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

Vixen said:
having cursorily rang both Mez' phones
​
Click to expand...

Like I said, you have no idea whatsoever when it comes to interpreting the call log information. Your posts on this issue demonstrate not only rank ignorance but also - seemingly - an entire resistance to any learning.

And it's Mez's, not Mez'
 
Vixen said:
Remind me of the answer to the following:

1. Why did Sollecito tell police Knox carried a knife in her bag?​
​
Is it true Knox carried a knife in her bag? A simple yes or no will suffice.​
Click to expand...
Vixen, you should understand by now that anything Sollecito may have said or any statement he signed during or as a result of his coercive interrogation, conducted without a defense lawyer, on 5 - 6 November 2007, was unusable against him or anyone else under Italian law CPP Article 63. Mignini was censured by the High Council of the Judiciary (aka Superior Council of the Magistrates; abbreviated as CSM in Italian) for his denial of a lawyer to Sollecito during the interrogation.
 
Last edited:
TomG said:
The phone calls you mention connected with Via dell'Aquila n.5 - Torre dell'Aquedotto, Sett.9 or Via dell'Aquila n.5 - Torre dell'Aquedotto, Sett.3, both of which serve the vicinity of Raffaele's flat.
Click to expand...
So, no simple 'yes' or 'nos' so far. So four lies logged.

Q5: Did Sollecito deny that he switched off his phone from circa 18:45 pm 1 Nov 2007 to circa 05:00 am 2 Nov 2007?​
​
A simple yes or no will suffice.​
 
Vixen said:
As I am not a hero worshipper, I am surprised you consider Mignini a hero. I just happened to be in a completely different country from him.
Click to expand...

Then why did you post that you requested a meetup with him or are you going to lie about that too.
 
Vixen said:
So, no simple 'yes' or 'nos' so far. So four lies logged.

Q5: Did Sollecito deny that he switched off his phone from circa 18:45 pm 1 Nov 2007 to circa 05:00 am 2 Nov 2007?​
​
A simple yes or no will suffice.​
Click to expand...
4 lies! How did you work that out?

Is the issue of whether Raffaele switched his phone off or not relevant to the murder? A simple yes or no will suffice.
 
Vixen said:
So it's a 'yes'.

Q6: Did Sollecito tell the police in his second interview that what he said in his first interview was 'a crock of ◊◊◊◊'?​
​
Yes or no?​
Click to expand...

Thing is: it takes intelligence and critical thinking skills to understand a) why the answer is yes, and b) why a "yes" answer, in this instance and under these circumstances, cannot be taken as credible, reliable and lawful. Shame your posts indicate otherwise.
 
Vixen said:
Please can you address why Knox and Sollecito told so many lies if they are merely the helpless victims of circumstances.
Click to expand...
Please, can you specifically state what these "so many lies" were? Remember, lies are different from untrue statements as lies require knowledge they are false.

Vixen said:
If they had nothing to do with the murder, what motive or fun did they get out of lying to the police and the public, and please don't pretend 'they were tortured all night long with tag teams of twelve from Rome'. Please stop trying divert attention away from their behaviour by pointing to someone else's behaviour.
Click to expand...
Please, stop presuming that everything the police said was true, that they plied Knox with tea and everything she wanted while being "firm but kind". Please, don't pretend that people don't 'buckle' and implicate themselves in a murder unless under great pressure. Please, stop pretending that the interrogations weren't recorded due to "budgeting problems" or because they "were only witnesses" or that Knox just had to "spontaneously" unburden herself to Mignini as he sat there acting only as a "notary". Please stop trying to divert attention away from the fact you minimize Guede's and Lumumba's lies and handwave away forensic and scientific fact in order to push your narrative.
 
Here's a question about Italian law and the Massei court trial. In The Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox, in the episode where the trial begins, her lawyers object to the injection of the calunnia evidence during the criminal trial part (the civil trial part, of course, is happening before the same panel of judges at about the same time). In a voice-over narration, the actress playing Knox explains that the calunnia charge and evidence entered the criminal trial through the civil trial. In the movie, her lawyers unsuccessfully object to Knox's interrogation statement as evidence inadmissible to the criminal trial. I understand that The Twisted Tale is a dramatization. Did Knox's lawyers actually object as shown? How did Massei explain the court's rejection of the objection, if it was made?

My curiosity is that, according to the Italian government statement to the ECHR, Massei should have stated, in substance, that his court was following the guidance of CSC judgment #10089 of 2005. This guidance allegedly indicates that if a statement made during questioning of a witness or suspect without a lawyer is itself a criminal act, it shall be prosecuted even though CPP Article 63 states it is unusable. The Italian government claims that this CSC judgment (and two subsequent ones, 26460 of 2010 and 33583 of 2015) established this guidance. A complication is that under Italian law, CSC judgments are not precedents, but only guides. This guidance raises the issue of whether the CSC has the authority to make evidence usable in contradiction to the wording of the text of CPP Article 63.

The ECHR, in its judgment Knox v. Italy, pointed out that a general rule or law that requires any part of what a person says under questioning without a lawyer to be usable against that person is itself contrary to its case law. Use of such statements against the person questioned requires specific compelling reasons as well as other considerations to prevent miscarriages of justice and to uphold the legal principle forbidding coerced self-incrimination.
 
Stacyhs said:
Please, can you specifically state what these "so many lies" were? Remember, lies are different from untrue statements as lies require knowledge they are false.


Please, stop presuming that everything the police said was true, that they plied Knox with tea and everything she wanted while being "firm but kind". Please, don't pretend that people don't 'buckle' and implicate themselves in a murder unless under great pressure. Please, stop pretending that the interrogations weren't recorded due to "budgeting problems" or because they "were only witnesses" or that Knox just had to "spontaneously" unburden herself to Mignini as he sat there acting only as a "notary". Please stop trying to divert attention away from the fact you minimize Guede's and Lumumba's lies and handwave away forensic and scientific fact in order to push your narrative.
Click to expand...
False statements made under coercion are also not actionable lies, even if the person making them is aware they are false. They are not made with intent to deceive.
 
Vixen said:
Remind me of the answer to the following:

1. Why did Sollecito tell police Knox carried a knife in her bag?​
​
Is it true Knox carried a knife in her bag? A simple yes or no will suffice.​
Click to expand...
Quote and cite Sollecito telling police that Knox carried a knife in her bag. It's not in his depositions of Nov. 2 or 5/6 or his testimony of Nov. 8.

That Knox carried a knife in her purse was the fantasy of Massei. He had to explain why she would have taken a large knife from Sollecito's to the cottage since he stated the murder was not planned, so he just made one up.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
So, what about the following statement.

2. In her email 4th Nov in the early hours to 25 contacts, in the quiet seclusion of RS's apartment, far from the obsessive and aggressive police; in fact, before the interrogation interview of the 5th Nov, to which she had not even been invited, and which had not yet happened, Knox claimed she had been frantically running arround, banging on Mez' door, calling her name, and trying to look in her window.​
​
Is it true Knox was visibly frantic with worry about Mez, running around, banging her door (even though she had Mez' phone number)? A simple yes or no, will suffice.​
Click to expand...
Oh, come on. Can you prove she was not "frantically running around, banging on Mez' door, calling her name, and trying to look in her window"? A simple yes or no will suffice.
 
Stacyhs said:
Please, can you specifically state what these "so many lies" were? Remember, lies are different from untrue statements as lies require knowledge they are false.


Please, stop presuming that everything the police said was true, that they plied Knox with tea and everything she wanted while being "firm but kind". Please, don't pretend that people don't 'buckle' and implicate themselves in a murder unless under great pressure. Please, stop pretending that the interrogations weren't recorded due to "budgeting problems" or because they "were only witnesses" or that Knox just had to "spontaneously" unburden herself to Mignini as he sat there acting only as a "notary". Please stop trying to divert attention away from the fact you minimize Guede's and Lumumba's lies and handwave away forensic and scientific fact in order to push your narrative.
Click to expand...


Yup, and I don't know how many false confessors have said later that they just wanted it to stop and also thought, even with a confession, that LE would eventually realize their big mistake, apologize, and set them free.

As a matter of fact, it's almost an axiom of LE practices that when someone confesses, LE pretty much stops looking for evidence that another person did it.

I firmly believe that the problem of false confessions should be taught in high school, but that's just my opinion.

Your mileage may vary of course.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom