Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[GrouchoMarxist]

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

Howdy capealadin,
What are some of the TV shows you mention?
My cable provider just moved all the good channels to a higher priced tier.

 

[Mary_H]

1:45 am. Next.

Thank you very much. I believe that "next" applies to you, as in, answer the rest of the questions.

 

[capealadin]

Good evening, GrouchoMarxist. I,ve seen PMF on three shows, but don't remember which ones. Sorry. Be sure someone will post them, though I.m always expecting lots of *CITES*!!!. There have also been a number of PMF posters featured, and one of the moderators. BTW. They,ve just jacked up the price of my internet provider. The increase was probably buried in the zillion word contract. Tsk.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Thank you very much. I believe that "next" applies to you, as in, answer the rest of the questions.

The answer to your questions is 'no'. 'Even' the American police (bow, scrape, salaam) would not tell a person to shut up unless they had a lawyer. You seem to have a fantasy idea of how the law works.

 

[Mary_H]

The answer to your questions is 'no'. 'Even' the American police (bow, scrape, salaam) would not tell a person to shut up unless they had a lawyer. You seem to have a fantasy idea of how the law works.

In the U.S., one can waive the right to an attorney; in Italy one cannot.

So it becomes clear that, from your point of view, expecting the police NOT to entrap a suspect is a "fantasy idea of how the law works."

Let's talk some more about whether or not they would be likely to plant or fabricate evidence.

 

[capealadin]

Mary. I believe that here in the US it is also acceptable for the police to lie. I always felt that was entrapment, and I guess it is. Trapping someone to tell the truth.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Mary. I believe that here in the US it is also acceptable for the police to lie. I always felt that was entrapment, and I guess it is. Trapping someone to tell the truth.

Entrapment is where law enforcement induce another to facilitate a crime when they did not already have a natural proclivity for said crime.

 

[capealadin]

Thank you, Humanity Blues. I should say police are allowed to lie, in order to obtain a confession, or to get someone to tell the truth.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

let the punishment fit the crime

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?

Do you think that the penalty for slander is just?

Amanda identified her by her hair. The identity of the woman doing the cuffing was also discussed in the afterward to "The Monster of Florence."

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Okay here is my laugh for the evening. Peggy and Michael took time out of their busy lives to discuss their feelings about me. The funny thing is, they describe themselves perfectly. Anyone that has helped with the Injustice site knows that I consider the site to be a group effort. I take no credit for the site. I am happy that we have been able to get the truth out to many readers.

Here is what Michael(fulcanelli) and Peggy had to say.



Skep wrote:
As for Bruce Fisher, I think this makes him feel tremendously self-important.

Fulcanelli wrote:
I'll go with that. Every place he posts, he repeatedly boasts about being the owner of his site...giving it the 'big I am'. And for the first time in his life he's found he has something else he's never had before...followers and sycophants. He's drunk with it. In the meantime, he closes off to any truth or opposing arguments since in accepting them, that would take away from the power and prestige he suddenly feels he has. It doesn't matter that this 'power' is nothing more then an illusion, it feels good and that's enough...he's snorted it up the nose and now he wants to go further and mainline it.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Do you think that the penalty for slander is just?

"

I think she could get 2 to 6 years added onto her term, just for saying a cop cuffed her in the back of the head a couple of times, yet she only got 1 year for accusing Patrick of murder - no, that doesn't seen right to me.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Here is the follower Bard's response:

"TBH I think this is the only conclusion one can reach having seen him in action on JREF. If he was for real - really wanting to get to the truth, really caring about injustice, really caring about Meredith and not just Amanda - then he would be scrupulous about publishing incorrect information on his website. He is not scrupulous about this. He ignores those who would quite happily have seen him stand alongside them as an advocate for their side of the argument on a level playing field. By continuing to have untruths on his site and by ignoring those with a far deeper understanding of the case, one can only assume that it is an exercise in ego rather than an honest intellectual pursuit of the truth. Sorry Bruce. Too little, too late. And wrong. Often."


I trust my sources 100%. I give them all 100% of the credit for the Injustice site. I do what I can to help. My friends would laugh if they saw somebody stating that I had a big ego. That is far from the truth.

Thank you for the entertainment.

Bard, I am happy to see that your husband found work. Even though you are completely wrong when it comes to this case, I don't wish hardship on anyone.

 

[Mary_H]

Okay here is my laugh for the evening. Peggy and Michael took time out of their busy lives to discuss their feelings about me. The funny thing is, they describe themselves perfectly. Anyone that has helped with the Injustice site knows that I consider the site to be a group effort. I take no credit for the site. I am happy that we have been able to get the truth out to many readers.

Here is what Michael(fulcanelli) and Peggy had to say.



Skep wrote:
As for Bruce Fisher, I think this makes him feel tremendously self-important.

Fulcanelli wrote:
I'll go with that. Every place he posts, he repeatedly boasts about being the owner of his site...giving it the 'big I am'. And for the first time in his life he's found he has something else he's never had before...followers and sycophants. He's drunk with it. In the meantime, he closes off to any truth or opposing arguments since in accepting them, that would take away from the power and prestige he suddenly feels he has. It doesn't matter that this 'power' is nothing more then an illusion, it feels good and that's enough...he's snorted it up the nose and now he wants to go further and mainline it.

Yikes! What time was that written? Do we have a telepathic connection?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I think she could get 2 to 6 years added onto her term, just for saying a cop cuffed her in the back of the head a couple of times, yet she only got 1 year for accusing Patrick of murder - no, that doesn't seen right to me.

This would most likely be a fine. But it is anyone's guess. Her parents are also charged with slander for simply repeating Amanda's court testimony. They have no record in Italy so I don't believe they would receive any time, just a fine.

Anyone that defends Mignini for going after Amanda's parents really has some screws loose in their head. This is vindictive behavior.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Yikes! What time was that written? Do we have a telepathic connection?

I didn't pay any attention. I have to use anonymous surfing because I am banned. I just go there and do a search for my name on the page. It is my entertainment during commercials.

 

[Bob001]

. . . 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 . . .

My understanding is that there is no recording or transcript of the interrogations of Knox and Sollecito. Is that correct? If so, on what basis would we choose to believe the police version instead of Knox's when the police say she confessed to a gruesome murder out of the blue and falsely accused her employer, and she says she described a hypothetical situation at their insistence? It just strikes me that her version is more plausible, especially when you consider that she was not very proficient at one of the two languages involved. Even if you believe that the police acted in good faith, it's at least a possibility that there was honest misunderstanding on both sides. It also appears that what she actually said and when also seems to bear pretty significantly on her status as a witness changing to suspect, and obviously the police version puts them in the best light and Knox in the worst. Without a recording I think the defendant should be entitled to the benefit of the doubt.







[FONT=times new roman, serif]
[/FONT]

 

[capealadin]

Humanity blues: Twice Amanda was asked in court to identify her abuser. She was unable to do so. We don't know yet what, if any, the consequences will be, as to the slander case. Certainly, if slander is proven, a punishment should be given. The police were maligned, the accusation was repeated ad nauseum, all over the world. It was aso the reason given for accusing Patrick. If Amanda was beaten, why didn't Amanda sue the police? How many of the police were women? I hope the colour of the hair *identified* wasn't black. That would be a predominant hair colour in Italy. Still, it should be easy enough to identify the policewoman.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Humanity blues: Twice Amanda was asked in court to identify her abuser. She was unable to do so. We don't know yet what, if any, the consequences will be, as to the slander case. Certainly, if slander is proven, a punishment should be given. The police were maligned, the accusation was repeated ad nauseum, all over the world. It was aso the reason given for accusing Patrick. If Amanda was beaten, why didn't Amanda sue the police? How many of the police were women? I hope the colour of the hair *identified* wasn't black. That would be a predominant hair colour in Italy. Still, it should be easy enough to identify the policewoman.

I think you're responding to the wrong person. Or are you asking me my opinion on the defamation charges?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

In the U.S., one can waive the right to an attorney; in Italy one cannot.

So it becomes clear that, from your point of view, expecting the police NOT to entrap a suspect is a "fantasy idea of how the law works."

Let's talk some more about whether or not they would be likely to plant or fabricate evidence.

I don't think you quite understand how the "right to an Attorney" works.

Just because in Italy, one is legally required to be provided an Attorney does not mean one cannot open mouth, insert foot at his, or her, insistence with or without an Attorney present.

Somewhat like Ron White's bit:

"I had the right to remain silent...but I didn't have the ability"

Amanda had the right to remain silent and the right to consult with an Attorney (an Attorney was even legally required to be appointed to her) - but she made the choice to do neither. That is why her statement was considered admissible - because her rights were not violated.

Amanda clearly, and insistently, demanded that she be heard - without regard to her right to have counsel present. Regardless of what country you're in, that's a foolish thing to do - but it was not in poor style for Mignini to take her statement.

I dare say, she's had better luck with her Italian rights than those that would have been afforded her here in the U.S. See, here in the U.S., you have rights - but you can waive those rights at the drop of a hat. In other words, when the Officer places you under arrest and reads you your Miranda Rights, anything you have said previously and anything you say in the future can be used against you in the courtroom. That is simply not the case in Italy - and for that, Amanda should be quite grateful.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

My understanding is that there is no recording or transcript of the interrogations of Knox and Sollecito. Is that correct? If so, on what basis would we choose to believe the police version instead of Knox's when the police say she confessed to a gruesome murder out of the blue and falsely accused her employer, and she says she described a hypothetical situation at their insistence? It just strikes me that her version is more plausible, especially when you consider that she was not very proficient at one of the two languages involved. Even if you believe that the police acted in good faith, it's at least a possibility that there was honest misunderstanding on both sides. It also appears that what she actually said and when also seems to bear pretty significantly on her status as a witness changing to suspect, and obviously the police version puts them in the best light and Knox in the worst. Without a recording I think the defendant should be entitled to the benefit of the doubt.







[FONT=times new roman, serif]
[/FONT]

I don't see how that is, in any way, a response to the bit of my post you quoted.

Perhaps there was misunderstanding between Amanda and the Police. However, when Amanda outright admitted during her testimony that she "outed" Patrick as a "bad man" and claimed that "he did it", there's not much difference in what both sides claim Amanda stated.

The point where Amanda was made a formal suspect was after her scenario/dream sequence/etc indicated, whether properly translated or not, that she was present at the time of Meredith's murder.

This statement, however, was nothing more than what made Amanda into a formal suspect. It was not used as evidence against Amanda for the murder charge, only for the slander charge. In fact, the Judges ruled that as Amanda was only a witness at the time she made the statement (whether it was misinterpreted as more than a dream sequence or not), this statement was inadmissible in the murder case. It was allowed for the slander charge as it was precisely that statement that was slanderous.

Amanda was convicted based on the strength of the remaining body of evidence, not the statement she made to the Police the night of the 5th/morning of the 6th.