• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
They'd arrest her...put her in jail.

Suspects aren't arrested if they demand lawyers, witnesses are.

She was told it would make it worse for her BEFORE she was made a suspect and arrested, not after.

No, she's wasn't entitled to a lawyer merely by being made a suspect. She was only entitled to a lawyer if she was interrogated further. As soon as they made her a suspect, they kalted the interrogation (she was made a suspect at 1:45 am. The interrogation was halted at 1:45 am). It is not status that defines the requirement, but the action performed by the ILE while under that status.


They did arrest her...put her in jail.

If she had insisted on a lawyer, she would have been put in jail for not cooperating, but not for a false accusation and a false confession.

So, that would not have been worse for Amanda. Only for her captors.
 
Ha...it's not as if we've been drowning in cites from you lately, is it?

What exactly is it you'd like citing, Fulcanelli? I provided a quote for the 10:29 phone call Amanda made from the police station, so it can't be that... The testimony from Anna Donnino comes from PMF, more specifically from StewartHome who attended the trial:
The next witness, Anna Donnino, another interpreter, testified that she was called at her home around 11:00-11:30pm 4th/5th and asked to come in to the police station as her expertise were needed. She lives about 1/2 hour away and testified that after she arrived she spent the entire night in the same room as AK and acted as the interpreter. It was shortly after she arrived and started working with AK and the police that AK was shown the text message by Lumumba...
Was there anything else? I think it might just be your turn.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps I should have been more specific. When someone on the thread asks you for a 'cite', they'll usually be looking for an actual quote with the information you claim is there. Otherwise, you probably won't be believed. As I said, I know this might be a little different from what you're used to, but it's standard practice here.

There was damage to the outer side of the "dark" or inner shutter. A gash with embedded fragments of glass. Damage consistent with a rock thrown from outside breaking the glass and then hitting the inner shutter.

The inner side of the exterior shutter was not damaged.
 
Maybe she was confused on the date and was talking about 11AM on November 3 when Amanda was to return to the police station after being kept there till 530 that morning from the afternoon before.

I can sympathize with Amanda's need to stretch after being kept up so long and such a short night to recuperate. It wasn't until the 5th that Amanda thought she was going to have one day free from questioning. But that of course was a school day and she had to be up early for classes.


Yes, Amanda probably did some stretching on the 5th and it was quite probably after they started the informal questioning around 10:32PM. After half an hour of questions by the first team that was sent in with the easy pitches just to get her talking, Amanda would be thinking "oh boy, here we go again!" and taken the opportunity to do a few stretches before the second team comes in to work her over.

All good points. It could well have been a different date she was referring to, or that Amanda was stretching after the first 'informal' interrogation, which fits well with the interpreter's testimony that she was called at 11-11.30. Whichever one it is, it doesn't appear to contradict the information we have already on when the interrogation started.
 
The High Court ruled she became a suspect at 1:45 am. At 1:45 am the interrogation was over. A lawyer was only required if she was to be interrogated again. She wasn't, until December 2007...at which time she had two lawyers present.

Yet again you are ignoring the interrogation that resulted in the 5:45 AM statement. :rolleyes:
 
There was damage to the outer side of the "dark" or inner shutter. A gash with embedded fragments of glass. Damage consistent with a rock thrown from outside breaking the glass and then hitting the inner shutter.

The inner side of the exterior shutter was not damaged.

Yes, that's what I thought. Fulcanelli has access to a secret section of Micheli's report none of the rest of us do, apparently.
 
So now your saying the Prosecution didn't take the diary?

No, I said what I said.

We don't know who took it. It could have been a prison guard who took it and gave it to his boss who then put it in an office, one multiple people had access to, in turn which could have then been given to a courier who in turn may have taken it to to somewhere else. Moreover, Amanda's lawyers would have already seen the diary. It wasn't simply teleported instantly to Mignini's pocket.

I'm saying many people, potentially, may have had the opportunity for access.

Why are you so hung up about it anyway? Relative? It tends to be only the family that are so irate about the diary.

And ot's off topic to the original point...that of Dr Lalli being caught leaking on national television. He was caught, it was proven, he was on the case, hence he was sacked...from the case (not from being a coroner). Apples and oranges.
 
They did arrest her...put her in jail.

If she had insisted on a lawyer, she would have been put in jail for not cooperating, but not for a false accusation and a false confession.

So, that would not have been worse for Amanda. Only for her captors.

Yes, after 1:45 am, when she was a suspect, not when she was a witness. They warned her while she was still a witness...before 1:45 am.
 
The High Court ruled she became a suspect at 1:45 am. At 1:45 am the interrogation was over. A lawyer was only required if she was to be interrogated again. She wasn't, until December 2007...at which time she had two lawyers present.

I thought the statement was signed at 545 am
 
No, I said what I said.

We don't know who took it. It could have been a prison guard who took it and gave it to his boss who then put it in an office, one multiple people had access to, in turn which could have then been given to a courier who in turn may have taken it to to somewhere else. Moreover, Amanda's lawyers would have already seen the diary. It wasn't simply teleported instantly to Mignini's pocket.

I'm saying many people, potentially, may have had the opportunity for access.

Why are you so hung up about it anyway? Relative? It tends to be only the family that are so irate about the diary.

And ot's off topic to the original point...that of Dr Lalli being caught leaking on national television. He was caught, it was proven, he was on the case, hence he was sacked...from the case (not from being a coroner). Apples and oranges.

The prosecution took the diary.
 
Why would they need to warn her she was still a witness?


Alright, last try. She was a witness...she asked if she should have a lawyer. They told her it would make things worse for her if she had one...because then they'd have to make her from a witness to a suspect and arrest her...get it?
 
Alright, last try. She was a witness...she asked if she should have a lawyer. They told her it would make things worse for her if she had one...because then they'd have to make her from a witness to a suspect and arrest her...get it?

What time did this happen? What makes her asking for a lawyer make her a suspect? Did they say it would make her a suspect, or just make it worse? What question did she ask about a lawyer on?
 
Last edited:
What time did this happen? What makes her asking for a lawyer make her a suspect? Did they say it would make her a suspect, or just make it worse? What question did she ask about a lawyer on?

I explained that already.

I don't know what more I can say to enable you to grasp a simple concept.
 
Alright, last try. She was a witness...she asked if she should have a lawyer. They told her it would make things worse for her if she had one...because then they'd have to make her from a witness to a suspect and arrest her...get it?

So if you get a lawyer you get arrested? Getting a lawyer has nothing to do with being a suspect or a witness. If they were planning to arrest her if she got a lawyer she was already a suspect, not a witness.
 
So if you get a lawyer you get arrested? Getting a lawyer has nothing to do with being a suspect or a witness. If they were planning to arrest her if she got a lawyer she was already a suspect, not a witness.

Yeah thats what I'm trying to explain. If getting a lawyer makes you a suspect, then suspects are entitled lawyers. What grounds are they now going to arrest her on. I didn't realize getting a lawyer in Italy was a crime. Filomena and Laura had lawyers. They didn't get arrested.
 
Yeah thats what I'm trying to explain. If getting a lawyer makes you a suspect, then suspects are entitled lawyers. What grounds are they now going to arrest her on. I didn't realize getting a lawyer in Italy was a crime. Filomena and Laura had lawyers. They didn't get arrested.

The police were wrong, not correct. and possibly disingenuous when they told her things would be worse if she got a lawyer. Fulcanelli states that she would be arrested if she got a lawyer and I am not going to ask for a cite on that one. They were already planning to arrest her before her Mom got there, they did not want her to have a lawyer until they had a chance to pressure her into doing something really stupid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom