Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

Firstly, I never claimed that the passages I quoted all had direct read-across relevance to the Kercher case. I did argue, instead, that they illustrated the, ummm, "refreshing" attitudes of the Italian police and prosecutors towards defence lawyers and their access to clients (at least according to the European Criminal Bar Association). And I'd argue that this definitely has some relevance for the case under discussion here.

BUT....... there is one part here that might well have direct relevance to Amanda Knox (and Raffaele Sollecito). I'll reprint it below, in case you've forgotten it:

If the police, however, do not want the suspect to be assisted, they simply do not allow him to call his lawyer or they question him as a witness, since witnesses do not have the right to have legal assistance during questioning.
Could the Perugia police possibly have deliberately kept Amanda Knox under "witness" status between 1am and 1.45am on 6th November, in spite of actually considering her as a suspect (after Raffaele's change of alibi and what they thought they knew about the text message to Lumumba)? Could they have decided not to change her status - which would have required reading her her rights and allowing her access to a lawyer - since they preferred to try to break Amanda without a pesky lawyer being around?

Since I've been arguing for a long time that AK's status should have changed by 1am on the 6th at the latest, this makes more than a little sense to me. Hmmmmmm................

Mignini has said that the police stopped questioning Amanda and called him in when she became a suspect, after she signed her first statement. Hence, from that moment on, they were required to provide her with legal counsel. The fact that the police had in their possession the "spontaneous" statement Amanda made after signing her first statement shows that they did not provide her with a lawyer, who presumably would have prevented her from giving that statement to the police.

Amanda obviously felt the police still wanted something from her in those hours between her interrogation statement and her "spontaneous" statement. It is doubtful that at any time the police said, "You are no longer being questioned; we don't need your help anymore."

It is absurd for Fulcanelli to claim Amanda and Raffaele were not under arrest. As Bruce asked, could they leave? Did they know they could leave? I would suggest that the police's action of taking Raffaele's shoes away from him was a pretty strong non-verbal message that he wasn't going anywhere.

I'd like to know what would have happened if Amanda had tried to walk out of her interrogation before the cops were finished, or if when she was done, she tried to leave the police station.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Once again, there is no proof that the stains were made in blood. In fact the stains were tested and the tests were negative.

I have received some new information regarding the cleaning supplies in the cottage. This will come up on appeal also. You appear to be incorrect about the cleaning supplies also.

Does that surprise anyone?

I missed this one. News to me. I thought, according to you, they were never tested for blood. So, were they tested for blood or not?

I also look forward to your 'jam tomorrow'.

 

[Fulcanelli]

In the hall? Please show me the photographs of those partial prints you speak of.

The prints in the hall made by Rudy's left foot are all partial prints. There are no prints from his right shoe.

Please don't force me to become a broken record. Read the Massei Report. You have it...you have translators working on it (apparently), what's stopping you getting a grasp?

 

[Fulcanelli]

I don't think there was an accomplice. I was respoding to Bob's argument:

Originally Posted by BobTheDonkey
There are fewer unanswered questions if we allow that maybe, just maybe, Guede wasn't alone. And that leads us to Amanda and Raffaele - amazingly enough, all those unanswered questions are answered when those two are included. Whodathunkit...

The thought that Guede wasn't alone does not necessarily lead us to Amanda and Raffaele.

Right. So you don't support the new upcoming defence argument in the appeal that there was an accomplice?

 

[Fulcanelli]

If the police, however, do not want the suspect to be assisted, they simply do not allow him to call his lawyer or they question him as a witness, since witnesses do not have the right to have legal assistance during questioning.

The quote is your highlighted text. Since we've already established that they weren't suspects, but witnesses, how is it relevant?

 

[LondonJohn]

Come on, as in you describe a rare event that happened as a result of an extreme event...and then present it as some 'norm'. Accidents happen and I can understand why they happen. But the fact is, these kinds of accidents are extremely rare in the UK...as evidenced by how many years you had to go back to provide an example.

Oh I could provide quite a few more, but that's not really the point.

How did I present the shooting of Jean-Charles de Menezes as some sort of "norm"? I merely remarked (somewhat wistfully) that he - at least - would have benefited from the advice to put your hands up when challenged by the police.

And it was actually far from an accident. Particularly the subsequent police-orchestrated cover-up. In addition, the Met Police was found guilty in court of criminal charges related to failure to provide reasonably for the health and safety of de Menezes. This implies there was no unavoidable accident here.

I do seem to have touched a nerve here though......

 

[Mary_H]

There is a difference between the assessment of validity of evidence and scenario. The latter can only ever be subjective, a best guess, since only the victim and murderers were actually there. The former is more solid.

Hmm, this is interesting. The Italians seem to be quite given to scenarios -- in fact, they seem to favor them over evidence, in the sense that it was their scenarios that led them to search for some specific pieces of evidence instead of others. If, as you say, the scenario can only ever be subjective, it seems logical that all evidence that follows from the scenario is subjective as well. Too bad they didn't find their evidence first.

 

[Mary_H]

Right. So you don't support the new upcoming defence argument in the appeal that there was an accomplice?

Not especially. I will be open-minded about their evidence for it, though.

 

[LondonJohn]

The quote is your highlighted text. Since we've already established that they weren't suspects, but witnesses, how is it relevant?

Read that quote again. I'll break it down for you:

"If the police, however, do not want the suspect to be assisted, they simply do not allow him to call his lawyer or they question him as a witness, since witnesses do not have the right to have legal assistance during questioning."

In other words, the quote explicitly implies that the police in Italy have prior history of considering people as suspects, but then not formally changing their status to that of a suspect. And it states that they engage in this behaviour so that their suspect (i.e. the police believe him/her to be a suspect, but he/she is still formally termed a witness) is denied access to legal representation.

I'm not sure now the quote I supplied could be any clearer in its allegations of police malpractice in the area of witness-to-suspect conversion.......

 

[Fulcanelli]

Mignini has said that the police stopped questioning Amanda and called him in when she became a suspect, after she signed her first statement. Hence, from that moment on, they were required to provide her with legal counsel. The fact that the police had in their possession the "spontaneous" statement Amanda made after signing her first statement shows that they did not provide her with a lawyer, who presumably would have prevented her from giving that statement to the police.

Amanda obviously felt the police still wanted something from her in those hours between her interrogation statement and her "spontaneous" statement. It is doubtful that at any time the police said, "You are no longer being questioned; we don't need your help anymore."

It is absurd for Fulcanelli to claim Amanda and Raffaele were not under arrest. As Bruce asked, could they leave? Did they know they could leave? I would suggest that the police's action of taking Raffaele's shoes away from him was a pretty strong non-verbal message that he wasn't going anywhere.

I'd like to know what would have happened if Amanda had tried to walk out of her interrogation before the cops were finished, or if when she was done, she tried to leave the police station.

Not the full story. Your version implies Mignini was called in 'because' Amanda had been made a suspect. That impression is incorrect. Mignini was called in because Amanda demanded to be heard again at a point when she was a suspect and a suspect can only be heard by a judge. Hence the reason, Mignini was dragged out of bed.

No, they were not required to provide her with legal counsel once she was made a suspect. The requirement for legal council only existed if they wished to interrogate her again. Since they did not, counsel was not a legal requirement.

 

[RoseMontague]

Please don't force me to become a broken record. Read the Massei Report. You gave it...you have translators working on it (apparently), what's stopping you getting a grasp?

He told you he did not have the translated report. Since you believe it makes things clear, please give us a quote or two.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Oh I could provide quite a few more, but that's not really the point.

How did I present the shooting of Jean-Charles de Menezes as some sort of "norm"? I merely remarked (somewhat wistfully) that he - at least - would have benefited from the advice to put your hands up when challenged by the police.

And it was actually far from an accident. Particularly the subsequent police-orchestrated cover-up. In addition, the Met Police was found guilty in court of criminal charges related to failure to provide reasonably for the health and safety of de Menezes. This implies there was no unavoidable accident here.

I do seem to have touched a nerve here though......

But the fact is, it isn't a norm in the UK and that was Fiona's point. You were trying to usurp her point by underhandedly providing an exception, when she was arguing a rule..and as we all know, the exception doesn't break the the rule. Is that not so?

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

At the end of their questioning. Or to be more precise, the police made them suspects and then ended their questioning.

Thanks Fulcanelli

Firstly, I never claimed that the passages I quoted all had direct read-across relevance to the Kercher case. I did argue, instead, that they illustrated the, ummm, "refreshing" attitudes of the Italian police and prosecutors towards defence lawyers and their access to clients (at least according to the European Criminal Bar Association). And I'd argue that this definitely has some relevance for the case under discussion here.

BUT....... there is one part here that might well have direct relevance to Amanda Knox (and Raffaele Sollecito). I'll reprint it below, in case you've forgotten it:

If the police, however, do not want the suspect to be assisted, they simply do not allow him to call his lawyer or they question him as a witness, since witnesses do not have the right to have legal assistance during questioning.
Could the Perugia police possibly have deliberately kept Amanda Knox under "witness" status between 1am and 1.45am on 6th November, in spite of actually considering her as a suspect (after Raffaele's change of alibi and what they thought they knew about the text message to Lumumba)? Could they have decided not to change her status - which would have required reading her her rights and allowing her access to a lawyer - since they preferred to try to break Amanda without a pesky lawyer being around?

Since I've been arguing for a long time that AK's status should have changed by 1am on the 6th at the latest, this makes more than a little sense to me. Hmmmmmm................

​

The same potential for abuse exists in the U.S.
Seeing as "we're living in a society here" we should give the benefit of the doubt to those we've entrusted with the awesome responsibility of protecting our lives, liberty and property.
Having said that, I also feel strongly that the people we entrust should do all in their power to give us confidence that their actions are proper and just.
It troubles me that the interviews weren't recorded.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Hmm, this is interesting. The Italians seem to be quite given to scenarios -- in fact, they seem to favor them over evidence, in the sense that it was their scenarios that led them to search for some specific pieces of evidence instead of others. If, as you say, the scenario can only ever be subjective, it seems logical that all evidence that follows from the scenario is subjective as well. Too bad they didn't find their evidence first.

Hardly. the scenario makes up the final fraction of Massei's report, where the evidence makes up the bulk. This you would know, had you actually read it.

 

[RoseMontague]

Read the report. If you had read the report. When you read the report. Number nine. Number nine.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Not especially. I will be open-minded about their evidence for it, though.

You think they're full of ***** then? Sort of more conducive to tryng to get their client off rather then truth?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Have you read the report Bob? Were you at the crime scene? Were you in court?

Any more "Bob" questions for me?

Answer the question, Bruce.


Have you read the report?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Read the report. If you had read the report. When you read the report. Number nine. Number nine.

Sorry Rose. You need to understand...there's two 'debates' going on here...one between those who are on the inside...and another with those on the outside. What I mean by that, is those who have access to all the information are here fighting with each other...and those who don'#t are also here fighting, who don't have that access and I can understand that frustration.

But, look at it this way...there is no rush. Amanda and Raffaele's appeal is taking place, no matter what. And this will happen in the autumn. We have all that time until then, there's no rush. It's better that you get a professionally translated report, then one that's rushed out containing errors. You understand, from following just this thread alone, how immensley important accuracy is. What's the point in releasing something that can be just handwaved away?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Mignini has said that the police stopped questioning Amanda and called him in when she became a suspect, after she signed her first statement. Hence, from that moment on, they were required to provide her with legal counsel. The fact that the police had in their possession the "spontaneous" statement Amanda made after signing her first statement shows that they did not provide her with a lawyer, who presumably would have prevented her from giving that statement to the police.

Amanda obviously felt the police still wanted something from her in those hours between her interrogation statement and her "spontaneous" statement. It is doubtful that at any time the police said, "You are no longer being questioned; we don't need your help anymore."

It is absurd for Fulcanelli to claim Amanda and Raffaele were not under arrest. As Bruce asked, could they leave? Did they know they could leave? I would suggest that the police's action of taking Raffaele's shoes away from him was a pretty strong non-verbal message that he wasn't going anywhere.

I'd like to know what would have happened if Amanda had tried to walk out of her interrogation before the cops were finished, or if when she was done, she tried to leave the police station.

This has been addressed many times before Mary. To continue to argue this point is nothing less than disingenuous.

Amanda did not have legal counsel at the time she gave her second statement (morning of Nov 6) because she insisted that she be allowed to give her statement. Just as here in the US, just because you have the right to an attorney does not mean you cannot waive that right, as Amanda did on the 6th. Likewise, you have the right to not self-incriminate - but you also have the right to open your mouth and insert your foot at any time. You cannot be forced to testify against yourself, but nothing's stopping you if you choose to do so.

 

[Fulcanelli]

He told you he did not have the translated report. Since you believe it makes things clear, please give us a quote or two.

Nice try