Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

Mojo said:
If someone doesn't walk into a shop and steal $100 from the till at gunpoint, but they are browbeaten into a false confession which they later retract, does the confession mean that they committed the criminal offence of aggravated robbery?
Click to expand...
Not one single court said that happened. Every single criminal law courrt found Knox guilty of criminal calunnia as charged. In addition, Knox wrote her claims in private of her own volition and handed her statement to a cop saying, 'Here's a present for you'. Maybe if someone ever falsely informs the cops you committed a rape and murder and you were arrested in front of your wife and young crying children with the whole world thinking you are a rapist murderer maybe you won't think your accuser is so endearing after all.
 
Last edited:
Numbers said:
There's a considerable difference between a statement made under alleged duress while under the control of the police and the actions of an armed robber. Your failure to grasp that point is remarkable.
Click to expand...
So are you claiming that if police catch you out lying then it's OK to think of one of your associates and tell cops they did it to get yourself out off a tight spot? Or would it be a calculated act on your part?
 
What's the difference between a fat clown, his maga weirdoes, and a guilter?

Nothing, they're all lying, clueless idiots.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
So are you claiming that if police catch you out lying then it's OK to think of one of your associates and tell cops they did it to get yourself out off a tight spot? Or would it be a calculated act on your part?
Click to expand...

LOL. Knox was clearly unlawfully coerced into accusing Lumumba and placing herself in the cottage at the time of the murder.

The intelligent amongst us have known this for around the last 15 years.

The police found the "see you later" text message and wrongly concluded that it meant Knox was planning to meet up with Lumumba later that evening (ie the evening of the murder). The police then told Knox that they had solid evidence that Lumumba had killed Kercher and that Knox had let Lumumba into the cottage (after meeting up with him, perhaps at the basketball court). They (the police) told Knox that she'd better cooperate with them - ie confirm the accusation against Lumumba and agree that she'd met up with him, let him into the cottage, and bn present in the cottage when he killed Kercher - otherwise she'd find herself in serious trouble. The rest is a macabre and long-drawn-out history. A history which will eventually be corrected when Italy's unfit-for-purpose criminal justice system applies a just remedy in line with the ECHR adjudication. That just remedy will be acquittal and full exoneration on the criminal slander charge.
 
Vixen said:
So are you claiming that if police catch you out lying then it's OK to think of one of your associates and tell cops they did it to get yourself out off a tight spot? Or would it be a calculated act on your part?
Click to expand...
It's the police and the prosecutor who were lying. They apparently intended to lie before beginning the interrogations of 5 - 6 November 2007. Evidence of their malicious intent includes, but is not limited to, their failure to properly and lawfully document the interrogations, failure to provide the warning of the need for a defense lawyer, conducting the interrogations without a defense lawyer, and failing to issue the proper warnings that the questioned persons - Sollecito and Knox - were suspects.
 
LondonJohn said:
LOL. Knox was clearly unlawfully coerced into accusing Lumumba and placing herself in the cottage at the time of the murder.

The intelligent amongst us have known this for around the last 15 years.

The police found the "see you later" text message and wrongly concluded that it meant Knox was planning to meet up with Lumumba later that evening (ie the evening of the murder). The police then told Knox that they had solid evidence that Lumumba had killed Kercher and that Knox had let Lumumba into the cottage (after meeting up with him, perhaps at the basketball court). They (the police) told Knox that she'd better cooperate with them - ie confirm the accusation against Lumumba and agree that she'd met up with him, let him into the cottage, and bn present in the cottage when he killed Kercher - otherwise she'd find herself in serious trouble. The rest is a macabre and long-drawn-out history. A history which will eventually be corrected when Italy's unfit-for-purpose criminal justice system applies a just remedy in line with the ECHR adjudication. That just remedy will be acquittal and full exoneration on the criminal slander charge.
Click to expand...
It was demonstrated in court that police did not provide Knox with Lumumba's name and AK herself in the dock confirmed it. The police are only obliged to tell an interviewee they are entitled to a lawyer, there is no compulsion to provide one. The police did not tell Knox they had evidence that confirmed Lumumba killed Mez. That is a lie suggested by the late Ron Hendry when he claimed police found 'black hairs' so they knew it was a black guy. Absolute rubbish about the 'see you later' message. Italians know perfectly well what 'see you later' means. They were alerted to that message because Knox had a noticeable physiological reaction of shock and horror that the cops had called up that message because she thought she had deleted it! She realised it placed her in Grimana Piazza (we know the pair were aware of phone tracking because they both switched off their phones for the night shortly after Lumumba's message). She knew she had been caught out lying about her alibi which was she was home all evening. So the cops, being experienced in this type of body language, were alerted that they had hit a raw nerve. Together with Napoleoni putting her head around the door and whispering to Ficarra that Sollecito had withdrawn his alibi for Knox. This was why they homed in on the 'see you later' message. The cops knew it was a BIG clue. And they were right!
 
Last edited:
Numbers said:
It's the police and the prosecutor who were lying. They apparently intended to lie before beginning the interrogations of 5 - 6 November 2007. Evidence of their malicious intent includes, but is not limited to, their failure to properly and lawfully document the interrogations, failure to provide the warning of the need for a defense lawyer, conducting the interrogations without a defense lawyer, and failing to issue the proper warnings that the questioned persons - Sollecito and Knox - were suspects.
Click to expand...
Be that as it may, police faults and omissions. Nobody but nobody can force you to falsely accuse someone you know is innocent of rape and murder. And even if the pair were suspects -and why not as AK was the only one with the house key who was around that night - they still wouldn't know for certain. It doesn't benefit them to have some person blurting out any old name.
 
Vixen said:
Be that as it may, police faults and omissions. Nobody but nobody can force you to falsely accuse someone you know is innocent of rape and murder. And even if the pair were suspects -and why not as AK was the only one with the house key who was around that night - they still wouldn't know for certain. It doesn't benefit them to have some person blurting out any old name.
Click to expand...


BTW, and all kidding aside, did you ever meet up with Mignini?
 
Vixen said:
It was demonstrated in court that police did not provide Knox with Lumumba's name and AK herself in the dock confirmed it. The police are only obliged to tell an interviewee they are entitled to a lawyer, there is no compulsion to provide one. The police did not tell Knox they had evidence that confirmed Lumumba killed Mez. That is a lie suggested by the late Ron Hendry when he claimed police found 'black hairs' so they knew it was a black guy. Absolute rubbish about the 'see you later' message. Italians know perfectly well what 'see you later' means. They were alerted to that message because Knox had a noticeable physiological reaction of shock and horror that the cops had called up that message because she thought she had deleted it! She realised it placed her in Grimana Piazza (we know the pair were aware of phone tracking because they both switched off their phones for the night shortly after Lumumba's message). She knew she had been caught out lying about her alibi which was she was home all evening. So the cops, being experienced in this type of body language, were alerted that they had hit a raw nerve. Together with Napoleoni putting her head around the door and whispering to Ficarra that Sollecito had withdrawn his alibi for Knox. This was why they homed in on the 'see you later' message. The cops knew it was a BIG clue. And they were right!
Click to expand...
There is a legal obligation for the police to advise or request a person who makes an incriminating statement to warn that he or she has become a person who is now subject to investigation and is advised to appoint a lawyer. The interrogation or questioning is to be stopped once the incriminating statement is made. The incriminating statement(s) shall not be used against the person who made them in a trial or other proceeding. If the person questioned should have been interrogated as a suspect from the beginning, then their incriminating statement(s) may not be used against anyone. See CPP Article 63. Here's a Google translation of that law:

1. If, before the judicial authority or the judicial police, a non-accused person or a person not under investigation makes statements that suggest guilt against them, the proceeding authority will suspend the hearing, warn them that their statements may lead to investigations, and will request that they appoint counsel. Previous statements cannot be used against the person who made them.

2. If the person was initially to be heard as an accused or as a person under investigation, their statements cannot be used.
Click to expand...

Note that this law, as written by the Italian Parliament, makes no exceptions for calunnia or autocalunnia. The Italian court system arbitrarily has decided that calunnia and autocalunnia are not to be covered by the law, according to an Italian government statement to the ECHR.

Source: https://www.altalex.com/documents/news/2014/03/26/imputato


The rest of your post is nonsensical.
 
Last edited:
Numbers said:
There is a legal obligation for the police to advise or request a person who makes an incriminating statement to warn that he or she has become a person who is now subject to investigation and is advised to appoint a lawyer. The interrogation or questioning is to be stopped once the incriminating statement is made. The incriminating statement(s) shall not be used against the person who made them in a trial or other proceeding. If the person questioned should have been interrogated as a suspect from the beginning, then their incriminating statement(s) may not be used against anyone. See CPP Article 63. Here's a Google translation of that law:



Note that this law, as written by the Italian Parliament, makes no exceptions for calunnia or autocalunnia. The Italian court system arbitrarily has decided that calunnia and autocalunnia are not to be covered by the law, according to an Italian government statement to the ECHR.

Source: https://www.altalex.com/documents/news/2014/03/26/imputato


The rest of your post is nonsensical.
Click to expand...
The police claim they stopped the interview as soon as Knox placed herself at the scene.
 
Vixen said:
It was demonstrated in court that police did not provide Knox with Lumumba's name and AK herself in the dock confirmed it. The police are only obliged to tell an interviewee they are entitled to a lawyer, there is no compulsion to provide one. The police did not tell Knox they had evidence that confirmed Lumumba killed Mez. That is a lie suggested by the late Ron Hendry when he claimed police found 'black hairs' so they knew it was a black guy. Absolute rubbish about the 'see you later' message. Italians know perfectly well what 'see you later' means. They were alerted to that message because Knox had a noticeable physiological reaction of shock and horror that the cops had called up that message because she thought she had deleted it! She realised it placed her in Grimana Piazza (we know the pair were aware of phone tracking because they both switched off their phones for the night shortly after Lumumba's message). She knew she had been caught out lying about her alibi which was she was home all evening. So the cops, being experienced in this type of body language, were alerted that they had hit a raw nerve. Together with Napoleoni putting her head around the door and whispering to Ficarra that Sollecito had withdrawn his alibi for Knox. This was why they homed in on the 'see you later' message. The cops knew it was a BIG clue. And they were right!
Click to expand...

As I said, the intelligent people know that Knox was unlawfully coerced.
 
LondonJohn said:
As I said, the intelligent people know that Knox was unlawfully coerced.
Click to expand...
Seeing as you consider yourself one of those such people, perhaps explain why Knox and Sollecito told so many lies if they were innocent. I'll get into my listening pose as you explain why the innocuous pair lied, lied and lied again, yet were as innocent as the driven snow. Help me understand.
 
Vixen said:
Seeing as you consider yourself one of those such people, perhaps explain why Knox and Sollecito told so many lies if they were innocent. I'll get into my listening pose as you explain why the innocuous pair lied, lied and lied again, yet were as innocent as the driven snow. Help me understand.
Click to expand...

So, I guess you lied about setting up a meeting with Mignini, right? I'm not surprised really, because that's a typical guilter mantra:

blah, blah, blah, lies, blah, blah, blah, more lies, blah, blah, blah
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
As I said, the intelligent people know that Knox was unlawfully coerced.
Click to expand...


Yup, guilters would need more than two brain cells to rub together before they can figure out the truth, but unfortunately, they don't have any.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The police claim they stopped the interview as soon as Knox placed herself at the scene.
Click to expand...
You miss the part about the police not inviting her to get a lawyer and that the prosecutor continued the questioning to obtain another statement from Knox - a "spontaneous statement", as though she would be aware of this Italian legal buzz phrase.
 
Vixen said:
But don't you see, the police lying doesn't cancel out Knox lying.
Click to expand...
She's not charged with lying. And frankly I don't see that she lied about anything. But I'm curious, how long will your obsession last?

Amanda Knox throughout her entire life has never been accused of committing violence against anyone. Except for this absurdity. Not a single story in the US prior to or after this absurdity in Italy. Not once. She has lived an upstanding life. In contrast Guede was in trouble before and after.
Have you ever questioned what you think you know? I mean really questioned yourself? You should try it some time.
 
Vixen said:
Seeing as you consider yourself one of those such people, perhaps explain why Knox and Sollecito told so many lies if they were innocent. I'll get into my listening pose as you explain why the innocuous pair lied, lied and lied again, yet were as innocent as the driven snow. Help me understand.
Click to expand...

Uhm...... they were unlawfully coerced by the police into making false statements.

It's abundantly clear that the police pressurised Sollecito into believing that the events of the night of 31st October were actually the events of the night of 1st November (the murder night). They wouldn't let him see a calendar, and they wore him down by insisting that they knew Knox was involved and that he shouldn't keep providing her with an alibi otherwise he'd end up with serious criminal charges of his own.

They then confronted Knox and told her that Sollecito's version of events no longer supported her. They also told her that they knew Lumumba was the killer and that Knox had let him into the cottage. They told her that unless she corroborated this police story, she'd find herself in very serious criminal trouble of her own.

Oh and the police were of course aided and abetted by the "friendly" interpreter Donnino, who planted into Knox the idea of traumatic memory loss. So we know for certain that the police were putting significant pressure onto Knox in forcing her to "remember" the police version of events from that night.

That's how it all happened, Vixen. Oh and the ECHR agrees with me. I know the truth of the matter, and you are categorically ignorant of it. Feel free to extricate yourself from your listening pose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom