Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[katy_did]

While you are waiting for Fulcanelli to respond you can quote/post the relevant testimony here in response to this post of mine.

We already have your supposition......Lets see the evidence from the trial.
If all you have is the earlier quote - then you have nothing to back this up.

I didn't answer your posts because I thought they all missed the point. But perhaps not - are you talking about the 5:45 statement, which following her lawyers' objections to the Supreme Court was inadmissible against anyone (including, of course, AK), or the memoir written the next day?

 

[platonov]

Katy, Fulcanelli and I discussed this very subject back in October. There is more to it than what I have edited it down to here; if you want to see the whole exchange, I've supplied the links.




(No, he did not.)

That's all very illuminating, but you better get on to AK's lawyers - they never brought it up in court.

Unless you have the testimony to hand to show otherwise.

 

[platonov]

I didn't answer your posts because I thought they all missed the point. But perhaps not - are you talking about the 5:45 statement, which following her lawyers' objections to the Supreme Court was inadmissible against anyone (including, of course, AK), or the memoir written the next day?

Really

I am taking about this ...........as it relates to your claim...............

Where does AK or more importantly the defence lawyers make the claim [via a direct question for example] that the idea for the later 'spontaneous declarations' came from the cops or Mignini.

Could hardly be more straightforward

You obviously dont have the testimony to back it up ?

 

[RoseMontague]

Katy, Fulcanelli and I discussed this very subject back in October. There is more to it than what I have edited it down to here; if you want to see the whole exchange, I've supplied the links.

(No, he did not.)

So was he dragged out of bed to hear this statement or not? Did he forget to record this one as well? That would really tell us how unsolicited and spontaneous it was.

 

[Mary_H]

That's all very illuminating, but you better get on to AK's lawyers - they never brought it up in court.

Unless you have the testimony to hand to show otherwise.

I've lost track of the question. What did Amanda's lawyers never bring up in court?

While you're responding, could you also point out where this claim of yours is demonstrated in Amanda's testimony? "Leaving aside her generalised 'confusion'/conflation about the whole 1.45 / 5.45 thing - about the whole 5/6th questra episode in fact..."

 

[katy_did]

Katy, Fulcanelli and I discussed this very subject back in October. There is more to it than what I have edited it down to here; if you want to see the whole exchange, I've supplied the links.

(No, he did not.)

Thank you, Mary! I should've known you'd gotten to the bottom of this one with Fulcanelli before. So he doesn't actually have a source for the 'dragging a disheveled Mignini out of bed' theory, LOL (I can just see him there in his stripey PJs. ETA: Mignini rather than Fulcanelli, obviously).

 

[katy_did]

Really

I am taking about this ...........as it relates to your claim...............

Where does AK or more importantly the defence lawyers make the claim [via a direct question for example] that the idea for the later 'spontaneous declarations' came from the cops or Mignini.

Could hardly be more straightforward

You obviously dont have the testimony to back it up ?

No, I was right the first time; you are missing the point.

 

[platonov]

Thank you, Mary! I should've known you'd gotten to the bottom of this one with Fulcanelli before. So he doesn't actually have a source for the 'dragging a disheveled Mignini out of bed' theory, LOL (I can just see him there in his stripey PJs).

OK, so you, Rose Montague & Mary H are all convinced - fine

But lets get back to the actual trial - where is the testimony ?

.

 

[Mary_H]

So was he dragged out of bed to hear this statement or not? Did he forget to record this one as well? That would really tell us how unsolicited and spontaneous it was.

There is no evidence he was dragged out of bed. All during the trial testimony, the lawyers refer to both the 1:45 interrogation and the 5:45 interrogation, which took place with the Public Minister. Yes, they forgot to record that one, too.

 

[RoseMontague]

Really

I am taking about this ...........as it relates to your claim...............

Where does AK or more importantly the defence lawyers make the claim [via a direct question for example] that the idea for the later 'spontaneous declarations' came from the cops or Mignini.

Could hardly be more straightforward

You obviously dont have the testimony to back it up ?

I thought it was interesting that her lawyers put the quotation marks around it in her appeal on several occasions “dichiarazioni spontanee”.

 

[Mary_H]

Thank you, Mary! I should've known you'd gotten to the bottom of this one with Fulcanelli before. So he doesn't actually have a source for the 'dragging a disheveled Mignini out of bed' theory, LOL (I can just see him there in his stripey PJs. ETA: Mignini rather than Fulcanelli, obviously).

LOL. Yes, I'm sure he was only marginally interested in the biggest case that had ever happened in Perugia. No waiting in the wings or any of that, while the special investigators from Rome did their job.

 

[platonov]

I thought it was interesting that her lawyers put the quotation marks around it in her appeal on several occasions “dichiarazioni spontanee”.

Even more interesting than the fact they never challenged it in court while AK was on the stand

There is such a thing as being too subtle - And the appeal is leaving it a bit late, unless your client really likes prison - No ?

 

[pilot padron]

My opinion is that the court picks and choses what evidence supports guilt and tends to ignore evidence that does not.

If you see this another way let me know.

My opinion is simply that to be as efficient as possible during an extremely time constrained process, the 'Court' puts most of their emphasis on the strongest and most directly relevant to guilt *or innocence* evidence.
This, in light of what they see, and what they get argued in front of them by highly talented pro and con legal minds and scientific (accredited) experts during the trial.

If you changed your word 'ignore' to 'de-emphasizes' your above opinion seems much more correct in describing the function of a the prosecuting attorney, but certainly never a 'Court'.

Even the 19 judges who were charged with determining whether the Prosecutor's presentations were worthy and credible enough to bring formal charges and resultant trial did not have your described right to 'pick and choose' evidence when they described the guilt evidence as *overwhelming*.

In your admirable and envied cross referenced files about this case, do you have examples of modern free world 'courts' doing such picking and choosing ?

 

[LondonJohn]

Halides: One LAST TIME: The prosecution cannot appeal a fast track trial verdict. Is that understood? I did not misunderstand Raff's statement: He asked THE REAL killer to confess, AFTER Rudi was convicted!!!

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for quote of modded post.

Strangely, that's not what it says here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure

Fast-track trial

The giudizio abbreviato (fast-track trial, literally abbreviated proceeding)[24] consists, basically, of a proceeding where the trial phase is absent.

It is the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing who, according to the evidence gathered, during the preliminary investigations by the prosecutor and by the lawyer during the defensive investigations, if there were any, convicts or acquits the defendant.

Since this is a reduction of the defendant's rights (he basically gives up his right to presenting new evidence and to be tried by a Judge of the Trial), it must be he who asks that the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing hand down a judgement over him.

The defendant is rewarded with a reduction on the sentence. The law states that this reduction is one third. If the crime was punishable by life imprisonment, the defendant will be sentenced to thirty years.

Both the defendant and the prosecutor can appeal the judgement before the Court of Appeals.

Does this information need to be re-edited? Or are you incorrect? What's your source for the assertion that the prosecutor can't appeal in a fast-track trial?

 

[RoseMontague]

Even more interesting than the fact they never challenged it in court while AK was on the stand

There is such a thing as being too subtle - And the appeal is leaving it a bit late, unless your client really likes prison - No ?

I agree that your point is interesting. I think her lawyers are being somewhat facetious in the use of the quote marks in the appeal (kind of like the use of smileys to make a face at someone). Not having a recording could be part of the problem, no? don't want to add another charge for hurting someones feelings with a claim that something wasn't done properly. ♥

 

[Chris_Halkides]

strange appeal

Frank Sfarzo wrote in December of 2009, "What looks like having played a role is the ruling in the other trial.
The Corte d'Appello, indeed, aligned itself to Massei's ruling by giving to Rudi exactly the same penalty of Knox and Sollecito.
The base penalty of Amanda and Raffaele was indeed 24 years: simple murder with the extenuating circumstances canceling the aggravating ones.
And exactly the same treatment was given to Rudi: aggravating and extenuating circumstances ereasing each other and 24 years of penalty, which, due to the discount by abbreviated trial, became 16."

Frank Sfarzo wrote in May of 2010, "The prosecutor general --which had asked to the Corte d'Assise d'Appello to confirm the 30 years for Guede-- didn't file any appeal. So, while Amanda and Raffaele still risk life in jail --since the prosecution appealed-- Rudi will not take more than 16 years. He could receive an additional discount or he could be acquitted. He has some chances, actually. At least, if The Knife theory will still be alive at the time of his Supreme Court trial. If."

It strikes me as odd that Frank would write this passage as he did if no appeal at all were allowed. Not impossible, just odd. Likewise if the prosecution can appeal the extenuating circumstances in a regular trial, it seems odd that it could not do the same in fast track trial. Again, not impossible just odd. To reiterate, I am not saying that the fast-track deduction itself is subject to appeal, only that the extenuating circumstances might be subject to appeal. If anyone wishes to claim otherwise, let them cite something.

 

[platonov]

No, I was right the first time; you are missing the point.

If the point is that you, Mary H & RM are convinced (or have convinced each other) & have scored a stunning victory over first Fulcanelli & now I - OK, I get that

If the point is that it was never actually asserted or carried
in court [who have jurisdiction on this matter] - I get that also

.

 

[RoseMontague]

My opinion is simply that to be as efficient as possible during an extremely time constrained process, the 'Court' puts most of their emphasis on the strongest and most directly relevant to guilt *or innocence* evidence.
This, in light of what they see, and what they get argued in front of them by highly talented pro and con legal minds and scientific (accredited) experts during the trial.

If you changed your word 'ignore' to 'de-emphasizes' your above opinion seems much more correct in describing the function of a the prosecuting attorney, but certainly never a 'Court'.

Even the 19 judges who were charged with determining whether the Prosecutor's presentations were worthy and credible enough to bring formal charges and resultant trial did not have your described right to 'pick and choose' evidence when they described the guilt evidence as *overwhelming*.

In your admirable and envied cross referenced files about this case, do you have examples of modern free world 'courts' doing such picking and choosing ?

You don't get a discount for being nice to me, pilot (not on Thursday anyway); but I do appreciate it. It seems to be lacking on this topic of late.

The way I see the system in Italy is that the court is responsible for detailing the reasoning for it's judgment in the following Motivation report. It should be a balance of the evidence both for and against the final decision and an explanation as to why the choice was made to put more emphasis on one piece of evidence than another. There are numerous instances of this not happening in Massei's report and I believe the report is a failure at living up to this standard.

 

[Mary_H]

Even more interesting than the fact they never challenged it in court while AK was on the stand

There is such a thing as being too subtle - And the appeal is leaving it a bit late, unless your client really likes prison - No ?

Can someone reiterate the original claim for me? Weren't you arguing a different point from Mignini being dragged out of bed, platonov?

Meanwhile, here are some objections that Amanda's lawyer made to the use of her 1:45 and 5:45 statements:

Carlo Dalla Vedova: Another thing is their admissibility for the purpose of ascertaining the truth. Because, the second [5:45 declarations] were declared to be totally inadmissible erga omnes [for any purpose] since they were violating the right to defense of a person who was substantially a suspect. This is written by the first section of the Supreme Court. The first [1:45 declarations] are not admissible contra se [against oneself], against Amanda, since those declarations were being released by the same person who was to become a suspect for that crime. So, in what concerns the acquisition of these documents for the trial dossier, as by our knowledge, we know their content, they can be there. But on the issue of their admissibility for any future question, the second ones, the ones where the PM was present, are absolutely not admissible here. The first ones are not admissible against Amanda. We would like to state this.

Carlo Dalla Vedova: Presidente, I renew the objection to the use of the transcript of 5:45, it has been declared inadmissible, and so it is surprising that the defense lawyer for the civil plaintiff insists on making references to this document which, as we have already said at various times, in relation to the Supreme Court ruling, was declared inadmissible, so cannot be used or even mentioned. I don't see how my colleague can continue insisting and reiterating his questions on facts which are contained in this document. I find this really quite an excess.

Carlo Dalla Vedova: -- if a reference is made to the facts of that night, there is no arguing [nulla quaestio]. We are in agreement, and our client is ready to answer. But I do not agree with specific references to the interrogation of 5:45 which obviously contains reported facts, because I insist that once there is a declaration of inadmissibility, it is a formal question.

Carlo Dalla Vedova: The objection is relative to the use of these documents. No objection to the specific questions. But about using these documents which are inadmissible, or limited only to the slander charge, we oppose this.

 

[Kaosium]

True, but where is he getting his information? You see on injusticeinperugia the claim about being denied food and water. I argued this at length with Bruce and he refused to change it. To me it seems like being willfully misleading, but others clearly disagree. Steve Moore repeats the claim. If he is simply uncritically taking the description of the case given by Amanda's family, Bruce, or whoever... I am deeply suspicious of what he adds to the case. Certainly he has experience that I don't have, but what do he take to be the facts of the case? If one simply took the facts as given by injusticeinperugia, certainly Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

Is that untrue about the food and water, as well as the bathroom breaks? I thought I saw a post a week ago or so about it, sourced to Candace Dempsey's book. Something about 'not being treated as a person' until she signed something?

I figure a veteran FBI agent has some insight, being as he's actually done this sort of thing and knows how crime scenes are read and how interrogations are conducted, what is there to be deeply suspicious of? I think he's more valuable as a global resource, as for the numbers he probably can't know any better than you or I for sure, but there's two stories on it and he's more suspicious of the prosecution, so he goes with the other one. I don't recall him putting it quite like that last time I saw him on TV, but he didn't get much time in that segment.

Going from memory, I think 10:30 is closer to when she and Raffaele arrived at the police station. She sat there studying for long enough that she got stiff and had to do cartwheels. Also, there was a break between the session ending at 1:45am and the one ending at 5:45am. I'm not sure that the exact timings are so very important though, except for the sake of preventing scope creep.

Three hours in that environment is enough, though considering what they had waiting for her I wouldn't think she got much time to do cartwheels.

I've never seen proof of the 12 cops. I think Bruce indicated that there were 12 names on the document she signed at 1:45am, but he wouldn't even show me a redacted copy of it. Are we sure there were 12 police in the interrogation, that always seemed a little difficult for me to visualize.

That's how many were eligible for the original calunnia charge, though initially there was eight and they seemed to think four more could join. It had the preliminary hearing recently and it got put off until spring. Steve Moore thinks it was a two at a time thing for the most part, and that would seem like a rational way to do it.

As to the lack of recording, that does seem to be one of the facts of the case. As I've said umpteen times, it's only significant if interrogations that the police don't expect to be admissible are normally taped in Italy.

I don't think they expected it to be thrown out by the Supreme Court! I can't imagine that was part of their plan.

It seems they taped about everything else, and I don't understand how they could expect her to sign something if they weren't taping it, after all her Italian was pretty marginal. How did they produce the statement she signed without one? I wouldn't imagine it was from memory.

One thing I've been wondering, with the number of cops in the interrogation public record, there being 3-3:00 hours of questioning at least, and the whole thing ending with her signing something after she said she was cuffed, can you think of a probable scenario where it wasn't taped that isn't suspicious?

I probably meant claiming that she was "illegally" denied a lawyer. Bruce took inadmissible to be equivalent to "illegal" and again, we argued this at length. Also, the "declaration" at 5:45 was supposedly requested by her, so at this point no lawyer was denied, or at least it can't be said to be an agreed fact.

I never quite got what was the deal here either. She said at one point, on the stand I think, they told her it would go worse for her if she insisted on one. I ran across a 'heads-up' travel guide for Canadians, I believe, that noted that due to Italy's very formal laws on legal representation the police will say that they tried to call one but they hadn't answered or that they'd be better off without one. I guess that figures, if the police want to get to do any real questioning outside the basics they're not going to get much with a lawyer there.

Perhaps. I don't dispute that he has long experience of police work, but in the stuff I've read from him I don't believe he can support most of what he says.

I guess it depends on how you read that situation. I got the impression he kinda got all excited there for a while when he was first introduced to it and wrote those all fired up. In the beginning he was saying things like 'beaten' which is what Amanda's parents got their slander charge for. I suppose two hits on the head does amount to 'beaten' if you're that particular, but I'm glad he tempered his language. I'd rather him spell it all out as best he can, without much hyperbole.

Again, is it normal practice to tape these things?

They show this stuff on TV in Italy! I found that outrageous myself, some fifteen hours of that recent murder was televised in Italy, and Barbara Nadeau wrote an article recently about Amanda always unhappy when she sees them on TV because she's never seen hers.

Can you imagine being in jail and watching police interrogations on TV? I wonder if they make them watch them as part of their punishment?

Man, the discussion has just gone through a time tunnel to last April.

As far as I can tell it never left!

Surely he was released because his alibi held up
rather than because of any action of Amanda's. At the risk of exposing my failing memory, what note on the 22nd? I take it you've read the available material that she wrote/signed that night? Could you clarify, as this strikes me as an error.

That's basically all the argument I've heard from the ones who think her guilty. Last time it came up I got the impression from a rather passionate poster that was what she thought happened. That Patrick was released when Amanda gave them the note on the 22nd. I disagreed but didn't press it as she wanted to talk about something else.

As for coercion, I'm sure we can agree that she was under a heck of a lot of pressure, regardless of any additional actions of the police to make things worse.

I've never been able to move beyond the oddness of what she wrote and the attempts at an explanation that doesn't involve Amanda being less than honest don't convince me. Equally, she could be innocent and less than honest.

Ah, good. I've asked several times for examples of what people thought she was lying about, but never seemed to get a response. That note is certainly odd, however I'd like to get another perspective on it.

She could be lying about something, I just want to figure out about what and why. I have no illusions she's perfect, none of us are. Apparently there was even a statement after that which has never been made public which some people have obtained. That struck me as strange, but there's so much of that going around in this case!