only arrest. And that's it.
 
Grinder said:
Bagels brought up Miranda and correctly Vixen said it only applied after arrest.
Click to expand...

It doesn't only apply after arrest though. Jay Wilds, giving the witness statement I linked, with miranda warning, wasn't arrested.
 
bagels said:
It doesn't only apply after arrest though. Jay Wilds, giving the witness statement I linked, with miranda warning, wasn't arrested.
Click to expand...

As I quoted above generally it involves arrest but can be in custodial interrogation - 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.
 
Grinder said:
As I quoted above generally it involves arrest but can be in custodial interrogation - 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.
Click to expand...

Yeah but I specifically linked that statement because I thought it was applicable with similar circumstances. The police believed Jay Wilds was a witness to a crime, knew what happened, but wasn't necessarily the perpetrator, so they read and had him sign his Miranda warnings for his statement because they knew it could lead to self incrimination and they wanted to be able to use it in court.

So in that specific example I specifically linked, it was Miranda applied to a witness "informed of the facts." Similar to how the police viewed Amanda Knox. I was linking it as an example to Vixen how an interrogation should be conducted.
 
bagels said:
Yeah but I specifically linked that statement because I thought it was applicable with similar circumstances. The police believed Jay Wilds was a witness to a crime, knew what happened, but wasn't necessarily the perpetrator, so they read and had him sign his Miranda warnings for his statement because they knew it could lead to self incrimination and they wanted to be able to use it in court.

So in that specific example I specifically linked, it was Miranda applied to a witness "informed of the facts." Similar to how the police viewed Amanda Knox. I was linking it as an example to Vixen how an interrogation should be conducted.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
Grinder said:
The discussion was about Miranda. It was not about CPP 63 and 6.

None of the statements were allowed to be used in the murder trial but Massei allowed them in because of the civil suit.

I believe we are all quite aware of the Italian law regarding questioning.

Go back and read the thread. Bagels brought up Miranda and Vixen correctly pointed out Miranda is only arrest. And that's it.
Click to expand...

If you or others wish to discuss Miranda, that is your right. Obviously Miranda does not apply outside the US.

Another poster referenced UK law on questioning, and that was that poster's right. Obviously that UK law does not apply outside the UK.

Please don't interpret my comments as an attempt to foreclose your learned discussion.

Regarding how the interrogation statements were allowed into trial, one should not neglect that a CSC decision apparently allowed them into the trial for the charges against Knox for calunnia against Lumumba in the trial(s). The interrogation statements were, as you state, also part of the civil trial for calunnia.
 
Vixen said:
Spot the two massive lies in Gill's opening statement alone. That sets us up for even more. The pair were NOT exonerated and a "miscarriage of justice" was NOT the grounds for acquittal.

Add all of that to Gill relying heavily on the discredited Conti-Vecchiotti report and we have the equivalent of a fart in a lift. (=elevator)
Click to expand...

The pair were exonerated. You are again oblivious to law and flounder under the erroneous misconception that the Italian Supreme Court of Appeal can "drop the charges".

This is patent nonsense. Defendants are never charged by the courts and therefore the court cannot drop the charges. The case can be dismissed by the courts if they feel the charges are nonsense, but the charges cannot be dropped by courts.

Excerpt from http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=26794 written by Nicola Canestrini, an Italian criminal lawyer.....

"The Court of Appeals takes its decision by either confirming the first instance sentence, or by reversing it partially or totally, or it may quash it by sending it back to the first Judge."

No mention of "dropping charges".
 
Grinder said:
Bagels brought up Miranda and correctly Vixen said it only applied after arrest.
Click to expand...


Incorrect. Police in the US must also read the Miranda rights to anyone who is being "interrogated" (interpreted by SCOTUS as the police questioning someone whom they have reason to suspect of engaging in criminal activity), even if that person hasn't been arrested. So the situation is exactly the same as it is with the caution in the UK.
 
Vixen said:
No, Bill, Hellmann is not included in the game series. Hellman was rendered null and void.

As the door lock was faulty, housemates had to lock it from the inside. Mez' may have inadvertently left her key in when Amanda turned up. However, as both Rudy and Amanda are consummate liars, it's more likely Kokomani was telling the truth when he said he witnessed Amanda, Rudy and Raff lying in wait for her outside the cottage, their mobiles switched off for the night, ready to party with Mez the spoils.

OK let's use the word "upheld" instead of "ruled".

Clearer now?
Click to expand...
So this has to be before 21.00 when Kercher arrived home. But after 20.40 when Popovic saw Knox at Sollecito's. They then have to get to the square to be seen by Curatolo at 21.30, where they are present until around 23.30. So this leaves about 15 minutes for Knox, Sollecito and Kercher to meet up, and get over to lay in wait, (but why would they be wanting to borrow the car given that this is before any crime has occurred?). Then less than thirty minutes to have an argument, fight murder, stage a burglary clean up, dispose of phones (OK this probably did not occur until later when Curatalo saw Knox and Sollecito elsewhere so Guede or another accomplice must have disposed of the phones?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom