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

Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
RoseMontague said:
I also believe what the lawyer here said is correct. The 5:45AM statement should not have been allowed in even the slander case.
Click to expand...

This would all be less confusing if they didn't run the criminal and civil cases concurrently.
 
Mary_H said:
This would all be less confusing if they didn't run the criminal and civil cases concurrently.
Click to expand...

This is the thing. From what I can gather the law precludes the authorities from using illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial, it doesn't prevent it being used in a civil trial by non-authorities.
 
Mary_H said:
This would all be less confusing if they didn't run the criminal and civil cases concurrently.
Click to expand...

Yes Amanda's appeal makes a strong case against the 5:45AM statement. BTW, I have not seen a translation of the charts included in Amanda's appeal.
 

Attachments

  • AK appeal chart 1.jpg
    AK appeal chart 1.jpg
    53.2 KB · Views: 18
  • AK appeal chart 2.jpg
    AK appeal chart 2.jpg
    52.6 KB · Views: 9
Mary_H said:
This would all be less confusing if they didn't run the criminal and civil cases concurrently.
Click to expand...


Is it really that confusing - there has certainly been enough 'debate' on the subject on this thread to have straightened it out at this stage.
This stuff make the arguments on the Copenhagen Interpretation [or Elevatorgate] seem pithy by comparison :)

It wasn't a civil case - they were both criminal cases but with different charges. AK got a year on the calunnia charge, remember.
 
Last edited:
platonov said:
Is it really that confusing - there has certainly been enough 'debate' on the subject on this thread to have straightened it out at this stage.
This stuff make the arguments on the Copenhagen Interpretation [or Elevatorgate] seem pithy by comparison :)

It wasn't a civil case - they were both criminal cases but with different charges. AK got a year on the calunnia charge, remember.
Click to expand...

Yes. The exclusion to allow the statement(s) as discussed in Massei however relates to the defamatory nature of the statement as he quotes the Supreme Court ruling on this. I have not seen the actual ruling so I don't know if the exclusion would apply to a civil case as well. There were several civil cases that ran concurrent with this case including one in which the landlord of the flat was also awarded damages and seemed to have been represented by The Mignini hisself? If you could clarify these questions for me I would appreciate it.
 
what if she had been made a suspect earlier

Suppose that Amanda had become a suspect when Raffaele made his statement (which makes sense to me, BTW). Could her 1:45 statement have been used against Patrick?
 
"Shut up and calculate!"

RoseMontague said:
Yes. The exclusion to allow the statement(s) as discussed in Massei however relates to the defamatory nature of the statement as he quotes the Supreme Court ruling on this. I have not seen the actual ruling so I don't know if the exclusion would apply to a civil case as well. There were several civil cases that ran concurrent with this case including one in which the landlord of the flat was also awarded damages and seemed to have been represented by The Mignini hisself? If you could clarify these questions for me I would appreciate it.
Click to expand...

:):)

No thanks - but I will say this.

In making a provisional award of €10,000 [the issue to be settled in another trial] to the landlord for 'damages' relating to the cottage itself Massei included the breaking of the window.

Hope that helps.
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
I wasn't aware of other examples of this. Perhaps they came along when I wasn't following the case. Are there many such examples?

QUOTE]

Here's another one: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-01/...gnini-amanda-knox-sollecito-s-dna?_s=PM:WORLD

You can see what happens. Mignini formed a belief that Preston was a suspect (IMHO before he was called in for questioning), and then interrogated him about the crime. Preston figured out that he was a suspect before Mignini so advised him. If he hadn't figured this out, he would have been in a similar predicament as Amanda Knox.

To me, Amanda Knox was clearly a suspect as soon as the police got Sollecito to turtle on her alibi, which was prior to the commencement of Knox's questioning. As I recall, Knox's testimony indicates that the police were asking suspect-oriented questions. Therefore, she should have had counsel and the entire process should have been taped.
Click to expand...
 
halides1 said:
Suppose that Amanda had become a suspect when Raffaele made his statement (which makes sense to me, BTW). Could her 1:45 statement have been used against Patrick?
Click to expand...

No.

Maybe platonov can explain the difference between someone suspecting Amanda and her not being a suspect.
 
Diocletus said:
Oh, I see--you already knew about this.
Click to expand...
No, I thought other things might have come up. I haven't read about the Preston thing in a year or more and had forgotten it. As far as I'm concerned Preston isn't a very good example, and even accepting that he was similar in a great many ways to this case, that is two cases in Mignini's career that people have managed to find. It's a leap to go from that to saying it's his MO.

Apologies if I came across as facetious, that wasn't my intention.
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
No, witness statements don't become inadmissible if the witness eventually becomes a subject. Witness statements are admissible even when the witness does not have legal representation. Apparently, though, the Supreme Court concluded that Amanda was a suspect when the first statement was taken, otherwise they would not have ruled it inadmissible.

As for why both statements were admissible in Patrick's civil trial, I am going to guess Amanda's lawyers would have had to ask for them to be tossed out specifically for that trial as well as for the criminal trial. I anticipated your question in my last response to Rose.
Click to expand...

They are not admissible as they were not taped and therefore cannot be used as evidence in criminal trial per ARticle 141 of the CPP (Italian code of criminal procedures). Interrogations of suspects require a lawyer present. Mignini tried to dance around that and call her a witness. Self incriminating statements made without a lawyer cannot be introduced in court (*Article 111). They were read in as part of the Lumumba civil trial which ran concurrently and in the same room with same jury.
 
During the investigation stage of this crime Patrizia Stefanoni made common cause with the prosecution,I have read that prior to the trial of first instance she part took in meetings of the prosecution and led these meetings,my belief is that she allowed herself to be convinced that it was only a matter of time before a full confession from Rudy or Amanda and Raffaele would lead to an unanimous conviction and her work would never be opened to independent analysis

Now that no such confession is forth coming,and her wrong analysis of the DNA is exposed for the whole world to see,what are her options for July 25th.She may well have found out by now that all the other members of the prosecution with whom she shared meetings are no longer making common cause with her and are perfectly willing to see her career that she worked so hard for,flushed down the toilet in order to save themselves.

As I see it she has three options
1)Find an excuse not to attend court on the 25th

2)Take the stand and try and brazen it out with the defence and the independent experts

3)Come clean,

Hellmann will not easily allow her away with option 1,option 2 or 3 will end her career but at least option 3 will end it with a bit of honour
 
platonov said:
I will just post this link.

You do know that PMF or Wiki or the cheerleader or S Moore or the baby Jesus don't get to judge the case & also that this is JREF and the thread subject is the Knox trial.

Seriously this fixation with another site is 'interesting' but if these guys bother you so much why not mask your IP and sign up over there. Like most sites I guess you will have to abide by the MA


Speaking of links - heres a post I made a long time ago on this issue :)
Click to expand...

I love your logic. If you come to JREF and debate back and forth posting 1300 plus comments there's no fixation or obsession of any kind but if you dare mention a group that discusses the same topic elsewhere then you are an obsessed freak that needs counseling.
 
So Platonov, been able to figure out what would make you accept reasonable doubt yet, or have you decided that your belief is unfalsifable?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

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