Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

The "pagan Samhain murder ritual"? No, that would be the deranged prosecution's theory of the crime. That a bunch of people (well, a few people, these days... maybe just one.) with no analytical reasoning skills happen to believe as well. You know, because that is what was in the tabloids and true crime novels written in two days to make a quick buck off a murder.

Let's say Mike's alibi was that he was at his girlfriend's house the night the roommate was killed. And a detailed forensic examination shows that someone interacted with the computer in Mike's girlfriend's room at the exact time the burglar broke in and killed his roommate.

What then, Vixen? Freemasons, right?

So how long did it take Doug Preston to write his book? Hendry? Douglas? Waterbury?

Mike says he can't remember, remember?

 

[NotEvenWrong]

So how long did it take Doug Preston to write his book? Hendry? Douglas? Waterbury?

I don't know how long it took each of those people to write their books. My guess is it took Peter Gill, founding father of forensic genetics, a bit of time to research, write, and publish his paper in the top forensic genetics journal in the world:

http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973(16)30033-3/abstract

The paper is about how the evidence used to convict Amanda and Raffaele was flawed and biased. And it is published in Forensic Science International. It is peer reviewed. And NOT A SINGLE SCIENTIST has come forward and made a peep about it being wrong in any way shape or form.

When I ask you for a single professional scientist that supports your viewpoint on this case (remember, I am talking about the evidence collection and analysis. Not "Raf's DNA was on the bra clasp". We know that and agree it was. Because it was contaminated), and you do not respond, is that why? Is it because not a single scientist on planet Earth agrees with you Vixen?

Why do you think the length of time it took Preston, Hendry, Douglas, Waterbury, etc. to write their books is relevant, Vixen? Do you even KNOW how long they took to write? Or are you just saying stuff because that's what you do?

Mike says he can't remember, remember?

That is all fine and dandy, but I am guessing they would need actual evidence Mike was involved in this hypothetical murder to convict him of murder. Burden of proof and all that, ya know. We aren't in a third world banana republic here.

Also, you didn't answer. What if Mike's girlfriend said he was at her apartment, and there was proof they interacted with a computer at her apartment when the murder occurred?

You didn't say Freemasons or Illuminati, but I am guessing that's gotta be part of your answer.

 

[Numbers]

That begs the question as to whether Amanda was 'denied a lawyer', when she wasn't even a suspect as of the time of her calumny.

The official records show that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were not allowed to meet and consult with lawyers until their arrest hearings on Nov. 8.

Mignini has been censured by the Superior Council of the Judiciary for not following Italian procedural law in his denial of a lawyer to Sollecito in the period after his arrest until his arrest hearing.

The many factors that show that Knox was considered a suspect prior to her first recorded statement on Nov.6, during the interrogation, have been listed many times on this forum. These factors include, among others: 1) VQA Giobbi testified before the Massei court that Knox and Sollecito were suspects that he had ordered brought in for interrogation; 2) according to the Boninsegna motivation report, the police had phoned Mignini to report that Sollecito had withdrawn Knox's alibi prior to her statement; 3) according to the Boninsegna MR, the police had seized Knox's cell phone prior to her statement, violating procedural law by neither having a prior warrant nor retroactively obtaining a warrant; and 4) Knox would have become a suspect under CPP Article 63 as soon as she stated during the interrogation she was present while Lumumba had committed the murder and should have been given the legally required warning by the police that she was a suspect and entitled to a lawyer. That Knox's statement was considered incriminating by the police and prosecutor is clear, since it forms the core of the justification section (allegedly establishing "reasonable suspicion" grounds for the arrests) of the Nov. 6 arrest warrant for Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba that was prepared by Mignini.

However, according to ECHR case-law (Aleksandr Zaichenko v. Russia), the use of even supposedly non-incriminating statements made during an interrogation without a lawyer to secure a conviction of the interrogated person is a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, ducky. To say someone is like a lovebird, is a simile.

Whoops, LondonJohn shoots self in foot again.

No, "ducky".

You wrote: "It's contemptible you expect us to believe they are lovebirds". That's a metaphor.

You did not write ".....like lovebirds" or "....like a lovebird". Which, yes, would have been a simile. Except that's not what you wrote, is it?

What you wrote is a metaphor. What you did not write is a simile.

Whoops, Vixen shoots self in foot spectacularly yet again

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[LondonJohn]

The official records show that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were not allowed to meet and consult with lawyers until their arrest hearings on Nov. 8.

Mignini has been censured by the Superior Council of the Judiciary for not following Italian procedural law in his denial of a lawyer to Sollecito in the period after his arrest until his arrest hearing.

The many factors that show that Knox was considered a suspect prior to her first recorded statement on Nov.6, during the interrogation, have been listed many times on this forum. These factors include, among others: 1) VQA Giobbi testified before the Massei court that Knox and Sollecito were suspects that he had ordered brought in for interrogation; 2) according to the Boninsegna motivation report, the police had phoned Mignini to report that Sollecito had withdrawn Knox's alibi prior to her statement; 3) according to the Boninsegna MR, the police had seized Knox's cell phone prior to her statement, violating procedural law by neither having a prior warrant nor retroactively obtaining a warrant; and 4) Knox would have become a suspect under CPP Article 63 as soon as she stated during the interrogation she was present while Lumumba had committed the murder and should have been given the legally required warning by the police that she was a suspect and entitled to a lawyer. That Knox's statement was considered incriminating by the police and prosecutor is clear, since it forms the core of the justification section (allegedly establishing "reasonable suspicion" grounds for the arrests) of the Nov. 6 arrest warrant for Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba that was prepared by Mignini.

However, according to ECHR case-law (Aleksandr Zaichenko v. Russia), the use of even supposedly non-incriminating statements made during an interrogation without a lawyer to secure a conviction of the interrogated person is a violation of Convention.

Indeed.

I think it's more than provable in any fair judicial forum that Knox was being considered a suspect of a criminal offence (whether that offence was related to direct participation in the murder or to lying to police or assisting an offender or other crimes related to perverting justice is actually moot) from the very moment that her interrogation on 5th/6th November 2007 commenced.

But even regardless of that, and assuming for a moment that Knox was not being considered a criminal suspect until she "buckled", as you point out it's a total and utter slam-dunk that once Knox made her first verbal "confession/accusation" her interrogation should have IMMEDIATELY been completely terminated and Knox should have been advised of her rights. She should never have been told to sign a typed up version of her verbal statement, and nor should the police have had anything more to do with Knox. She should have been given access to a lawyer, and should only have met with PM Mignini once she had had the opportunity to take proper legal advice. That's the law.

And on that matter, it's blatantly clear that Mignini also apparently acted with potentially-unlawful cunning when he went to see Knox in the early hours of the morning - again, all before Knox had ever been read her rights, let alone had the chance to talk to a lawyer. If Mignini really did insist on seeing Knox, he most certainly should have done nothing more than tell her who he was, and that he would be talking with her in due course after she had seen her lawyer.

Instead, Mignini elicited the now-infamous "spontaneous declaration" from Knox, seemingly on the trick premise of asking Knox to educate him as to her situation by telling him what she'd previously told the police. Of course Mignini could have learned what Knox had said in her "confession/accusation" simply by reading the (unlawfully) signed statement and/or by talking with the police officers present at the time. But IMO the clear purpose of Mignini's cosy, avuncular chat with Knox in the small hours was to obtain a version of her statement which might be admissible in court against her. Mignini and the police knew well that even the Italian courts would not allow Knox's verbal or first written statement to be used against her, but Mignini also knew that there's a loophole for "spontaneous declarations" to a PM made by a suspect. I am extremely confident that Mignini's tactics here were deliberately and carefully choreographed to obtain a "useable" statement for court. And that's ethically and morally reprehensible behaviour from a public official.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

No, "ducky".

You wrote: "It's contemptible you expect us to believe they are lovebirds". That's a metaphor.

You did not write ".....like lovebirds" or "....like a lovebird". Which, yes, would have been a simile. Except that's not what you wrote, is it?

What you wrote is a metaphor. What you did not write is a simile.

Whoops, Vixen shoots self in foot spectacularly yet again

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

LJ,
I'm sorry but this can't be right. Vixen has a memory that is accurate 99% of the time. See, look here:

It's contemptible you expect us to believe they are lovebirds.

Oh. Oops.

 

[Vixen]

The official records show that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were not allowed to meet and consult with lawyers until their arrest hearings on Nov. 8.

Mignini has been censured by the Superior Council of the Judiciary for not following Italian procedural law in his denial of a lawyer to Sollecito in the period after his arrest until his arrest hearing.

The many factors that show that Knox was considered a suspect prior to her first recorded statement on Nov.6, during the interrogation, have been listed many times on this forum. These factors include, among others: 1) VQA Giobbi testified before the Massei court that Knox and Sollecito were suspects that he had ordered brought in for interrogation; 2) according to the Boninsegna motivation report, the police had phoned Mignini to report that Sollecito had withdrawn Knox's alibi prior to her statement; 3) according to the Boninsegna MR, the police had seized Knox's cell phone prior to her statement, violating procedural law by neither having a prior warrant nor retroactively obtaining a warrant; and 4) Knox would have become a suspect under CPP Article 63 as soon as she stated during the interrogation she was present while Lumumba had committed the murder and should have been given the legally required warning by the police that she was a suspect and entitled to a lawyer. That Knox's statement was considered incriminating by the police and prosecutor is clear, since it forms the core of the justification section (allegedly establishing "reasonable suspicion" grounds for the arrests) of the Nov. 6 arrest warrant for Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba that was prepared by Mignini.

However, according to ECHR case-law (Aleksandr Zaichenko v. Russia), the use of even supposedly non-incriminating statements made during an interrogation without a lawyer to secure a conviction of the interrogated person is a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Very plausible. However, as of the days leading up to arrest, virtually everybody connected to the cottage, together with all of Mez' British friends, and those connected to them, were called to the police station for their statements. It is not conventional or mandatory to 'have a lawyer' when reporting a crime or relating what you know about it.

Secondly, whilst Mignini was indeed censured because his administrative staff made a clerical error in omitting to put the 'right to lawyer' statement in writing as per standard police procedure, in actual fact, it was not a disadvantage to Raff as he HAD been provided lawyers and had freely consulted with them prior to the assizes.

As to your claim the pair were considered suspects from get go is irrelevant and a red herring as the police have to gather substantial evidence before they can charge someone with an offence. Having a soupçon of a suspicion is not legal grounds for the subject of that doubt to be given a lawyer by the police. In Italy there is a point when a common or garden suspect becomes an official suspect. It is at this juncture they have lawyer rights. Amanda did not become an official suspect until she made her confession/false accusation, whereupon the interview was terminated.

When Raff withdrew his alibi, yes Amanda became aware of it, causing her to finger Patrick, however technically, Raff didn't sign his statement until circa 03:45. Amanda became a suspect circa 01:30. So chronologically, there is no anomaly. As of 01:30 Raff may have been carrying on BS-ing as far as the police were aware. The word of a drug-addled liar, is hardly enough for the police to issue a formal warning towards the object of his stream of consciousness.

 

[Vixen]

No, "ducky".

You wrote: "It's contemptible you expect us to believe they are lovebirds". That's a metaphor.

You did not write ".....like lovebirds" or "....like a lovebird". Which, yes, would have been a simile. Except that's not what you wrote, is it?

What you wrote is a metaphor. What you did not write is a simile. Whoops, Vixen shoots self in foot spectacularly yet again

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Gosh, you are so ignorant.

 

[LondonJohn]

Gosh, you are so ignorant.

Is that REALLY the best you can do?

Tell me: in the phrase "...you expect us to believe they were lovebirds", is there an example of a metaphor or a simile? Take care to make sure your answer is correct

You wrote a metaphor, not a simile. Then you tried to pretend you'd written a simile in order to "correct" me. But either your famous powers of memory had gone amiss, or you were knowingly trying to deceive, when you pretended that you'd written "....like lovebirds" or "....like a lovebird". When you hadn't used the "...like a...." construction at all. Really pathetic.

Ironically, this little grammar lesson is an excellent metaphor for the overall slackness, slovenliness, lack of attention to detail and wilful misstatements that characterise your "arguments" in this debate in respect of Knox, Sollecito and their trials process. It also shows a fundamental intellectual dishonesty. And that's really not a useful characteristic of honest, sincere debate.

But back to the subject at hand: where's your actual hard, reliable evidence that Sollecito harboured extremely negative sentiments towards Knox? I want to see verified text messages, verified emails, or sworn affidavits. Looking forward to your response on the matter.

 

[Vixen]

Is that REALLY the best you can do?

Tell me: in the phrase "...you expect us to believe they were lovebirds", is there an example of a metaphor or a simile? Take care to make sure your answer is correct

You wrote a metaphor, not a simile. Then you tried to pretend you'd written a simile in order to "correct" me. But either your famous powers of memory had gone amiss, or you were knowingly trying to deceive, when you pretended that you'd written "....like lovebirds" or "....like a lovebird". When you hadn't used the "...like a...." construction at all. Really pathetic.

Ironically, this little grammar lesson is an excellent metaphor for the overall slackness, slovenliness, lack of attention to detail and wilful misstatements that characterise your "arguments" in this debate in respect of Knox, Sollecito and their trials process. It also shows a fundamental intellectual dishonesty. And that's really not a useful characteristic of honest, sincere debate.

But back to the subject at hand: where's your actual hard, reliable evidence that Sollecito harboured extremely negative sentiments towards Knox? I want to see verified text messages, verified emails, or sworn affidavits. Looking forward to your response on the matter.

There is no requirement to use the word 'like'. Alikening a thing to something else is a simile.

Your correcting my grammar is akin to Eliza Doolittle advising Professor Higgins.

 

[LondonJohn]

There is no requirement to use the word 'like'. Alikening a thing to something else is a simile.

Your correcting my grammar is akin to Eliza Doolittle advising Professor Higgins.

You're embarrassingly wrong. "James was a lion" is a metaphor. It most assuredly is not a simile. "James was like a lion" or "James was as strong as a lion" are similes.

But don't just take my word for it. The Merriam-Webster website can help to educate you as well. Here is what it has to say about what is a metaphor and how it differs from a simile:

Definition of metaphor for Students

: a figure of speech comparing two unlike things without using like or as <“Their cheeks were roses” is a metaphor while “their cheeks were like roses” is a simile.>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphor

Go to the front desk in the British Library, and ask them to direct you to a good book on English figures of speech. There will be plenty of good, accurate books there, I'm certain.


Anyway, how are you coming along getting that proper evidence of Sollecito's negative sentiments towards Knox.....?

PS: There's no such word as "alikening". That hole just gets deeper and deeper........

 

[Vixen]

You're embarrassingly wrong. "James was a lion" is a metaphor. It most assuredly is not a simile. "James was like a lion" or "James was as strong as a lion" are similes.

But don't just take my word for it. The Merriam-Webster website can help to educate you as well. Here is what it has to say about what is a metaphor and how it differs from a simile:

Definition of metaphor for Students

: a figure of speech comparing two unlike things without using like or as <“Their cheeks were roses” is a metaphor while “their cheeks were like roses” is a simile.>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphor

Go to the front desk in the British Library, and ask them to direct you to a good book on English figures of speech. There will be plenty of good, accurate books there, I'm certain.


Anyway, how are you coming along getting that proper evidence of Sollecito's negative sentiments towards Knox.....?

PS: There's no such word as "alikening". That hole just gets deeper and deeper........

Look, dearie, your google education hasn't given you much of a grip on the English language or common sense.

Anyone who has to refer to the American Merriam-Webster dictionary is desperately deficient in the English language, although I quite understand why you need a guide.

 

[Numbers]

Very plausible. However, as of the days leading up to arrest, virtually everybody connected to the cottage, together with all of Mez' British friends, and those connected to them, were called to the police station for their statements. It is not conventional or mandatory to 'have a lawyer' when reporting a crime or relating what you know about it.

Secondly, whilst Mignini was indeed censured because his administrative staff made a clerical error in omitting to put the 'right to lawyer' statement in writing as per standard police procedure, in actual fact, it was not a disadvantage to Raff as he HAD been provided lawyers and had freely consulted with them prior to the assizes.

As to your claim the pair were considered suspects from get go is irrelevant and a red herring as the police have to gather substantial evidence before they can charge someone with an offence. Having a soupçon of a suspicion is not legal grounds for the subject of that doubt to be given a lawyer by the police. In Italy there is a point when a common or garden suspect becomes an official suspect. It is at this juncture they have lawyer rights. Amanda did not become an official suspect until she made her confession/false accusation, whereupon the interview was terminated.

When Raff withdrew his alibi, yes Amanda became aware of it, causing her to finger Patrick, however technically, Raff didn't sign his statement until circa 03:45. Amanda became a suspect circa 01:30. So chronologically, there is no anomaly. As of 01:30 Raff may have been carrying on BS-ing as far as the police were aware. The word of a drug-addled liar, is hardly enough for the police to issue a formal warning towards the object of his stream of consciousness.

The "claim" is part of a judgment by a first-instance Italian court; the judgment is final since it was not appealed within the time-limit by the prosecutor.

That judgment states that Knox's rights under the Italian Constitution and Italian procedural law were violated by the police during the interrogation of Nov. 5/6, 2007, and acquits her of the charge of calunnia against the police.

The Florence first-instance court (Boninsegna) judgment will, without doubt, play a major role in the judgment of the ECHR in the case of Knox v. Italy, as it was mentioned in the ECHR Communication of the case to Italy.

 

[LondonJohn]

Look, dearie, your google education hasn't given you much of a grip on the English language or common sense.

Anyone who has to refer to the American Merriam-Webster dictionary is desperately deficient in the English language, although I quite understand why you need a guide.

So you refuse to admit you're wrong. And resort instead to petty, infantile insults that are irrelevant (as well as being wrong and amusingly misguided themselves). No big surprise there, I suppose.

However, in order to assuage your need for a UK source, I looked for ages for a good paper on the subject from a UK polytechnic, but without success strangely. However, I did find this paper from a proper, first-class university, UCL:

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/pals/research/linguistics/publications/wpl/09papers/odonoghue.

And it - unsurprisingly of course - says exactly the same thing as the Merriam-Webster resource. Hope that helps


And aside from that sorry spectacle, where's the evidence of Sollecito's negative sentiment towards Knox? Are you prepared to support your claim, or is this another pathetic "shan't" situation? I'm on tenterhooks

 

[Vixen]

The "claim" is part of a judgment by a first-instance Italian court; the judgment is final since it was not appealed within the time-limit by the prosecutor.

That judgment states that Knox's rights under the Italian Constitution and Italian procedural law were violated by the police during the interrogation of Nov. 5/6, 2007, and acquits her of the charge of calunnia against the police.

The Florence first-instance court (Boninsegna) judgment will, without doubt, play a major role in the judgment of the ECHR in the case of Knox v. Italy, as it was mentioned in the ECHR Communication of the case to Italy.

No, it doesn't, as the police were not on trial.

You need to learn to distinguish between narrative and a legal ruling.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, it doesn't, as the police were not on trial.

You need to learn to distinguish between narrative and a legal ruling.

Numbers never suggested that the claims were a legal ruling rather than a part of a narrative - and it's a misleading straw man to invent the distinction. Of course the claims were taken from the narrative accompanying the verdict, but that is not to diminish their weight at all.

And the fact remains that the primary justification for the Boninsegna court's verdict of acquittal for Knox was that her rights were fundamentally and seriously violated during her police interrogation of 5th/6th November 2007. The court further states that in effect it cannot accept the word of the police officers as reliable or truthful.

And as Numbers correctly points out, the Boninsegna ruling will undoubtedly carry weight in the ECHR's examination of Knox's application - that's already been made clear by the ECHR's interest in the Boninsegna case and its finality.

 

[Vixen]

I know I am right but you can have the last word.

 

[LondonJohn]

[Edited]

[Edited to match with edited post, on account of basic courtesy]

And why do you continue to avoid the subjects? To focus in on the one subject that's relevant to the topic of this thread, where's the proper evidence that Sollecito had negative sentiments towards Knox? If you can provide such evidence, then fine, let's see it. If you cannot provide such evidence, you ought to say so. But of course you can choose to simply ignore the matter - its your prerogative. Inferences will be drawn from that choice to ignore, however.

 

[LondonJohn]

I know I am right but you can have the last word.

And this pretty much says it all

(Obviously the irony will be lost - that's part of the amusement.......)

 

[Vixen]

And this pretty much says it all

(Obviously the irony will be lost - that's part of the amusement.......)

Referring to someone as 'lovebirds' is a simile, rather than a metaphor proper. If we were to say 'they were billing and coo-ing', then that would be more so.

I'm out.