Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32
- Thread starter LondonJohn
- Start date
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
AmyStrange
Philosopher
AmyStrange
Philosopher
Machiavelli also told me privately that he wasn't really sure Amanda and Raffaele were guilty. He just liked to argue.
At the time, Mach and myself had many, many private discussions that were very friendly and also very interesting to say the least.
-
Last edited:
If this is claim is true, this proves guilters are lackeys for the prosecution.
AnimalFriendly
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2012
- Messages
- 326
An anonymous quote about a possible extradition request provides zero proof of any attempt by the US Department of State to directly influence the outcome of Italian Supreme Court proceedings. The Express article linked above doesn't provide any named source whatsoever. The quote could have been made up out of thin air for all we know.
So Vixen still has provided no remote proof that either the US State Department or the Mafia interfered with any of the trials from 2009 to 2015 so as to provide a favorable outcome for Knox & Sollectito. Nothing. And one would hardly expect there to be overt or covert cooperation in a matter such as this.
So Vixen still has provided no remote proof that either the US State Department or the Mafia interfered with any of the trials from 2009 to 2015 so as to provide a favorable outcome for Knox & Sollectito. Nothing. And one would hardly expect there to be overt or covert cooperation in a matter such as this.
Last edited:
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
I believe most readers here understand that in the Knox - Sollecito case, there had been a court case against prosecutor Mignini alleging that he had committed a criminal act of abuse of office in the Monster of Florence case. The charges againn st Mignini were dismissed when the length of the trial exceeded the time limit allowed under Italian law. Thus, under Italian law, Mignini's status is equivalent to having been acquitted of those charges. However, in the MoF case, and later in the Knox - Sollecito case, Mignini showed a strong tendency to view the relevant crimes as the product of satanic rituals and conspiracies, but without providing credible evidence.
In the Knox - Sollecito case, Mignini's acts, or failures to act, included failures to follow critically important Italian laws of criminal procedure. For example, he interviewed Knox after her police interrogation without warning her that she was now a suspect, that she was entitled to a defense lawyer during the interview, that she had the right to remain silent, and that anything she said against another person would make her a witness - apparently a warning about the crime of calunnia (CPP Articles 63 and 64).
Mignini and the police failed to provide the required warnings to Sollecito as well, and in 2017 the High Council of Magistrates censured Mignini for not providing Sollecito with a lawyer or warning him of his need for one.
The CSC had, at an early phase of the case, ruled that, because she was not provided a defense lawyer during the interrogation, Knox's statements during the interrogation could not be used against her (which, by some other CSC ruling, was only considered applicable tor the murder/rape case and not the calunnia case).
In the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy, the ECHR found that Knox's lack of a lawyer during the prosecutor's interview, while she was without any doubt a suspect, resulted in a violation of Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3c, and made the entire trial and conviction for calunnia unfair beyond repair. The ECHR found that the earlier interrogation by the police resulted in a violation of Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3e, because of the inadequate and unfair nature of the interpretation, and likewise made the entire trial and conviction for calunnia unfair beyond repair.
Some readers here may wonder whether the police misconduct in this case was the result of mistakes or intentional. The police violated several important basic procedural laws, such as documenting the actual questions and answers, including the statements of the interpreter, during the interrogation. For Knox's interrogation, they failed to follow the requirements of CPP Article 63, which requires the interviewing police to notify the alleged witness that she has made an incriminating statement, that she is now a suspect subject to investigation, and that she is now entitled to a defense lawyer. No further questioning is to be conducted without the defense lawyer present. According to Knox's testimony in court, the police threatened her and hit her on the head during the questioning; such conduct would be a violation of Italian criminal law.
Some readers may have an idealized view of police, including those who questioned Knox and Sollecito, and consider that the police would not violate criminal or even procedural law. However, two of the police officers, Monica Napoleoni, head of the homicide squad, and Stefania Zugarini, her subordinate, who questioned Knox during 2007 interrogation, were convicted in 2020 of an abuse of power. They had illegally used the police computerized information system for Napoleoni's non-police-related effort to find information about a psychologist who was working on matters related to Napoleoni's divorce. Napoleoni was also convicted of vandalizing the psychologist's car. These convictions may suggest that some of the police at the interrogation were willing to violate criminal and procedural laws in pursuit of their goals.
In the Knox - Sollecito case, Mignini's acts, or failures to act, included failures to follow critically important Italian laws of criminal procedure. For example, he interviewed Knox after her police interrogation without warning her that she was now a suspect, that she was entitled to a defense lawyer during the interview, that she had the right to remain silent, and that anything she said against another person would make her a witness - apparently a warning about the crime of calunnia (CPP Articles 63 and 64).
Mignini and the police failed to provide the required warnings to Sollecito as well, and in 2017 the High Council of Magistrates censured Mignini for not providing Sollecito with a lawyer or warning him of his need for one.
The CSC had, at an early phase of the case, ruled that, because she was not provided a defense lawyer during the interrogation, Knox's statements during the interrogation could not be used against her (which, by some other CSC ruling, was only considered applicable tor the murder/rape case and not the calunnia case).
In the ECHR judgment Knox v. Italy, the ECHR found that Knox's lack of a lawyer during the prosecutor's interview, while she was without any doubt a suspect, resulted in a violation of Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3c, and made the entire trial and conviction for calunnia unfair beyond repair. The ECHR found that the earlier interrogation by the police resulted in a violation of Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3e, because of the inadequate and unfair nature of the interpretation, and likewise made the entire trial and conviction for calunnia unfair beyond repair.
Some readers here may wonder whether the police misconduct in this case was the result of mistakes or intentional. The police violated several important basic procedural laws, such as documenting the actual questions and answers, including the statements of the interpreter, during the interrogation. For Knox's interrogation, they failed to follow the requirements of CPP Article 63, which requires the interviewing police to notify the alleged witness that she has made an incriminating statement, that she is now a suspect subject to investigation, and that she is now entitled to a defense lawyer. No further questioning is to be conducted without the defense lawyer present. According to Knox's testimony in court, the police threatened her and hit her on the head during the questioning; such conduct would be a violation of Italian criminal law.
Some readers may have an idealized view of police, including those who questioned Knox and Sollecito, and consider that the police would not violate criminal or even procedural law. However, two of the police officers, Monica Napoleoni, head of the homicide squad, and Stefania Zugarini, her subordinate, who questioned Knox during 2007 interrogation, were convicted in 2020 of an abuse of power. They had illegally used the police computerized information system for Napoleoni's non-police-related effort to find information about a psychologist who was working on matters related to Napoleoni's divorce. Napoleoni was also convicted of vandalizing the psychologist's car. These convictions may suggest that some of the police at the interrogation were willing to violate criminal and procedural laws in pursuit of their goals.
Last edited:
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Another gish-gallop of mostly speculation, assumption, and disproved misinformation. I'm not even going to address them as it's been done a hundred times before.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Nice try. The divorce had nothing to do with the Kercher case as Napoleoni committed the illegal searches on November 14 and 16, 2012. By that time, Knox and Sollecito had been acquitted. But what it does show is that some of the Perugia police...Napoleoni and several of her subordinates were convicted...would commit an illegal act. But you know that was the point.
No one said they did. Again, nice try.
Yeah...why remove her undies? Rapists always leave them on. Right? Or is that only in Finland?
Nope. That's an assumption that his DNA was on it while it was under her body. It could have been contaminated with his LCN DNA during the six weeks it traveled across the room.
No amount of the propaganda you and TJMK, et al. spew online changes the truth of the matter.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
I have. None of them is evidence of any interference with the prosecution of the case. And it wasn't the "governor of Washington"; it was US Senator Maria Cantwell.
The "guy" doesn't make extradition decisions. Besides, it's all speculation because Italy never requested her extradition.
Since none of your examples had anything to do with the verdicts and sentences imposed by the courts, so your comment is false.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
That's not evidence. Try again.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
You know as well as I do that in the latin countries (for example, France, Portugal, Italy), that - unlike in the UK or USA - there are two categories of suspect. As in the UK/USA police are free to suspect whomsoever they like and this suspicion arises when a witness lies about their whereabouts or what they were doing as of the time of the crime. There is no obligation for the police to inform that witness that they are investigating their alibi. Likewise, in Italy re the Kercher case, Sollecito was found to have lied in his first signed witness statement. He was perfectly entitled by the police investigating a particularly cruel, callous and brutal murder, to come under suspicion as being unable to account for what he got up to that night and why his apartment suffered a huge amount of flooding supposedly needing a mop from the cottage to clean it up. The police routinely would suspect such an individual especially if that individual has access to the murder scene, which Sollecito did via Knox having the key to the house and being the only one home apart from the murder/sexual assault victim herself. In the UK/USA such a person is notified they are an official suspect by being placed under arrest and/or on bail until further notice. In Italy, this stage happens when police inform you you are an 'arguido': an official suspect.
Simply walking into a police station - as Knox did - and reporting a crime, and saying, as Knox did, that she saw the crime being committed does not require the police in either UK/USA or latin Europe to provide you with a duty solicitor/attorney/lawyer when you sign your witness statement to that effect.
.
Last edited:
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
You are still completely failing to grasp the point being made. As a corollary:
- In the case of Lee Rigby killed by two Islamist terrorists, one of the convicted men claimed the police knocked out his teeth whilst he was being arrested. QUESTION: Does this mean he did not commit the murder?
- In the case of OJ Simpson, an openly racist police detective is alleged to have planted 'the glove' at the crime scene to ensure - it is claimed - OJ Simpson got convicted. Simpson was acquitted as a result. QUESTION: Does this mean OJ Simpson did not commit the murders?
BTW DNA does not crawl across the room. DNA has no ability to fly under a door and land on an item covered by a body.
Please stop living a fairy story and face reality: Sollecito's full DNA was on the victim's underwear. As confirmed under cross examination by one of Italy's leading DNA experts. A top expert in DNA also attended as the defence witness for the DNA testing as it took place live in front of him, and who reported no anomalies in the process. In addition, Kercher's near full DNA (15 alleles) was on Sollecito's kitchen knife blade with Knox' on the hilt. But Kercher had never been in Sollecito's kitchen. Yet Sollecito made up a story of having pricked her hand with it whilst they were cooking together. Sollecito lied, lied and lied. So much so, that when he tried to claim compensation, he was found to have behaved in a legally 'gross misconduct' manner and had his cheeky attempt to profit from HIS crimes thrown out.
.
.
Last edited:
Vixen, your post is a remarkable word salad of misinformation and off-topic diversion.
Perhaps the oddest or (unintentionally?) funniest bit of your post is your use of the word "arguido" in your sentence: In Italy, this stage happens when police inform you you are an 'arguido': an official suspect.
According to Google Translate and Reverso, "arguido" is a Brazilian Portuguese word meaning "defendant". It's not an Italian word.
Italian law (CPP Article 61)* - which is written in Italian - mandates that a suspect has the same rights as an accused (= defendant, person officially charged with a criminal offense).
Google Translation:
CPP Article 63* is an Italian law that requires that a person who is interviewed by the police or prosecutor as a witness but who makes an incriminating statement becomes a suspect, the interview is stopped, the person is informed that he or she may now be investigated as a suspect, and the person is "invited" to obtain a lawyer. The (incriminating) statement made during the interview cannot be used (in a trial) against the person. Furthermore, if the judicial authority - police or prosecutor - conducting the interview should have been conducting the interview as the questioning of a suspect or accused, none of the statements made by the person during the interview may be used.
Google translation:
* Source: https://www.altalex.com/documents/news/2014/03/26/imputato
In both the US and Italian judicial systems, the charging of a crime happens twice: first, in the arrest warrant, and second, in the charges prepared in preparation for trial. In both systems, the trial charges may be different from the arrest charges. Obviously, after an arrest in either system, the police and/or prosecutor may recognize an error and charges may be dropped before the trial charges are finalized.
Last edited:
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
But Knox wasn't an 'accused' (suspect) nor a 'defendant' (officially charged with an offence), when she informed police Lumumba did it.
.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
He and I had a brief PM exchange. We did not get along. When I asked him what I'd said that pissed him off, he was very specific. Indeed, I had said those things, so I suppose he had every right to react to them the way he chose. I came away from it believing he was less interested in 'guilt' or 'innocence' as he was in deconstructing the court as a theatre, and what it said about each 'character' in the way they were perceived by 'both sides'. I fundamentally did not understand where he was coming from.
Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem. Or a memory - retention of information problem. The concepts you bring up have been discussed previously on the many continuations of this thread many times.
For anyone who has forgotten:
1. Knox entered the police station with Sollecito solely with the intent of seeking shelter from any possible attack by whoever had killed Kercher; she had not come to the station with the intent of providing any additional information, according to her statements. She had already been interviewed on previous days for many hours, according to police records.
2. The police, after beginning their interview or questioning of Sollecito, asked Knox to answer additional questions, according to both Knox and the police.
3. Knox was being asked questions as though she were a witness, whether or not the police in their reality viewed her as a suspect.
4. When Knox made her statement about Lumumba, she became a suspect in accordance with Italian law, CPP Article 63. This is true whether or not the police privately, in their view, considered her a suspect prior to that time. It is clear from certain events of the interrogation that Knox was considered a suspect by the police in reality even before she made her statement about Lumumba. A telling example is that the police asked Knox for her phone and read messages on it. This taking of an object from a person and with no prior warrant is generally done to a suspect - a person under investigation - not to a witness, under Italian law. As reported by the police, Knox was crying and emotional during the latter part of the questioning, an indication of the aggressive and hostile nature of the interrogation. Furthermore, at the news conference following the arrests, the police chief stated that Knox had been broken under questioning and told the police what they already knew.
5. In accordance with Italian law, Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba were charged with a crime - the murder/rape of Kercher - prior to the "official" arrests in a document prepared by the prosecutor, Mignini. Prior to their first trial, Knox and Sollecito were charged with the murder/rape and Knox was charged with calunnia against Lumumba.
Last edited:
AmyStrange
Philosopher
Yup, but I guess the whole reason Mach and I got along was we did agree on one thing, and that was how Guede got in the house.
My theory explained a lot of things, and my expertise in the matter was deleted by the mods, but that didn't change the fact that I was an expert, if only as a young, amateur professional.
I'm not going to rehash all that again, because it doesn't really matter now, and besides, no one believed me back then so what would be the point of bring it up now anyway?
-
To add to the above post (#2818), I should mention we also know that Knox was a suspect from the beginning of the impugned interrogation based on Sollecito's account of his interrogation, which started prior to Knox's. The interrogators pressured Sollecito to abandon his alibi supporting Knox. Unfortunately, the Italian police violated Italian procedural law and left no documentation of the questions and answers during Sollecito's interrogation.
As discussed previously here, the ECHR in its judgment Knox v. Italy examined the issue of whether or not Knox was a suspect during the two episodes of questioning that resulted in two statements on 6 November 2007 - the one first before the police (1:45 am statement) and the second before the prosecutor (5:45 am statement). In paragraphs 147 through 152, the ECHR judgment discusses this issue. In paragraph 151, the reasons why the ECHR believes that Knox may have been a suspect (even though claimed to be a witness by the authorities) during the first interrogation are listed (Google translation):
The ECHR then, in paragraph 153, acknowledges that the Italian courts had stated that both of Knox's statements could be used against her only for the alleged crime of calunnia against Lumumba:
Finally, the ECHR concludes that the Italian Government has not justified use of the impugned statements, made without a lawyer, as evidence against Knox in any way that is valid under ECHR case law. Therefore, there was a violation of Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3c:
As discussed previously here, the ECHR in its judgment Knox v. Italy examined the issue of whether or not Knox was a suspect during the two episodes of questioning that resulted in two statements on 6 November 2007 - the one first before the police (1:45 am statement) and the second before the prosecutor (5:45 am statement). In paragraphs 147 through 152, the ECHR judgment discusses this issue. In paragraph 151, the reasons why the ECHR believes that Knox may have been a suspect (even though claimed to be a witness by the authorities) during the first interrogation are listed (Google translation):
It seems to me that the ECHR decided not to conclusively hold that Knox was a suspect during the first interrogation because from a human right viewpoint, the actions of the interpreter were so unfair to the outcome of the trial that it was unnecessary. The ECHR instead in paragraph 152 focused the denial of a defense lawyer claim to the second interrogation, because the Italian courts (CSC) itself stated that contrary to Italian law, Knox had been denied a lawyer during that interrogation even though she had clearly become a suspect with her first (1:45 am) statement:
The ECHR then, in paragraph 153, acknowledges that the Italian courts had stated that both of Knox's statements could be used against her only for the alleged crime of calunnia against Lumumba:
Finally, the ECHR concludes that the Italian Government has not justified use of the impugned statements, made without a lawyer, as evidence against Knox in any way that is valid under ECHR case law. Therefore, there was a violation of Convention Article 6.1 with 6.3c:
See: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-189422