Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[GrouchoMarxist]

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'.

You're starting to build a good argument for an insanity defense.

 

[katy_did]

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.

This is from Amanda's Q&A at the Supreme Court:

I was questioned again at 5.45 am and gave "spontaneous statements," but these are not admissible due to the status I had acquired in the mean time.

It does seem rather odd that a further statement was made with no further questioning whatsoever...

 

[katy_did]

katy_did said:

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

Yes, I realize that; my point was more that they simply had to say to Amanda, "Do you confirm that this statement you are making is voluntary and spontaneous"? and get her to sign it. That's slightly different from someone 'demanding to be heard' (indeed, seems somewhat more likely, given that it would have been illegal for Amanda to have made statements otherwise and the police were fully aware of that fact...)

 

[christianahannah]

Yes, I realize that; my point was more that they simply had to say to Amanda, "Do you confirm that this statement you are making is voluntary and spontaneous"? and get her to sign it. That's slightly different from someone 'demanding to be heard' (indeed, seems somewhat more likely, given that it would have been illegal for Amanda to have made statements otherwise and the police were fully aware of that fact...)

I wonder whether Mignini asked questions during the 5:45 spontaneous declaration (is he allowed since he isn't police) and if so, what were the questions (are there transcripts) he asked of Amanda?

 

[Fulcanelli]

katy_did said:

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?

Well, they weren't read out in open court. They would have been in the case file and the judges saw them.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It does seem rather odd that a further statement was made with no further questioning whatsoever...

It's been applied there as a generic term and while on the stand, Amanda seemed to get both her statements from that night mixed up. It wasn't an interrogation.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Yes, I realize that; my point was more that they simply had to say to Amanda, "Do you confirm that this statement you are making is voluntary and spontaneous"? and get her to sign it. That's slightly different from someone 'demanding to be heard' (indeed, seems somewhat more likely, given that it would have been illegal for Amanda to have made statements otherwise and the police were fully aware of that fact...)

No. Amanda made the request to be heard. She was not approached by the police or prosecutor for a statement or to answer questions after her questioning that ended at 1:45 am.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

_____________________________

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.

///

This where you keep making the same mistake. The shoe prints on the floor prove nothing whatsoever about the door. They don't prove that Rudy locked the door or didn't lock the door.

Rudy is the only person that left shoe prints, set in Meredith's blood, on the floor. It is very possible that he locked the door but nothing is proven either way.

There isn't one print of any kind on the floor in the murder room that can be attributed to Amanda or Raffaele.

There is absolutely no proof that Amanda or Raffaele locked that door. Nothing.

The evidence on the floor was compromised by the heavy foot traffic on the floor outside of Meredith's door. The exact movements of Rudy or anyone else would be impossible to prove by the prints on the floor.

The lock on the door is a very basic configuration. I don't think this was the first time Rudy had seen this type of door. Stating that Rudy would have been unfamiliar with the door is not a good argument.

 

[Fulcanelli]

This where you keep making the same mistake. The shoe prints on the floor prove nothing whatsoever about the door. They don't prove that Rudy locked the door or didn't lock the door.

Rudy is the only person that left shoe prints, set in Meredith's blood, on the floor. It is very possible that he locked the door but nothing is proven either way.

There isn't one print of any kind on the floor in the murder room that can be attributed to Amanda or Raffaele.

There is absolutely no proof that Amanda or Raffaele locked that door. Nothing.

The evidence on the floor was compromised by the heavy foot traffic on the floor outside of Meredith's door. The exact movements of Rudy or anyone else would be impossible to prove by the prints on the floor.

The lock on the door is a very basic configuration. I don't think this was the first time Rudy had seen this type of door. Stating that Rudy would have been unfamiliar with the door is not a good argument.

Not true..his footprints show a clear pattern of Rudy running straight from the room. Judge Massei makes this very clear in his report.

 

[Amazer]

Not true..his footprints show a clear pattern of Rudy running straight from the room. Judge Massei makes this very clear in his report.

[Bruce]

But that is just Massei's opinion... that's not evidence!

[/Bruce]

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Not true..his footprints show a clear pattern of Rudy running straight from the room. Judge Massei makes this very clear in his report.

I agree that Rudy left the room and exited out the front door. He did shuffle at one point to possibly put on a coat.

I believe that he left the room at one point and went into the bathroom. When he left the murder room for the last time, he stepped in blood with his left shoe.

There are no prints, set in blood, on the floor that show any pattern at all for Amanda or Raffaele. Why? Because they found no prints, set in blood, from Amanda or Raffaele. Why? Because they weren't there.

Massei is reaching an almost god like status with you. Everything he says must be true. He is the all knowing expert of all things in your eyes.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I agree that Rudy left the room and exited out the front door. He did shuffle at one point to possibly put on a coat.

I believe that he left the room at one point and went into the bathroom. When he left the murder room for the last time, he stepped in blood with his left shoe.

There are no prints, set in blood, on the floor that show any pattern at all for Amanda or Raffaele. Why? Because they found no prints, set in blood, from Amanda or Raffaele. Why? Because they weren't there.

Massei is reaching an almost god like status with you. Everything he says must be true. He is the all knowing expert of all things in your eyes.

But if he was up close and personal with Meredith from the start, why didn't he have blood on the soles of his shoes from the get go?

Also, you claim he went to so much trouble to wash his shoe (yet with blood on his shoe he left no prints)...then immediately proceeded to go and step right in a puddle of blood. That makes no sense. Nor does it make sense that he'd have gone near Meredith again, he wouldn't of needed to.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

So, I'd ask again: why has Lumumba not sued the Daily Mail? And why have the Perugia police not sued either the Daily Mail or Lumumba?

If Lumumba really did never say these things, then he could make an awful lot of money (and protect his reputation) in a libel lawsuit against the Daily Mail. After all, there are serious words that the Mail has put into his mouth. They are direct quotes, set within quotation marks, where Lumumba states clearly that the police punched and beat him.

Lumumba has already shown his propensity for protecting his reputation by suing Amanda Knox for slander (and correctly so). Why would he not then sue the Daily Mail for printing very serious lies? He may have gone on national television to deny making those claims, but he's never tried to say the same thing in a court, has he? That's the only place where he could properly protect his reputation, as well as getting monetary damages. But yet he hasn't taken the Mail to court. I wonder why not......?

I'll give you a clue: Maybe....just maybe....the Mail has got a tape recording in which Lumumba says exactly those things which are quoted within quotation marks. Maybe Lumumba knows this. Maybe Lumumba is very keen to give the impression that he didn't actually say these things, because he needs to get along with the Perugia police for business and personal reasons. Maybe both Lumumba and the Perugia police both know that they would never have a chance of winning a libel/slander suit, since the words are on a tape in a safe in the Daily Mail offices.

I think only one scenario can be deduced from the legal silence over this Daily Mail Article:

1) Lumumba said all those things quoted in the Mail article
2) Lumumba knows that the Mail can prove he said those things
3) The Perugia police probably also know that the Mail can prove Lumumba said those things.
4) There's a benefit to Lumumba from denying he said those things - even though he knows he would lose any legal action.
5) The Perugia police won't bring any action against Lumumba, because they think they'd lose
6) The Perugia police most likely did therefore punch and beat Lumumba during his interrogation

By the way, I'm loving the dismissive "we've dealt with this before" argument. Very classy!

 

[RoseMontague]

Massei is reaching an almost god like status with you. Everything he says must be true. He is the all knowing expert of all things in your eyes.

It is like quoting from the bible, but in this case only the "insiders" have the bible. The rest of us just have to take it on faith. We see through that glass darkly but when the translated report is released it will all become clear. At present we have only the dark and dreaded google glass of misunderstanding. Us outsiders are just poor unfortunate souls.

Then again, there is always Frank to fall back on. If anything reads like a good old King James version of the case, it is his place.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

1) But since the Daily Mail has never apologised or retracted the quotes which they have attributed to Lumumba, why has Lumumba not sued the Mail for libel and defamation?

2) Didn't AK apologise to Lumumba for the false accusation? But I seem to remember Lumumba winning a subsequent slander case against her for the original accusation......how can this be?!!

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Just to point out: slander is a civil offence, and not a criminal one.

 

[LondonJohn]

It is like quoting from the bible, but in this case only the "insiders" have the bible. The rest of us just have to take it on faith. We see through that glass darkly but when the translated report is released it will all become clear. At present we have only the dark and dreaded google glass of misunderstanding. Us outsiders are just poor unfortunate souls.

Then again, there is always Frank to fall back on. If anything reads like a good old King James version of the case, it is his place.

Will we have to take communion at the altar of PMF before we can hear the sacred scriptures of Massei read to us from the pulpit....?

 

[Amazer]

1) But since the Daily Mail has never apologised or retracted the quotes which they have attributed to Lumumba, why has Lumumba not sued the Mail for libel and defamation?

Could just be that sueing the Daily Mail is expensive? They will undoubtedly have much deeper pockets then Lumumba.

2) Didn't AK apologise to Lumumba for the false accusation? But I seem to remember Lumumba winning a subsequent slander case against her for the original accusation......how can this be?!!

Nope, she apologized to someone who wasn't lumumba... i seem to recall that it was in a letter/statement to a Judge.

 

[RWVBWL]

Originally Posted by RWVBWL
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.

_________________________________________________________________

Hi Fulcanelli,
Thanks for the partial answer to my question.
Your answer makes it clear why Mr. Lumumba was not prosecuted for slander as Amanda Knox is.

But my other question begs for an answer:
The fact that Mr. Lumumba has made it "clear" that he has never said those things would not, in my opinion, get The Daily Mail newspaper off the hook for a libel lawsuit, would it?

If that is so, how come Mr. Mignini did not bring forth a lawsuit against The Daily Mail newspaper,
since it has not been mentioned anywhere that I have read that The Daily Mail newspaper brought forth a retraction also? Do you know if it did?

Personally, it seems like Mr. Mignini is trying to further punish Amanda Knox for not caving in and giving him what he wants, a retraction as Mr. Lumumba has done.
If she would, I bet Mr. Mignini might drop the charges.
But it would definately make Amanda Knox a liar.

Amanda is hardcore, sticking with the truth however much it hurts her now.
My hope is that someday, the truth comes out and sets her, and Raffaele Sollecito, free...
RWVBWL

 

[LondonJohn]

Could just be that sueing the Daily Mail is expensive? They will undoubtedly have much deeper pockets then Lumumba.

No, I don't think this can be the reason. If Lumumba didn't say those things, then he would know that the Mail couldn't possible have any proof that he said those things. And the onus would be on the Mail to provide proof in any libel trial. If he didn't say those words, the Mail - by definition - wouldn't be able to supply any proof, and then the Mail - almost by definition - would lose the libel case. Lumumba would win substantial damages, and he would also have all his costs paid. I imagine that civil lawyers would be biting his hand off to take the case to court - if Lumumba could assure them that he definitely had never said those things.

After all, this would be one of the more clear-cut libel cases. These are direct quotes from Lumumba's mouth - no room for "grey areas" or interpretations there. He either said these things or he didn't. And if the Mail were ever required to defend themselves against a libel action, they'd have to prove that these things were said.

It can only lead to one conclusion (in my mind), and it's nothing to do with money: Patrick Lumumba did say those things, and I think he also knows that the Mail can prove he said those things. The Daily Mail may be many things, not all of them savoury. But to take the extreme risk of inventing whole phrases - which they directly attribute within quotation marks to Lumumba - which falsely have Lumumba accusing the Perugia police of extremely serious misconduct...... well, that's behaviour which is far beyond even the warped ethics (not to mention legal risk taking appetite) of the newspaper business.