Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fiona]

errr....come on what?

It's a near-certainty that if he had put his hands in the air when challenged by the police in that tube carriage, he would not have been essentially executed by SO19 police officers who were looking for action in a city that was in mild panic, and who had been led to believe that de Menezes had definitely been ID'd as a potential suicide bomber.....

From the moment he was thought to be a suspect that man was dead. Nothing he could have done would have saved his life. It was, as you say, a panic situation, and there is no excuse for it, IMO. Putting his hands in the air would have done nothing, because they had convinced themselves he was a living bomb. But that was not a typical situation in the uk, as I am sure you agree. I hope that his death helps to make sure it never will be

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

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.

snip



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.

Seems to be working out pretty good for her so far.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Seems to be working out pretty good for her so far.

So you think her accusation of Patrick should have been included in the evidence against her?

 

[LondonJohn]

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 wonder if AK's lawyers might call Lumumba to testify in the slander trial? After all, if Lumumba can put aside any thoughts of this being some sort of Faustian Pact, then he might be able to offer, under oath, some interesting testimony regarding patterns of behaviour within the Perugia police..........

And failing that, I wonder whether AK's defence team might consider bringing to court a copy of the Daily Mail from 25th November 2007:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Lumumba-reveals-framed-Merediths-murder.html

They might want to ask the estimable Perugia police why they haven't pursued Patrick Lumumba or The Daily Mail for slander/libel. Or maybe the police might be willing to admit that they punched and kicked Lumumba while he was in their "care", and forced him onto his knees against the wall. But they'd never treat Amanda Knox in any sort of similar fashion - oh no........

Here's a quick recap of the direct quotes from Lumumba that were printed in that Daily Mail piece, just to avoid confusion:

"They hit me over the head and yelled 'dirty black'. Then they put handcuffs on me and shoved me out of the door, as Aleksandra pulled Davide away, screaming."

"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.'"

 

[LondonJohn]

From the moment he was thought to be a suspect that man was dead. Nothing he could have done would have saved his life. It was, as you say, a panic situation, and there is no excuse for it, IMO. Putting his hands in the air would have done nothing, because they had convinced themselves he was a living bomb. But that was not a typical situation in the uk, as I am sure you agree. I hope that his death helps to make sure it never will be

I agree with the last two sentences 100%. However IMO if he'd happened to put his hands up with open palms facing the police, I really don't think they'd have shot him dead, even given the extraordinary circumstances (no real way to manually trigger a bomb from this position).

And I hope my original response didn't imply in any way that the police in the UK have a long-running habit of acting in this way (I didn't think it did imply this, and I certainly didn't mean it to). And since this is pretty far off-topic, that's it from me on this issue

 

[Mary_H]

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.

Did you not read the cite I posted above? It said, "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 four hours had passed between the first statement and the second, WHERE was her attorney?

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.

Can you support that claim with any documentation? What words did Amanda use to clearly and insistently demand to be heard? What words did she use to say she didn't want an attorney?

The term "poor style" is just about perfect for the way Mignini acted. Again -- if Amanda was "insisting" to the point that they had to wake a magistrate up and get him to the police station, then there is no excuse for why they could not also have awakened a lawyer and gotten the lawyer to the police station, too.

I have to admit that in the end it is better that Amanda was able to present the second statement, since it helpfully provides a solid record of her clearly denying the statement she made during the interrogation. Nevertheless, it appears the police broke the law.

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.

The differences between the US and Italian systems are irrelevant, but I will play along. Everything Amanda wrote was used against her, because everything she wrote appeared in the press, whom the police and prosecution used to argue their case in public. I'm not sure one would see full transcripts of suspects' statements in US media -- except in Florida, according to quadraginta and others -- and jury members are advised to avoid them, anyway.

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

So you think her accusation of Patrick should have been included in the evidence against her?

Hee Haw BobTheDonkey,

That's an interesting set of questions you've posed there. I hope you won't mind if I focus on the first one for now as it's getting late and I'm a bit tired.

"So you think her accusation of Patrick"

This is a great question as it really cuts to the heart of the matter, ya know?
I mean, what the heck did go on in that interrogation room? If only they had video recorded it we wouldn't have to speculate too much. I have many more brilliant thoughts on this but like I said it's late, and them fields ain't gonna plow themselves.

 

[Mary_H]

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

I will ask your opinion, HB, or more, precisely, I want your knowledge. Are the charges against Amanda for slander or for defamation, i.e., is the prosecution charging her with actually lying about the police, or does the charge result from a law that says a person is not allowed to say anything bad about the police at all, regardless of whether her statement is true?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Hee Haw BobTheDonkey,

That's an interesting set of questions you've posed there. I hope you won't mind if I focus on the first one for now as it's getting late and I'm a bit tired.

"So you think her accusation of Patrick"

This is a great question as it really cuts to the heart of the matter, ya know?
I mean, what the heck did go on in that interrogation room? If only they had video recorded it we wouldn't have to speculate too much. I have many more brilliant thoughts on this but like I said it's late, and them fields ain't gonna plow themselves.

Ahh, but she stated in her testimony that she accused Patrick. There is nothing to debate here.

Next question you have?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Did you not read the cite I posted above? It said, "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 four hours had passed between the first statement and the second, WHERE was her attorney?





Can you support that claim with any documentation? What words did Amanda use to clearly and insistently demand to be heard? What words did she use to say she didn't want an attorney?

The term "poor style" is just about perfect for the way Mignini acted. Again -- if Amanda was "insisting" to the point that they had to wake a magistrate up and get him to the police station, then there is no excuse for why they could not also have awakened a lawyer and gotten the lawyer to the police station, too.

I have to admit that in the end it is better that Amanda was able to present the second statement, since it helpfully provides a solid record of her clearly denying the statement she made during the interrogation. Nevertheless, it appears the police broke the law.





The differences between the US and Italian systems are irrelevant, but I will play along. Everything Amanda wrote was used against her, because everything she wrote appeared in the press, whom the police and prosecution used to argue their case in public. I'm not sure one would see full transcripts of suspects' statements in US media -- except in Florida, according to quadraginta and others -- and jury members are advised to avoid them, anyway.

I read what you bolded, Mary. Perhaps you didn't.

required to appoint one

I fear all this is for naught as, again, I have become confused over which statements were allowed. The 5:45 statement was ruled admissible only for the charge of slander.

 

[Mary_H]

I read what you bolded, Mary. Perhaps you didn't.

Inability to waive the appointment of an attorney is not the same as inability to waive the presence of an attorney while making a statement at her own insistence/behest. Had the statement been made at the insistence of the Police/Mignini, I would agree with you that her rights were violated. However, this statement was made at her own behest, and as such, the Judges found that this statement was admissible. I do not find fault with that. This is much more stringent than the requirements in the U.S. Here, one must request an attorney be present - in Italy, one must request the attorney not be present (and even then, the request would be denied if the statement/questioning was at the behest of the Police/Judge).

And DID Amanda request that an attorney not be present when she gave her statement? I owuld find that extremely hard to believe.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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.

No, they are not. They are not charged until or unless a court judge charges them. The hearing they face in court is simply a pre-trial to establish whether they will face charges or not.

And it is not Mignini 'going after them', but the police officers concerned.

And yes, if they are charged, referred to trial and then found guilty, they'll be looking at a fine and costs, rather then jail (it's possible that they 'may' get a jail sentence, but it would be a suspended sentence...they wouldn't actually have to go to jail). Then of course they would still have appeals and only then at the end of the appeals if the conviction is upheld, would the sentence be applied in any case.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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]

Not when in the process of committing a crime.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I wonder if AK's lawyers might call Lumumba to testify in the slander trial? After all, if Lumumba can put aside any thoughts of this being some sort of Faustian Pact, then he might be able to offer, under oath, some interesting testimony regarding patterns of behaviour within the Perugia police..........

And failing that, I wonder whether AK's defence team might consider bringing to court a copy of the Daily Mail from 25th November 2007:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Lumumba-reveals-framed-Merediths-murder.html

They might want to ask the estimable Perugia police why they haven't pursued Patrick Lumumba or The Daily Mail for slander/libel. Or maybe the police might be willing to admit that they punched and kicked Lumumba while he was in their "care", and forced him onto his knees against the wall. But they'd never treat Amanda Knox in any sort of similar fashion - oh no........

Here's a quick recap of the direct quotes from Lumumba that were printed in that Daily Mail piece, just to avoid confusion:

"They hit me over the head and yelled 'dirty black'. Then they put handcuffs on me and shoved me out of the door, as Aleksandra pulled Davide away, screaming."

"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.'"

We've already dealt with this in this thread. Patrick Lumumba went on national television in Italy multiple times and made it clear he never said those things to the reporter.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Did you not read the cite I posted above? It said, "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 four hours had passed between the first statement and the second, WHERE was her attorney?

ONLY if they wanted to interrogate her again did they need to provide her with a lawyer. They didn't. As soon as she was put up in front of the judge for examination, she was then provided with a lawyer, as per Italian law. No rules broken here...move along....nothing to see.

Can you support that claim with any documentation? What words did Amanda use to clearly and insistently demand to be heard? What words did she use to say she didn't want an attorney?

The term "poor style" is just about perfect for the way Mignini acted. Again -- if Amanda was "insisting" to the point that they had to wake a magistrate up and get him to the police station, then there is no excuse for why they could not also have awakened a lawyer and gotten the lawyer to the police station, too.

I have to admit that in the end it is better that Amanda was able to present the second statement, since it helpfully provides a solid record of her clearly denying the statement she made during the interrogation. Nevertheless, it appears the police broke the law.

It was a voluntary statement and voluntary statements do not require the presence of a lawyer.

Actually, the 'second' statement you are talking about is actually the third and in that she denied nothing, but confirmed what she had told police the previous night "I stand by what I said about Patrick last night".

The differences between the US and Italian systems are irrelevant, but I will play along. Everything Amanda wrote was used against her, because everything she wrote appeared in the press, whom the police and prosecution used to argue their case in public. I'm not sure one would see full transcripts of suspects' statements in US media -- except in Florida, according to quadraginta and others -- and jury members are advised to avoid them, anyway.

As they are in Italy. They are under oath not to read up on the case in the media.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Hee Haw BobTheDonkey,

That's an interesting set of questions you've posed there. I hope you won't mind if I focus on the first one for now as it's getting late and I'm a bit tired.

"So you think her accusation of Patrick"

This is a great question as it really cuts to the heart of the matter, ya know?
I mean, what the heck did go on in that interrogation room? If only they had video recorded it we wouldn't have to speculate too much. I have many more brilliant thoughts on this but like I said it's late, and them fields ain't gonna plow themselves.

They questioned her. That's what went on.

 

[Amazer]

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.

Bruce,

It would be appreciated if you can at least pretend to keep your postings on topic.

The topic is 'The Amanda Knox case' and not 'Opinions of Bruce on other sites'.

Amazer

 

[Fulcanelli]

And DID Amanda request that an attorney not be present when she gave her statement? I owuld find that extremely hard to believe.

She didn't request one. And since an attorney's presence is not required for a voluntary statement, it's irrelevant.

 

[RWVBWL]

We've already dealt with this in this thread. Patrick Lumumba went on national television in Italy multiple times and made it clear he never said those things to the reporter.

Hi Fulcanelli,
I KNEW that you would respond and say this regarding LondonJohn's question.
However, you haven't answered the question he wrote, so I will ask it of you, sir:

How come the Perugia police have not pursued Patrick Diya Lumumba or The Daily Mail for slander or libel with regards to the newspaper article that stated that Mr. Lumumba was hit?

Your reply would be appreciated Fulcanelli.
Thanks, RWVBWL

 

[Mary_H]

She didn't request one. And since an attorney's presence is not required for a voluntary statement, it's irrelevant.

Well, I can see that you have all your pat answers at the ready, so there is no point in discussing this.

And you accuse others of hand-waving. Most of your posts are a sentence long.

It is clear the police and Mignini did not act in Amanda's best interests, against the intention of the laws about suspects and attorneys. So much of this weak case is based on technicalities about what the suspects did and didn't do, as if the suspects were participants in a game but were never told the rules.