Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fulcanelli]

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.

They're not 'pat answers', they're the facts. I'm sorry you don't like them much, but I can'y help that.

Why do my posts need to be more then a sentence long when a sentence explains the point? I'm not going to waffle just for the sake of it just so my posts are a little bit longer.

It's not Mignini's or the police job to act in Amanda's best interests. It's their job simply to abide by the law and do their jobs.

They did not work 'against the intention of the laws about suspects and attorney'. That's another way for you to say they broke the law. They did not.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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

BECAUSE Patrick has made it clear he never said those things. Just like, if someone makes a retraction, then there is no longer a case for slander. Neither Amanda nor her parents have ever retracted their accusations. If Amanda were to publicly retract it and apologise to the parties concerned, the slander charge would go away. But since she has not, she has forced the police into having to sue her in order to restore their good name.

 

[Mary_H]

They're not 'pat answers', they're the facts. I'm sorry you don't like them much, but I can'y help that.

Why do my posts need to be more then a sentence long when a sentence explains the point? I'm not going to waffle just for the sake of it just so my posts are a little bit longer.

It's not Mignini's or the police job to act in Amanda's best interests. It's their job simply to abide by the law and do their jobs.

They did not work 'against the intention of the laws about suspects and attorney'. That's another way for you to say they broke the law. They did not.

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

If these are facts, then provide documentation for them, including the law that says that after a witness becomes a suspect, an attorney's presence is not required for a voluntary statement.

From what I have read about the laws, it looks to me that they are intended to protect the suspect; in fact, many posters have praised the protections for suspects that are written into Italian law. Yet you say, "It's not Mignini's or the police job to act in Amanda's best interests." That strikes me as contradictory to the spirit of the law.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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

If these are facts, then provide documentation for them, including the law that says that after a witness becomes a suspect, an attorney's presence is not required for a voluntary statement.

From what I have read about the laws, it looks to me that they are intended to protect the suspect; in fact, many posters have praised the protections for suspects that are written into Italian law. Yet you say, "It's not Mignini's or the police job to act in Amanda's best interests." That strikes me as contradictory to the spirit of the law.

I really cannot understand. Knox was also heard as a witness by the Police, then evidence of her involvement in the crime having emerged, the Police suspended the questioning according to article 63 - Law of Criminal Proceedings. However she deemed that she was making an unsolicited statement, which I received without her being questioned, and which was thus completely legitimate. Only in the case of a formal interrogation, with notification of criminal offences and questioning by a PM or a judge, must the person under investigation be represented by a defence lawyer, not when unsolicited statements are being made under article 374 - Law of Criminal Proceedings.

He even cites the specific law she was heard under

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=17394#p17394

 

[Mary_H]

He even cites the specific law she was heard under

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=17394#p17394

Since when was Amanda qualified to "deem" whether or not she was making a voluntary statement? As I said before, the police do not seem to have to made any effort to let her know they no longer wanted information from her. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they had said, "Be sure to let us know if you think of anything else." Moreover, since she was a suspect and not allowed to leave, nothing she did, said or wrote can accurately be called voluntary.

Mignini wrote, "Since all that I did was to rigorously apply the laws of the state having jurisdiction in both these instances, I am unable to understand the objections and reservations which you have raised with me."

He sounds so defensive. Does article 374 - Law of Criminal Proceedings say a suspect CAN'T have an attorney if she doesn't ask for one, or does it say an attorney is not NECESSARY except during a formal interrogation? It seems to me that Mignini knew the law, while Amanda, since she hadn't been provided the protection of a lawyer, did not, hence, he was able to exploit the technicalities of the law by "rigorously" applying it to his own needs, while ignoring the rights of the suspect.

It is inexcusable that Amanda had been a suspect for four hours and had not been provided with an attorney in that amount of time. The fact that the police got Mignini out of bed for her statement proves they knew the law but were willfully working around it.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Since when was Amanda qualified to "deem" whether or not she was making a voluntary statement? As I said before, the police do not seem to have to made any effort to let her know they no longer wanted information from her. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they had said, "Be sure to let us know if you think of anything else." Moreover, since she was a suspect and not allowed to leave, nothing she did, said or wrote can accurately be called voluntary.

Mignini wrote, "Since all that I did was to rigorously apply the laws of the state having jurisdiction in both these instances, I am unable to understand the objections and reservations which you have raised with me."

He sounds so defensive. Does article 374 - Law of Criminal Proceedings say a suspect CAN'T have an attorney if she doesn't ask for one, or does it say an attorney is not NECESSARY except during a formal interrogation? It seems to me that Mignini knew the law, while Amanda, since she hadn't been provided the protection of a lawyer, did not, hence, he was able to exploit the technicalities of the law by "rigorously" applying it to his own needs, while ignoring the rights of the suspect.

It is inexcusable that Amanda had been a suspect for four hours and had not been provided with an attorney in that amount of time. The fact that the police got Mignini out of bed for her statement proves they knew the law but were willfully working around it.

You had to go away for a while to think of a retort didn't you?


Amanda is qualified, to offer a voluntary statement since she is an independent adult and therefore under the law judged as competent.

Everyone exploits the law, criminals and police alike. That's life. In this case, the law that applied to Amanda also applies to everyone else. I see nothing 'unfair' in this.

No, it is not inexcusable she wasn't provided with an attorney. Why should she be provided with an attorney in the middle of the night when she's not even being questioned? Why can't it wait until morning? The fact that Amanda then went on to demand to be heard again instead of going to sleep is her own problem.

 

[Fulcanelli]

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?

The charge relates to her lying about the police...making false accusations. There is no law that says you can't say anything bad about the police (or anyone) at all. The law says that if you make public accusations against people without being able to evidence those accusations, that is criminal slander. And that isn't just against the police, it's against anyone.

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

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

Next question you have?

"Ahh, but she stated in her testimony that she accused Patrick. "

Yes, thank you-my memory is poverty stricken.
What are your thoughts on why she would do that? I'm having a hard time seeing what she may have hoped to gain. She implicated herself so she had to know she'd remain in custody. If she was at the crime scene she knew
Mr. Lumumba was not, so I don't see how that story ends well for her.

Guilty or innocent, I can see how a person might be in a state of panic under those circumstances. I don't know, maybe she's just not as smart as me and you.

I do apologize as I know this has been discussed quite a lot, but the animosity seems to get in the way of a meaningful dialogue.

"There is nothing to debate here."

And that's what makes this so difficult.

"Next question you have?"

What on earth was that ump thinking?
I know blown calls are part of the game, but that 'stash' is off the hook, don't you think?

 

[Mary_H]

You had to go away for a while to think of a retort didn't you?

Actually, I got caught up in PMF. Not much thinking required.

Amanda is qualified, to offer a voluntary statement since she is an independent adult and therefore under the law judged as competent.

Everyone exploits the law, criminals and police alike. That's life. In this case, the law that applied to Amanda also applies to everyone else. I see nothing 'unfair' in this.

Well, okay, but let's just keep that in mind when y'all are defending the police investigators as if they're pure as the driven snow.

No, it is not inexcusable she wasn't provided with an attorney. Why should she be provided with an attorney in the middle of the night when she's not even being questioned? Why can't it wait until morning? The fact that Amanda then went on to demand to be heard again instead of going to sleep is her own problem.

She should have been provided with a lawyer once she became a suspect, regardless of whether or not she was being questioned. That IS the actual law. Her offer of more information should have been looked upon as a continuation of the questioning, which is exactly what it was.

Why can't it wait until morning, you ask? Well, why couldn't the interrogation have waited until morning? According to the guilters' arguments, the police had no idea what they were in for when they questioned Amanda -- they hadn't even THOUGHT about Patrick Lumumba or whether Amanda was at the scene of the crime. What was the hurry?

Yes, I'm sure going to sleep was foremost in Amanda's mind, under the circumstances.

 

[Mary_H]

What are your thoughts on why she would do that [accuse Patrick]? I'm having a hard time seeing what she may have hoped to gain. She implicated herself so she had to know she'd remain in custody. If she was at the crime scene she knew Mr. Lumumba was not, so I don't see how that story ends well for her.

My sentiments exactly, GM.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Well, okay, but let's just keep that in mind when y'all are defending the police investigators as if they're pure as the driven snow.

I'm defending them insofar as they acted quite legally and that is a fact.

Nobody is claiming that the police are 'purer then the driven snow'. Their job is to enforce the law, detect and solve crimes and to deal with criminals and liars. They are the police, not the Salvation Army.

She should have been provided with a lawyer once she became a suspect, regardless of whether or not she was being questioned. That IS the actual law. Her offer of more information should have been looked upon as a continuation of the questioning, which is exactly what it was.

Why can't it wait until morning, you ask? Well, why couldn't the interrogation have waited until morning? According to the guilters' arguments, the police had no idea what they were in for when they questioned Amanda -- they hadn't even THOUGHT about Patrick Lumumba or whether Amanda was at the scene of the crime. What was the hurry?

Yes, I'm sure going to sleep was foremost in Amanda's mind, under the circumstances.

No, she should not. You have no understanding of Italian law. The law does not state a lawyer must be appointed and materialised the moment one is made a suspect. The law states that they cannot be interrogated again unless a lawyer is present. They had ended the questioning. A lawyer was not legally required. When she went up in court to be examined by the judge, THEN a lawyer was a legal requirement and one was duly appointed.

What interrogation? Amanda was not interrogated, she gave a statement. If you are referring to the one she signed at 1:45 am, they questioned her because she was 'there'. They even told her her before they questioned her that she didn't need to be there and she could go home if she wanted. They asked her some informal questions in the waiting room while she was waiting for Raffaele. It was then moved to an interrogation room because Raffaele had dropped her alibi. And what was the hurry? A brutal raping murderer was on the loose, 'that' was the hurry.

If Amanda didn't or couldn't sleep, that's not the fault of or problem of the police.

Your arguments are sounding more and more petulant and sulky.

 

[Mary_H]

If Amanda didn't or couldn't sleep, that's not the fault of or problem of the police.

I believe the spirit or intention of the law is to protect suspects from being completely on their own, without any guidance, among people whose attitude is, "You're not our problem." Amanda and Raffaele were not even allowed to make phone calls to their families.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I believe the spirit or intention of the law is to protect suspects from being completely on their own, without any guidance, among people whose attitude is, "You're not our problem." Amanda and Raffaele were not even allowed to make phone calls to their families.

No, the Law is the Law and like justice, is blind. The police were trying to solve a vicious murder case while at the same time preventing any more from happening, which could happen potentially any moment. And I'm sorry, Amanda and Raffaele were adults under arrest, in connection with that crime. You are complaining that the police didn't molly coddle them, as though that's what police actually do and what they should do. Is this what police in America do?

 

[christianahannah]

Mary_H said:

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.

There are quite a few exemptions with Florida Sunshine Laws regarding criminal investigations. Amanda's statements may have fallen under one of the exemptions (if she was a suspect in the U.S.). http://www.myflsunshine.com/sun.nsf/sunmanual/1BB05D142D8E4724852566F3006C7A1A

What would be allowed in U.S. vs. Italy is relevant . They are two different countries with two different systems. One can only make a judgment on what is legal in Italy.

I had asked this before and am not sure if I had a complete answer - Is it proper and a common occurrence for the Italian media to be allowed access and publish verbatim statements from suspects before a hearing or trial has begun?

 

[Fine]

As you know arguments on JREF are talked to death. That's the only reason this has been discussed in such great detail. So many facts about the door were incorrect on PMF. They needed to be cleared up.

Please give me one piece of evidence that proves Amanda or Raffaele locked that door. Just one will be fine.

I already showed you how easily Rudy could have locked the door. If you do not see that it would have been an easy task then you just refuse to open your eyes and see it.

_____________________________

Well, Bruce what you did illustrate in your video re-enactment is that it is possible for Rudy to have locked Meredith's door. Fine.

The next important question is whether he did so, and whether there is any evidence that he did so. Your video is a biased experiment because you are trying to simulate activity that YOU KNOW to be consistent with the bloody footprints. But had you given the role of Rudy to an uncoached volunteer, I'm pretty sure the video would be different, especially if that volunteer were---like Rudy---unfamiliar with the keys and the lock mechanism.

The volunteer would walk out of Meredith bedroom, turn around, pull the door closed, find the suitable key on the keyring, turn the key left or right until he heard the bolt enter the mortise, and then push down the brass door handle while pushing inward on the door to confirm that the door was now locked. That's what one would expect Rudy to do. But the bloody shoeprints in the hallway prove otherwise. Would you like to shoot a video of an uncoached volunteer, unfamiliar with the keys and the lock?

A snide aside. IF I were a LONE WOLFER and wished to have Rudy locking the door I'd have him return later with the blood cleaned off--- or worn off--- the soles of his shoes. We all know that's possible too. No evidence of his return you say? Well, to mimic a common style of "logic" in this case, just look at Meredith's door. IT'S LOCKED! So Rudy must have returned.

///

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

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.




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".




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

I think it's been established that Italian law guarantees "the right to remain silent", so aren't all statements voluntary?

 

[katy_did]

OK, so I'm trying to get clear in my mind exactly when Amanda's interrogation took place. We know she was interrogated until 1.30, when her first statement was signed, and when she officially became a suspect. From what Fulcanelli is saying, it then sounds as if she wasn't interrogated again at all, and the only further events which took place were a second statement at 5.30 (presumably without any prior questioning) and of course the handwritten statement next morning.

She couldn't have been questioned again, because at that point she was a suspect, and it would have been illegal to question her without recording the interrogation and without a lawyer being present. Therefore, the ONLY time she was questioned was before 1.30. Is that right?

I'm also curious as to where this information that Amanda 'demanded' to be heard again at 5.30 came from. What's your source for that, Fulcanelli? Is it that, technically speaking, this statement is described as 'spontaneous'? Because that rather sounds like word play from the police to get around the fact she had yet to be provided with legal representation to me...

 

[Fulcanelli]

I think it's been established that Italian law guarantees "the right to remain silent", so aren't all statements voluntary?

Exactly. At least in the sense that they're not forced.

The difference with this issue, is that there's a clear difference between being questioned (the ILE in effect 'soliciting' a statement and answers to questions), and a suspect requesting to make a statement (therefore unsolicited and not entailing questioning) and it is that which gives it the assignation of 'voluntary'.

 

[Fulcanelli]

OK, so I'm trying to get clear in my mind exactly when Amanda's interrogation took place. We know she was interrogated until 1.30, when her first statement was signed, and when she officially became a suspect. From what Fulcanelli is saying, it then sounds as if she wasn't interrogated again at all, and the only further events which took place were a second statement at 5.30 (presumably without any prior questioning) and of course the handwritten statement next morning.

She couldn't have been questioned again, because at that point she was a suspect, and it would have been illegal to question her without recording the interrogation and without a lawyer being present. Therefore, the ONLY time she was questioned was before 1.30. Is that right?

I'm also curious as to where this information that Amanda 'demanded' to be heard again at 5.30 came from. What's your source for that, Fulcanelli? Is it that, technically speaking, this statement is described as 'spontaneous'? Because that rather sounds like word play from the police to get around the fact she had yet to be provided with legal representation to me...

No, she was interrogated until 1:45 am at the end of which she was a formal suspect.

Yes, you're right, that's what I'm saying...she wasn't interrogated again after that. Later that night, she requested to give a statement, but that's the point, it was a 'statement' (I have something I want to say), but it wasn't an interrogation.

The source for this is public record, via the prosecutor, the police and testimony in court. And this has never been challenged by Amanda's lawyers.

 

[christianahannah]

katy_did said:

I'm also curious as to where this information that Amanda 'demanded' to be heard again at 5.30 came from. What's your source for that, Fulcanelli? Is it that, technically speaking, this statement is described as 'spontaneous'? Because that rather sounds like word play from the police to get around the fact she had yet to be provided with legal representation to me...

Amanda's 5:45 statement (which she signed) contains in the first paragraph that it is a spontaneous declaration.

Fulcanelli - were there transcripts (questions and answers) available of the 1:45 interrogation and were they submitted during trial?