Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

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?

Someone is certanly drunk on power -- not a flattering characteristic. "There is no rush, children, I will dole out your share in due time...in the manner of my choosing...just be patient -- who is in charge here, after all?"

Is this the biggest you have ever felt, Fulcanelli?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

This wasn't presented in court. in fact, a primary argument of the defence and the FOA on the web was that a blood test was never performed.

And Bruce, if you are going to argue otherwise, you need to quote a bit more then 'according to the documents sitting in front of me'. know what I mean?

Actually I don't need to say anything else. This is a point that will be brought up on appeal.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Someone is certanly drunk on power -- not a flattering characteristic. "There is no rush, children, I will dole out your share in due time...in the manner of my choosing...just be patient -- who is charge here, after all?"

Is this the biggest you have ever felt, Fulcanelli?

Fulcanelli needs this discussion forum more than you know. It is all he has.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Bye for now. NBA Finals time.

 

[Mary_H]

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.

What is nothing less than disingenuous is to continue to argue that police or magistrates did anything on the morning of the 6th because of what Amanda demanded. They believed what they wanted to believe and did what they wanted to do, regardless of Amanda's position in favor or against.

If this has been addressed at length before, then why do you bellieve that a suspect in Italy can waive her right to a lawywer? According to legal expert Giancarlo Costa, who was interviewed by Andrea Vogt for the Seattle P-I, that is not true:

Was it legal for Knox not to have an attorney present when police questioned her?

Yes and no.

Amanda Knox's interrogation falls into a gray area of the law because she came voluntarily to the police station and was being interviewed in the beginning as someone who could become be a witness, not a suspect.

Then, in the course of questioning by police in November 2007, she blamed Patrick Lumumba for the slaying, and said she was present at the scene of the crime. Lumumba was innocent. Knox has since denied she knows anything about the slaying and says she wasn't in the flat the night Kercher was killed. Lumumba is suing Knox for slander.

The law is very clear: A suspect must not be interrogated without a lawyer.

Once a suspect, an interrogation must be interrupted, the suspect read his or her rights to remain silent and be provided a lawyer. Italian law does not allow waiver of one's right to counsel. Even if a suspect doesn't want a lawyer, the authorities are required to appoint one.

If a suspect's freedom of movement is hindered, the interrogation must be videotaped.

In Knox's case, a video or audio recording of the entire police interrogation -- authorities have denied that any such recordings exist -- could identify when police began treating Knox as a suspect and what procedures were followed.

In fact, Italy's Supreme Court has already said that some of her early statements may not be used against her because they were made without an attorney present.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/412696_knox30.html

 

[capealadin]

Actually Bruce, YOU are the one always linking your website every and which way you can, and at the same time, showing your extreme jealousy about PMF. That has come over loud and clear, imo. In a way, it is understandable. PMF is so highly respected, and many sites and TV shows refer to it. It is you that comes over being threatened. Of course you disagree with the prosecution and the fact that Amanda and Raffaele were found guilty. You are just going to have to live with it. No surprise that you have found the report flawed. As is your judgement, imo

 

[Mary_H]

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

Once again, you make the big ol' straw man leap. I have no idea whether or not they are full of five asterisks; I haven't read the appeal.

I imagine they are in quite a bind. They must be thinking that since the truth got them nowhere last time, it might be time to try something more creative.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I am not translating anything. I am not alone. I am speaking to many people. I have been given sections of the report that have been translated. I don't need to read every word to see that it is highly flawed.

So, injustice in perugia is no longer attempting to render a tranlsation?


And...help me out here. If someone presents me with an argument that is 'highly flawed', then I take that argument and totally dismantle it. You, on the other hand, are completely ignoring it. Why is that? If it's so flawed, why ignore it and not demonstrate how that is so?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Actually Bruce, YOU are the one always linking your website every and which way you can, and at the same time, showing your extreme jealousy about PMF. That has come over loud and clear, imo. In a way, it is understandable. PMF is so highly respected, and many sites and TV shows refer to it. It is you that comes over being threatened. Of course you disagree with the prosecution and the fact that Amanda and Raffaele were found guilty. You are just going to have to live with it. No surprise that you have found the report flawed. As is your judgement, imo

I was just having fun with Fulcanelli. If you think that I am jealous of PMF then you have read me completely wrong. You left an entertaining post. I will give you that.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Actually I don't need to say anything else. This is a point that will be brought up on appeal.

I see, then it IS 'jam tomorrow' then. They deliberately held it back from the main trial, to save it for the appeal. This leads me to ask 'why'. For surely, were it that important and it was presented in the trial there'd be no need for an appeal. So, why the wait? And is it really that important? If 'yes' to the latter, then why the delay until the appeal?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

So, injustice in perugia is no longer attempting to render a tranlsation?


And...help me out here. If someone presents me with an argument that is 'highly flawed', then I take that argument and totally dismantle it. You, on the other hand, are completely ignoring it. Why is that? If it's so flawed, why ignore it and not demonstrate how that is so?

If you read what I wrote, I am not ignoring anything. Spin it any way you like.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Someone is certanly drunk on power -- not a flattering characteristic. "There is no rush, children, I will dole out your share in due time...in the manner of my choosing...just be patient -- who is in charge here, after all?"

Is this the biggest you have ever felt, Fulcanelli?

'I' have no power whatsoever of when the report is completed of published. So, the wrong bark, up the wrong tree.

 

[Fulcanelli]

What is nothing less than disingenuous is to continue to argue that police or magistrates did anything on the morning of the 6th because of what Amanda demanded. They believed what they wanted to believe and did what they wanted to do, regardless of Amanda's position in favor or against.

If this has been addressed at length before, then why do you bellieve that a suspect in Italy can waive her right to a lawywer? According to legal expert Giancarlo Costa, who was interviewed by Andrea Vogt for the Seattle P-I, that is not true:

Except, she wasn't being questioned. Only if being questioned is a lawyer legally required for a suspect.

 

[Mary_H]

'I' have no power whatsoever of when the report is completed of published. So, the wrong bark, up the wrong tree.

There is nothing stopping you or your website from releasing the document a page at a time or a quote at a time. You have done so already on this thread, in fact.

With your record for credibility, you should be grateful we would be willing to believe you if you actually did quote something,

 

[Mary_H]

Except, she wasn't being questioned. Only if being questioned is a lawyer legally required for a suspect.

At what time did the police or Mignini tell Amanda she was no longer being questioned? When she offered them a new statement, did they happen to mention to her that they were now requireed by law to provide her with a lawyer? Did they happen to inform her she shouldn't be providing them with any more information until she had a lawyer? They could drag Mignini out of bed in the middle of the night but they couldn't drag out a lawyer to represent Amanda as well?

 

[capealadin]

Well thank you, Bruce. I personally take my hat off to anyone starting and running a site. Such hard work. It can be hard just reading and absorbing. At the same time, it is important to be factual. Mistakes will always be made, and it is then very important to the credibility of the site to correct them. I don't always agree with some posters and probably they don't agree with me. So...If we were all on the same page, there would be no threads like these, and they can be interesting and informative. I have learned a lot.. from both sides.

 

[Fulcanelli]

If you read what I wrote, I am not ignoring anything. Spin it any way you like.

I've not seen you posting any arguments made by Massei and then deconstructing them. If you have, give me the link to one and forgive me.

 

[capealadin]

I found it interesting, what Amanda said in Court, on Tuesday. "I didn't mean to accuse anyone". Errm, but she did. Then she states" Why are they always accusing me?". Errm, Amanda, they are accusing you of slander, because YOU accused them of hitting you. People are entitled to defend themselves from accusations. Just as Amanda and Raffaele were entitled to defend themselves. And, by ACCUSING Patrick, she received an extra year in prison. Had Amanda been able to identify her *abuser* then there would have been some crdibility. Amanda seems to have perfect recall of everything that happened in her interrogation.why not that very important issue. Anyone know how many of the police were female, by the way?

 

[Fulcanelli]

There is nothing stopping you or your website from releasing the document a page at a time or a quote at a time. You have done so already on this thread, in fact.

With your record for credibility, you should be grateful we would be willing to believe you if you actually did quote something,

We're not doing it a page at a time, but a section at a time. And you can't release it in bits in any case (be it by page or section), since that would undermine the context and so the value and so defeat the whole point.

 

[Fulcanelli]

At what time did the police or Mignini tell Amanda she was no longer being questioned? When she offered them a new statement, did they happen to mention to her that they were now requireed by law to provide her with a lawyer? Did they happen to inform her she shouldn't be providing them with any more information until she had a lawyer? They could drag Mignini out of bed in the middle of the night but they couldn't drag out a lawyer to represent Amanda as well?

1:45 am. Next.