Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fulcanelli]

The intent of the law is to protect the suspect's rights, one of which is to remain silent. It is likely Amanda was not informed of her right to remain silent, but even if she had been, and naively decided to waive that right by spontaneously making a statement outside the presence of her lawyer, it is the responsibility of the PM to understand the intent of the law and to act accordingly in an ethical manner, not to take advantage of the suspect's ignorance.

No. His responsibility is to uphold the law and progress the investigation and that's exactly what he did. He's an investigating judge, not the Salvation Army.

 

[katy_did]

Amanda's lawyers are also making this a major point of dispute in her appeal.

Thanks Rose, might have to go and re-read that part. I wonder how it is that the prosecutor and the Court were able to justify using those statements against her in the first place? I mean, either they were purely to be used in the course of the investigation, and hence inadmissible as evidence against the suspect, or they were made by a suspect without a lawyer, and hence inadmissible as evidence against the suspect. How did they end up being used against her...?

 

[Withnail1969]

Nonsense. He would take another two steps up and then simply jump up and inside holding the wooden frame for support.

So in your video, I'm watching people literally running up 12 foot high walls. But according to Fulcanelli, SomeAlibi, and many others, that's impossible. How can this be happening?

 

[katy_did]

Do you know what is the November 7 memorial mentioned in the motivations? That was not part of her diary, correct (or was it)? Was it an additional statement by Amanda clarifying the events mentioned in the November 6 memorial? Do you know if it is available to read?

I think it was an additional statement she wrote (not part of her journal) and is mentioned a few times in the appeals. The PMF team claimed to have access to it, IIRC - maybe Fulcanelli could post it? I'd definitely be interested to read it, though apparently it doesn't say much of relevance about the interrogations or the night of the murder. Still interesting, though.

 

[RoseMontague]

Thanks Rose, might have to go and re-read that part. I wonder how it is that the prosecutor and the Court were able to justify using those statements against her in the first place? I mean, either they were purely to be used in the course of the investigation, and hence inadmissible as evidence against the suspect, or they were made by a suspect without a lawyer, and hence inadmissible as evidence against the suspect. How did they end up being used against her...?

The court simply took the statement of the SC and did a work around of it, as was suggested in Fulcanelli's post. Making it a matter of dispute in the appeal.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Chief investigator Giobbi claimed the ability to detect guilt from observing minor quirks in the suspects behavior. It's about as scientific as dragging out the ouija board and contacting the deceased for information.

When you already have decided who's guilty, you can simply focus your efforts on extracting a confession. It's easier that walking the neighborhood looking for witnesses, or collecting video evidence that might contribute to your understanding of the crime. All you need to do is to screw up the lives of a couple of young people. Keep them up to all hours of the night every night to wear them down. Lie to them, threaten them, keep them off balance and away from legal advice. Crank up the intensity and eventually one of them will crack.

The basic process of solving a crime in Perugia hasn't changed much since the days when they were prosecuting witches.

Really? I think you need to cite that. So, let's have it...a cite of Giobbi saying 'We detected their guilt by observing their minor quirks'. Chop chop with that cite, otherwise people will mistake your post for hyperbole and a straw man.

PS: Philosophical question. Why do people that are so innocent require defending with so much hyperbole and so many straw men?

 

[katy_did]

The court simply took the statement of the SC and did a work around of it, as was suggested in Fulcanelli's post. Making it a matter of dispute in the appeal.

I was thinking more about how they were able to use it before the Supreme Court ruled on it, in the sense that it should have been obvious it wasn't usable as evidence against her. I agree on the 'work around' they did after the ruling, though.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Do you know what is the November 7 memorial mentioned in the motivations? That was not part of her diary, correct (or was it)? Was it an additional statement by Amanda clarifying the events mentioned in the November 6 memorial? Do you know if it is available to read?

I'm aware of it. Apparently there is nothing useful for the prosecution in it because it wasn't leaked to media and it wasn't used neither in Massei nor during trial (AFAIK).

 

[Withnail1969]

PS: Philosophical question. Why do people that are so innocent require defending with so much hyperbole and so many straw men?

Because of deranged people who would already have personally lynched them if they could have done.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Really? I think you need to cite that. So, let's have it...a cite of Giobbi saying 'We detected their guilt by observing their minor quirks'. Chop chop with that cite, otherwise people will mistake your post for hyperbole and a straw man.

PS: Philosophical question. Why do people that are so innocent require defending with so much hyperbole and so many straw men?

Wham!

Case closed.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I was thinking more about how they were able to use it before the Supreme Court ruled on it, in the sense that it should have been obvious it wasn't usable as evidence against her. I agree on the 'work around' they did after the ruling, though.

The police, prosecution or courts do not have to wait for a High Court to announce they can use something before they can use it. The investigation started in early November 2007, the High Court wasn't scheduled to convene until March/April 2008. Are you suggesting the investigation should have been halted from the offset for five months until the High Court convened and ruled 'well, you can use 'x' or 'y''? Of course not. This is why the many of the High Courts rulings are retrospective. It's primarily a court of review.

And clearly, it wasn't obvious. That's why one needs High Courts because the law is complex, rather then obvious.

 

[Fulcanelli]

If someone is a witness then the police would take a statement from them. This would normally be done at the person's home. If they are asking you to come in to the station then tbh in this country you know you're already in trouble.

If Amanda were to confess to something in the course of questioning she would need to be arrested and informed of her rights before the interrogation could continue.

Witness statements are also often taken down the police station.

 

[katy_did]

The police, prosecution or courts do not have to wait for a High Court to announce they can use something before they can use it. The investigation started in early November 2007, the High Court wasn't scheduled to convene until March/April 2008. Are you suggesting the investigation should have been halted from the offset for five months until the High Court convened and ruled 'well, you can use 'x' or 'y''? Of course not. This is why the many of the High Courts rulings are retrospective. It's primarily a court of review.

And clearly, it wasn't obvious. That's why one needs High Courts because the law is complex, rather then obvious.

So, is the theory that they can use anything and everything until the Supreme Court tells them not to, regardless of the law?

I thought we were basically in agreement on this: the statement could be legally used for investigative purposes but not against the suspect. In order to be used against the suspect, it would need to have been made with a lawyer present, amongst other safeguards. There was no lawyer, yet the statements were used against her. Given these facts, I'm just puzzled as to how they could justify using the statements against her - can you shed some light on it?

 

[Withnail1969]

Witness statements are also often taken down the police station.

They certainly can be. I myself have been a witness in a few cases, one a murder which happened just a few yards away from us, and the police just came round and interviewed us (the housemates) together. No big deal, just standard questions.

It's when they ask you down to the station that i think most people would realise there might be a problem.

edit to add - I should say 'potential witness', none of us actually saw anything.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Some quick research reveals that significant witnesses in murder cases and complainants in rape cases are recorded in the UK across all police forces.

'Some' are. And it is not a legal requirement and it is not a right. And the reason why some complainants in rape cases are recorded is so their testimony can be shown as video in the court rather then their having to testify on the stand (depending on their mental situation). The others that are recorded are you children. But this is the rare exception rather then the rule. Standard witnesses, even of serious crimes are not recorded. And in any case, this was Italy and Amanda was a witness, not a victim, she was an adult. It therefore can be said that in the UK, aside from rare exceptions, witnesses are not recorded.

 

[RWVBWL]

Rudy, Amanda and Raffale were getting blasted in the kitchen / communal area at the cottage that evening up until the murder. What time precisely that happened, no one knows. Rudy tells a story of Meredith getting very worked up about missing money and I think that's a transplant of an argument between Meredith and Amanda. Pure supposition. Rudy tried to use the towels to assist Meredith which is why they are completely soaked in blood. That's why he stepped in the blood. Amanda and Raffaele did not. I don't find anything terrible surprising in that.
<snip>

And Withnail1969,
don't forget that Meredith, after coming home early since she was tired, instead of changing into something warm and comfy, such as her pajama's,
just decided to keep wearing the same clothes she had on all day for another 2 1/2 hours until Amanda and Raffaele finally came inside.

Maybe Meredith never changed out of her street clothes since, with Giacomo away for the weekend, she did invite Rudy Guede in for some consensual intimacy,
but Rudy, being a dummy, simply forgot the condoms as he has said, so Meredith never slipped into something a little more comfortable.

Hmmm, I wonder...
RWVBWL

Rudy's defence team couldn't find a single person who claimed Rudy was friendly with Meredith or had any sort of interaction with her. She left Sophie Lupton at just before 9pm without mentioning any meet up. The girl's dead, you don't have to besmirch her honour by making up stuff that has no foundation in evidence or testimony whatsoever and which has been thoroughly rejected by three levels of judicial proceedings in Italy. Have some dignity will you?

Hi there SomeAlibi,
Interesting, you can quote some of what Rudy Guede said BUT I can not...

You seem peaved at what I wrote.
Well, please allow me to ask you a few questions with regards to the truthfullness in my post that, you say, besmirched Miss Kercher's honour:

It is true that Rudy Guede said that Meredith invited him over, correct?
It is true that Giacomo,
-(he who, according to Newsweek writer Barbie Nadeau's book "Angel Face" admits to, during their short relationship, have had anal sex with MK),
was gone for the weekend, correct?
It is true that Rudy Guede said that they were going to have consensual sex correct?
It is true that Rudy Guede said that they stopped because they had no condoms, correct?
It is true that Meredith Kercher did not have her pajama's on nor any other nighttime clothing on when she was found brutally stabbed to her death, correct?

I'll just leave it at that...
RWVBWL

PS-SomeAlibi,
Yesterday as I watched the sun setting over the Pacific Ocean I did say a simple prayer in memory of Miss Meredith Kercher,
with JOY that Rudy Guede's conviction has been upheld at the highest level.
Too bad he did not receive a longer prison sentence, don't you agree?
I wonder...
RW

 

[Withnail1969]

'Some' are. And it is not a legal requirement and it is not a right.

But it is a fact that, regardless of the legal requirements, significant witnesses in murder cases are recorded in the UK as a matter of policy. I don't care about Italy, I was asked about the UK.

 

[christianahannah]

I'm aware of it. Apparently there is nothing useful for the prosecution in it because it wasn't leaked to media and it wasn't used neither in Massei nor during trial (AFAIK).

Apparently it was from the documents for Patrick and Amanda's defense wanted it (along with the November 6 memorial) kept out of the trial.

Page 19 (also on page 19 is a long explanation of why the request was rejected by the court):

At the hearing of February 6, 2009 the Court rejected the request by Knox’s defence to expunge from the production of documents of the plaintiff Lumumba the hand- written memorial in the English language, written by Amanda Knox on November 6, 2007 at the Offices of the Flying Squad of Police Headquarters, handed over to an of the judicial police before the person under investigation was transferred to prison on the execution of the decree of arrest, and also the other memorial written in prison on November 7, 2007.

 

[Fulcanelli]

You keep saying this stuff but nobody believes you. The climb into Filomena's window is straightforward for a tall, slim, athletic guy like Rudy. 'Impossible', perhaps for you. The balcony is clearly exposed and would be too difficult to break into.

Rudy was tall? 5'10 is tall?

The climb to the window straightforward? Try it. Go to Perugia and show us how easy it is (take a video camera)

The balcony is too difficult to break into? Is that why the cottage was broken into via the balcony...twice?

 

[Fulcanelli]

The basics of getting good information from a witness are also the same everywhere. Don't interview someone who is sleep deprived if you are seeking reliable information.

Funny. She was so sleep deprived she went to the police station with Raffaele when she could have stayed home and even he had told her to stay home. She was so sleep deprived she was doing homework in the waiting room, instead of taking a nap. She was so sleep deprived she was doing yoga and cartwheels. She was so sleep deprived she was able to invent an amazingly detailed story about how she went to the cottage with Patrick and what happened...