• 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.

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kestrel said:
Quote:
I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me," he claims. "They forced me on my knees against the wall and said I should be in America where I would be given the electric chair for my crime. All they kept saying was, 'You did it, you did it.'
Click to expand...

Journalists Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi got similar treatment.
Click to expand...

Clearly you have linked the wrong article for there is no mention of abuse in the one referenced.

Can you fix it please?
 
Fiona said:
and again without a link (tiny url now defunct) this translation from an Italian Newspaper
Click to expand...

I wish people would learn that it is silly to use tinyurl for a reference.

Fortunately http://tinyurl.com/b3sbgt can be decoded to: http://sfoglia.ilmessaggero.it/sfog...A&pagina=CRONACA_LOCALE&ediz=06_UMBRIA=G&;tt=

I tried to search for "Lumumba" in that issue but nothing came up. You might need a subscription to retrieve archived issues. Either that or there is a coverup for the conspiracy!!!11!
 
Kestrel said:
Amanda claimed to have been abused. Other prisoners are routinely abused in this same town by these same people. Interrogations take place behind closed doors and are not recorded. Suspects are routinely denied legal counsel during interrogations.

Anyone who complains can count on being charged with the crime of defamation.

Do you really believe they didn't lay a hand on Amanda?
Click to expand...

On the stand, albeit without the demands of an oath as a defendent would be required to swear in the US or Canada, AK demonstrated the extent of the physical abuse she suffered. She tapped herself twice on the head and continued, not any worse for the wear, with her statements. She was reported as pounding her fists on her own forehead during questioning, though, and this has not been denied by anyone on her defence team.

What you may not understand about the "crime of defamation" is one of a profound difference between Italy and either the US or Canada. Here, you can claim all kinds of ridiculous things about the police, jurors, judges, bailiffs, court reporters, or virtually any public figure you want to and there is no penalty or consequence. In Italy, by contrast, the civil rights of the authorities are protected as though they were common citizens (which, if you think about it, they are).

Michael and Nicki, two of the admins at PMF, have a lot more grounding in the legal differences between our system and theirs. I don't consider myself an expert but they will be able to direct you to links that reveal the distinctions.

Again, Kestrel, you have deliberately avoided explaining that the term "suspect" is, in Italy, a legal one and not the same as it is in North America. You have confused it with the term "witness" and I think Fulcanelli explained the distinction to you before on this thread. Witnesses may be detained and questioned without the provisions of counsel; suspects may not. This is why the Italian court ruled the statements of 01:45 and 05:45 (by AK on 02 NOV 2007) inadmissible.
 
quixotecoyote said:
That's funny. You can be imprisoned for 2 weeks in Italy and they'll make it up to you.

You can be imprisoned for years in the US and we'll go out of our way to find ways to screw you over for it.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/fix/Compensation.php
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/nov/01/011257/wrongfully-convicated-fla-man-refuses-state-compen/
Click to expand...

This is part of what makes it odd to me that Ted Simon is probably going to try to get AK moved to an American prison to serve out her sentence. Although no prison might be considered safe by any means, there is little doubt that her conditions at Capanne would be far better than at a US facility. Her mother mentioned that she had been able to bring books to AK at Capanne. This would not be possible at a place like the WCCW at Gig Harbor.

Here's an anecdotal view of what she'd expect there: http://wafreepress.org/41/medical.html. One of the frightening issues of women in US prisons is widespread mental illness. Moreover, most of them are there for drug-related offenses (including property offenses to support drug habits).

(Source: http://www.correctionalassociation....eets/Wome_in_Prison_Fact_Sheet_2009_FINAL.pdf )

AK's rehabilitation into society is more likely in Italy than it is in the US.
 
stilicho said:
What you may not understand about the "crime of defamation" is one of a profound difference between Italy and either the US or Canada. Here, you can claim all kinds of ridiculous things about the police, jurors, judges, bailiffs, court reporters, or virtually any public figure you want to and there is no penalty or consequence. In Italy, by contrast, the civil rights of the authorities are protected as though they were common citizens (which, if you think about it, they are).
Click to expand...

I wonder if this has wider effects. It is my impression that it is very common to deeply distrust such figures in the US. I wonder if public opinion is iinfluenced by a drip feed of criticism which goes unchallenged. No way of knowing and my impression might be very wide of the mark: just something which occurred to me in the small hours :)


Again, Kestrel, you have deliberately avoided explaining that the term "suspect" is, in Italy, a legal one and not the same as it is in North America. You have confused it with the term "witness" and I think Fulcanelli explained the distinction to you before on this thread. Witnesses may be detained and questioned without the provisions of counsel; suspects may not. This is why the Italian court ruled the statements of 01:45 and 05:45 (by AK on 02 NOV 2007) inadmissible.
Click to expand...

It was explained at what, to me, seemed needless length, since the situation is absolutely the same both in the UK and in the USA. Witness statements are not routinely (that word again) recorded anywhere. Witnesses don't usually have lawyers present either (though I seem to remember one poster stating he would never talk to the police without one). It is not like we haven't been over this ground.
 
Fiona, if a witness was questioned in an interview room would that kind of thing normally not be recorded? I had naively supposed it would be.
 
Not here, no.

ETA: English code of guidance on recording of interviews can be seen here:

http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/pub.../2008_PACE_Code_E_(final)2835.pdf?view=Binary

3 Interviews to be audio recorded
3.1 Subject to paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4, audio recording shall be used at police stations
for any interview:
(a) with a person cautioned under Code C, section 10 in respect of any indictable
offence, including an offence triable either way; see Note 3A
(b) which takes place as a result of an interviewer exceptionally putting further
questions to a suspect about an offence described in paragraph 3.1(a) after
they have been charged with, or told they may be prosecuted for, that offence,
see Code C, paragraph 16.5
(c) when an interviewer wants to tell a person, after they have been charged with,
or informed they may be prosecuted for, an offence described in paragraph
3.1(a), about any written statement or interview with another person, see Code
C, paragraph 16.4.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Unless somebody wants to provide evidence to the contrary, that's good enough for me.
 
shuttlt said:
Fiona,

is this the grainy CCTV you were referring to:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wo...y/Article/200903215240503?chooseNews=Politics

I think Dan O. is claiming to know of other cameras that might have captured something, though if their quality is similar I doubt they'd be of much help.
Click to expand...


I think Dan O. is claiming to know that maybe somebody thinks there might have been, but since no one that he knows about bothered to ask until routine storage recycling might have maybe destroyed the hypothetical possible evidence there is obvious proof of a conspiracy against Knox.

At least that's what I got out of it.
 
quadraginta said:
I think Dan O. is claiming to know that maybe somebody thinks there might have been, but since no one that he knows about bothered to ask until routine storage recycling might have maybe destroyed the hypothetical possible evidence there is obvious proof of a conspiracy against Knox.

At least that's what I got out of it.
Click to expand...

Geez! I hate to try to put myself into Dan O's mind but I'll guarantee you that's exactly what he thought. I continue to have these "injected false memories", though, so maybe it was someone else who imagined what I just now guaranteed.

:boxedin:
 
shuttlt said:
Fiona,

is this the grainy CCTV you were referring to:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Meredith-Kercher-Murder-Amanda-Knox-And-Raffaele-Sollecito-Await-Forensic-Evidence-Perugia-Italy/Article/200903215240503?chooseNews=Politics

I think Dan O. is claiming to know of other cameras that might have captured something, though if their quality is similar I doubt they'd be of much help.
Click to expand...


I have seen at least one other, I think. Can't remember where now, but the quality was at least as bad. One could not tell anything from it
 
quadraginta said:
I think Dan O. is claiming to know that maybe somebody thinks there might have been, but since no one that he knows about bothered to ask until routine storage recycling might have maybe destroyed the hypothetical possible evidence there is obvious proof of a conspiracy against Knox.

At least that's what I got out of it.
Click to expand...
Be fair, Dan O. did say this might be a defence ploy.

Incidentally, I've been Googling away looking for information on these traffic cameras without success. Does anybody know anything about them? Presumably if the defence did indeed ask for them, but were turned down, somebody would have complained to a newspaper about it at the very least.
 
Kestrel said:
Even if you assume that Amanda is guilty, the other three people that complained about abuse had committed no crimes.
Click to expand...
As noted, I am not familiar with the case beyond what I have read on this thread and through a few links; I don't claim to be an expert, and others have dealt with your comments here far more capably than I could. It appears that one of those claims may well have been withdrawn and the other two claims may not even exist in the form you described. But once again your sloppy use of language gives you away - informal allegations of abuse are not the same as a formal complaint. You have provided no such evidence of any complaint.

Kestrel said:
Police and prosecutors have a simple solution for protecting their reputation. Start recording all interrogations and save the tapes. The only reason it would not work is if they are in fact abusing suspects.
Click to expand...
You believe the police and prosecutors should be considered guilty until proven innocent? Is that something you think you picked up from the US legal system? I'd heard that was more of a Napoleonic code thing.

All I'm suggesting is that to get a conviction against them, the case against police and prosecutors should be set to the same standard of evidence that you expect to justify a conviction of Amanda Knox. As far as I can gather, even if the prosecutor's own boot print was visible on Amanda's face, and there were traces of Amanda's blood on the prosecutor's boot, by your own standards that wouldn't be enough to convict the prosecutor :rolleyes:

Sorry. My sarcasm meter has just pegged, and I'm not really adding to this otherwise very informative thread. Once again, thanks to all for your contributions, and I'll drop out now.
 
CoolSkeptic,

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200607/florence-murder/6

Preston wrote about his interrogation, “I began to stumble over my words (as I’ve noted, I am not fluent in Italian, especially legal and criminological terms). With a growing sense of dismay, I could hear from my own stammering, hesitant voice that I was sounding like a liar.”

Preston also wrote of Spezi’s arrest, “The day of the arrest, Mignini asked for and received a special dispensation to invoke a law that is normally used only for terrorists or Mafia dons who pose an imminent threat to the state. For a period of five days Spezi was denied access to his lawyers, kept in a tiny isolation cell under conditions of extreme deprivation, and grilled mercilessly. It was noted in the press that Spezi’s treatment was harsher than that of Bernardo Provenzano, the Mafia “boss of bosses” captured in Sicily a few days later. Spezi spent three weeks in Capanne, one of Italy’s grimmest prisons.”

Chris
 
Fiona said:
I have seen at least one other, I think. Can't remember where now, but the quality was at least as bad. One could not tell anything from it
Click to expand...

There was a time that security companies insisted on using real video tape because their lawyers didn't know how to present this new fangled digital stuf to a jury. A CCD camera and digital recording would produce acceptable images much like the one used here.


I said that it may have been a defense ploy to delay requesting the videos. However, given the time constraints involved, the prosecution had a week to secure this evidence; the defense only had a day at most. When were Amanda and Raffaele first given the opportunity to seek legal counsel?
 
Last edited:
Dan O. said:
There was a time that security companies insisted on using real video tape because their lawyers didn't know how to present this new fangled digital stuf to a jury. A CCD camera and digital recording would produce acceptable images much like the one used here.


I said that it may have been a defense ploy to delay requesting the videos. However, given the time constraints involved, the prosecution had a week to secure this evidence; the defense only had a day at most. When were Amanda and Raffaele first given the opportunity to seek legal console?
Click to expand...
Yet as I think you accept, what could the defence have gained from such a recording? If we have video of Amanda and Raphael heading to the appartment at 9pm it helps the prosecution, if we don't it helps no one. If the defence's story about where Amanda and Raphael were during the murder is true there will be no footage to verify it.

Do you have details of what cameras and perhaps even why the defence wanted the footage from them?
 
Dan O. said:
There was a time that security companies insisted on using real video tape because their lawyers didn't know how to present this new fangled digital stuf to a jury. A CCD camera and digital recording would produce acceptable images much like the one used here.


I said that it may have been a defense ploy to delay requesting the videos. However, given the time constraints involved, the prosecution had a week to secure this evidence; the defense only had a day at most. When were Amanda and Raffaele first given the opportunity to seek legal counsel?
Click to expand...


Good link, Dan O. I enjoyed the article.

It makes the case that from a statistical perspective surveillance video does not contribute significantly, if at all, to the clearing of crime cases.

What was your point?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom