Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[bri1]

I don't reject it outright, but I don't believe it. The reason is that I've seen coverage of the first process. What I've seen did not look like a fragile girl frightened by police but like a self-confident woman who wasn't too bothered by the situation she was in.

That's not a good reason to reject hard empircal data. Sorry.

 

[Diocletus]

No statement was illegally taken.
They are all perfectly legal. Every time you say they are illegal you cling to a falsehood. I wonder why people like you decide to follow a line of false beliefs.

The handwritten note is a part of the evidence for the calunnia. As well as her failure to correct her statements for week. Massei cited it entirely. Why do you think the court did not value it?

Machiavelli--You keep saying that nothing was illegal but you are wrong.

1. Knox's right to counsel attached as soon as she became a suspect.

2. During questioning, prior to 1:45, Knox made oral statements that the police deemed incriminating of Knox.

3. At this time (i.e., when she made the oral statements), Knox's right to counsel attached.

4. The police wrote what they claim the statements were in a memorandum.

5. The police gave the memorandum to Knox, in the absence of a lawyer, to sign. The signed document is the 1:45 statement.

6. Therefore, Knox's right to counsel was violated prior to the signing of the 1:45 statement and continually thereafter.

7. The statements made in violation of Knox's right to counsel were illegally taken.

Kindly point out where you disagree.

 

[Fine]

Oh, I see. So the 1:45 and 5:45 statements were obtained illegally, thus can't be used against her, and therefore you think that the calunnia conviction must be based on one or more of the following:

1. The spontaneous statement released before a magistrate,

2. The hand written note, or

3. The December 18 interrogation.

I had always thought that the prosecution focused on the 1:45 and 5:45 statements, since those are the ones that "caused" them to arrest Lumumba. I will have to consider these other statements you mention.

_________________________

Diocletus,

The most pertinent statement hasn't been mentioned. It was Amanda's SPONTANEOUS DECLARATION before Hellmann's court during the first full court hearing last year. In it Amanda apologized to Patrick and---in effect---pleaded guilty to the calunnia charge. In Hellmann's Motivation Report expect to see this as the principal evidence against Amanda.

Amanda and her lawyers made a deal with the devil. Accept responsibility for a crime she didn't commit and in the process explain that the accusation of Patrick was not evidence that she killed Meredith.

A prediction. Unless her calunnia conviction is voided she will pay the 20,000 euro award to Patrick. His attorney won't be given a penny.

///

 

[davefoc]

I'm sorry but clearly I'm missing something. There were the two statements signed under interrogation, which she "corrected" with her written statement the very same day.

Which statements was it that she did not correct for a week?

Are you saying her statements withdrawing the claims against Lumumba are evidence she made the claims, thus support calunnia?

That was exactly my understanding of the legal theory that allowed evidence that she falsely accused Lumumba to be admitted into her trial.

Machiavelli seemed to say that my understanding was incorrect above, but he didn't expand on it.

I think a question here is were the statements that Knox made without legal representation admissible for any of the various prosecutions and suits against her? Were statements that were ruled inadmissible used against Knox for any reason or could they be in the future?

Was the sole evidence for the calunnia charge, Knox's retraction of the confused accusation she had made previously?

ETA: Based on what Fine said above it sounds like the evidence for the calunnia charge was based on the note retracting the accusation and a statement before the judge retracting the accusation. Cool. Spend hours in a difficult interrogation, make a confused statement that makes a vague confused accusation against another individual. Retract it as soon as sleep has allowed normal reasoning to return and be convicted of a crime and be sentenced to three years in jail.

 

[Diocletus]

The handwritten note is a part of the evidence for the calunnia. As well as her failure to correct her statements for week. Massei cited it entirely. Why do you think the court did not value it?

On page 16 of Massei he states that the crime of calunnia occurred "on the night between November 5 and 6, 2007". This can refer only to the 1:45 and 5:45 statements. The gift note was made during the next day.

 

[Mary_H]

So you show how you are unable to say anything on these matters. You have obviously no argument in the merits, and you perfectly know.

Your posts are so self-contradictory and so thoroughly false that it has become too time-consuming to take them seriously. One ends up arguing against oneself, as you do. The only thing left to do is gape in bewilderment at your lack of objectivity.

 

[Ammonitida]

I don't know why, but Google seems to have constant problems with negations in Italian.

Try this one microsofttranslator.com.

"Nel nostro caso non abbiamo richiamato il secondo comma dell'articolo 530 del Codice"

gives

"In our case we have not invoked the second subparagraph of article 530 of the code"

I will only trust a translation given by Machiavelli.

 

[Diocletus]

_________________________

Diocletus,

The most pertinent statement hasn't been mentioned. It was Amanda's SPONTANEOUS DECLARATION before Hellmann's court during the first full court hearing last year. In it Amanda apologized to Patrick and---in effect---pleaded guilty to the calunnia charge. In Hellmann's Motivation Report expect to see this as the principal evidence against Amanda.

Amanda and her lawyers made a deal with the devil. Accept responsibility for a crime she didn't commit and in the process explain that the accusation of Patrick was not evidence that she killed Meredith.

A prediction. Unless her calunnia conviction is voided she will pay the 20,000 euro award to Patrick. His attorney won't be given a penny.

///

This makes sense. I will have to look at that statement.

I'll guess that Patrick's lawyer will get some of his 20,000. If I were Knox, after having endured 4 years of Pacelli's in-court-slander, I'd be tempted to conclude that we're even-steven on damages and leave to to Patrick to decide whether he wants to come to Seattle to try to get his $.

 

[icerat]

I will only trust a translation given by Machiavelli.

Well I'll give him one thing, he posts are truly Machiavellian.

 

[LondonJohn]

I will only trust a translation given by Machiavelli.

So, how about it Machiavelli? Could you give us an accurate English translation of Hellmanns words:

Nel nostro caso non abbiamo richiamato il secondo comma dell'articolo 530 del Codice

We'd all be grateful to hear the translation of a native Italian, just for the total avoidance of any doubt over what Hellmann said here.

Oh, and how's that citing from the Italian penal codes or general legislation coming along?

 

[curi0us]

Can I ask a question about the translator? I read about the behaviour of the translator but also remember complaints about no translator being present.

At what points during her questioning did Knox have a translator present?

Thanks.

Well before the 1:45am false statement the police interpreter Anna Donnino was present. I believe the complaints about there being no translator present are derived from the innocenti observation that Knox didn't have a "professional" (or official) translator which is technically accurate but easily misconstrued. Donnino was clearly brought into to translate and her English seems to have been up to the task. However, once she broke protocol and became actively involved in the interrogation she was no longer able to fulfill the proper role of a translator. Hard to sum the situation up in a single sentence IMO, so it often gets somewhat misrepresented.

Something I've never seen addressed is that Donnino probably didn't translate into Italian everything she said on her own to Knox . . . so the repressed memory visions may have been something that was understandably incredibly confusing to the Police because they didn't realize that it was Donnino who started Knox down that path. Knox's handwritten gift statement makes a point of saying not only did her visions not seem real, but that also she had told the police that already repeatedly, but that detail is not in the Italian statements they had her sign earlier. I suspect a recording of the interrogation would show less abuse then some imagine but would also show there had been some glaringly selective translating by Donnino.

 

[Fine]

So, how about it Machiavelli? Could you give us an accurate English translation of Hellmanns words: Nel nostro caso non abbiamo richiamato il secondo comma dell'articolo 530 del Codice


We'd all be grateful to hear the translation of a native Italian, just for the total avoidance of any doubt over what Hellmann said here.

Oh, and how's that citing from the Italian penal codes or general legislation coming along?

_________________

Let me try the translation, John,........

Based on the evidence presented in my court them lovebirds had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher.

///

 

[Machiavelli]

LJ, I completely agree with you regarding the criminal intent issue and the very limited nature of the sanction imposed on the AKs statements by the Italian Supreme Court (ISC).

Since I'm a little outside of the timely response cycle due to real life commitments and not having source documents at hand, I'll just ask you to verify the technical truthfulness of my core point.

1."The Italian Supreme Court ... found that Knox's human rights were violated because the police did not tell her of her legal rights, appoint her a lawyer or provide her an official interpreter and that her signed statement was inadmissible for Knox's and Sollecito's criminal trial." (From Wiki - Murder of MK)

2. The statement above means that the court made a finding of police/PM misconduct and imposed a sanction. Therefore, Machiavelli is untruthful when he asserts that there is no proof or even evidence of police/PM misconduct related to this case. Is he asserting that the police and PM were incompetant and unaware of that AK had legal rights or they had no duty to protect AKs human rights? If so, why did the ISC impose any sanction at all.

Many thanks for your time and work.

Things said by this poster are false.

1. Is false. The Italian Supreme Court never found that Knox's human rights were violated. The Wikipedia article is wrong, and the statement - which is unsupported by any official source, because false - should be removed.
Whoever thinks the Supreme Court found that Knox's human rights were violated, should quote the relevant part of the Supreme Court ruling that says this.
Did you read the ruling? I did.

2. This is equally false. No proof, no evidence of misconduct, and even not the slightest element in this direction.

 

[Machiavelli]

On page 16 of Massei he states that the crime of calunnia occurred "on the night between November 5 and 6, 2007". This can refer only to the 1:45 and 5:45 statements. The gift note was made during the next day.

But the crimes are qualified and aggravated by the link of continuation.

 

[davefoc]

On page 16 of Massei he states that the crime of calunnia occurred "on the night between November 5 and 6, 2007". This can refer only to the 1:45 and 5:45 statements. The gift note was made during the next day.

That sounds like a finding of fact as to when the crime occurred not that the statements generated then were admissible.

The logic here as I see it, is that the statements were inadmissible because of the technical requirement that a lawyer be present for the statements to be used against her, but that does not preclude the possibility that the statements could constitute a crime that could be proven with other evidence.

Of course, from my perspective, it seems obvious that conviction on this crime should require evidence that the statements were not coerced and were clear enough to constitute a genuine accusation of Guede. It seems like the only legitimate way to get at these points would be to have a separate trial on the issue, otherwise Knox's attorneys would be between a rock and a hard place on the calunnia charge. If they allowed the statement in so it could be analyzed and seen for what it was a parade of potentially hostile and potentially biased policemen would be called to back up each other's story about the nature of the interrogation. Knox's attorney could have gambled that the pressure might have turned up evidence of a recording or evidence from a courageous participant in the interrogation but that's not a gamble I'd take if I was on trial for murder.

 

[Diocletus]

But the crimes are qualified and aggravated by the link of continuation.

Yes, that's true. The 1:45 and 5:45 statements, and perhaps the accompanying oral interrogation, were deemed to be continuous elements of a single calunnia. If Massei had believed that the crime of calunnia ocurred outside of the bounds of the night of November 5-6, then he would not have specified that the crime occurred in that timeframe; he would have used a broader timeframe.

Therefore, the statements that Massei used as the basis for his calunnia conviction are precisely the statements that were obtained illegally.

 

[Diocletus]

The Italian Supreme Court never found that Knox's human rights were violated. The Wikipedia article is wrong, and the statement - which is unsupported by any official source, because false - should be removed.

I believe you are correct in that the Supreme Court excluded the statements because the police failed to tape the interrogations. However, ironically, Knox's human rights actually were violated because the police conducted an illegal interrogation in violation of Knox's right to counsel. AFIK, The Supreme Court has not yet been asked to decide this issue.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli--You keep saying that nothing was illegal but you are wrong.

1. Knox's right to counsel attached as soon as she became a suspect.

2. During questioning, prior to 1:45, Knox made oral statements that the police deemed incriminating of Knox.

3. At this time (i.e., when she made the oral statements), Knox's right to counsel attached.

4. The police wrote what they claim the statements were in a memorandum.

5. The police gave the memorandum to Knox, in the absence of a lawyer, to sign. The signed document is the 1:45 statement.

6. Therefore, Knox's right to counsel was violated prior to the signing of the 1:45 statement and continually thereafter.

7. The statements made in violation of Knox's right to counsel were illegally taken.

Kindly point out where you disagree.

You are inventing the law.

1. False. Knox right to have appointed a lawyer is immediate. Knox right to counsel is subject to a possible 48 hours delay since the judicial decree of arrest due to her status of suspect under isolation, until the meting with the judge.

2. True.

3. False. A right to appoint a lawyer. Not her right to counsuel. Moreover, the police arrest ("fermo") was signed at 1:45. But the judicial arrest was signed at 8:00 am. Both the police and the judiciary can "keep" each one the suspect for 48 hours. The police does this only if it's night or if there are involuntary delays; the judiciary can decide isolation before the GIP hearing for investigation purposes.

4. The interrogation was made by the police. The spontanepus statement was taken by the magistrate. Both are considered perfectly legal in all instances; they are in fact among the trial acts. The police wrote the verbale of the interrogatorio as it is always done. The spontaneous statement was redacted together with an interpreter along with Amanda's oral speech. An officer wrote the text after the interpreters words t the presence of the magistrate. This is done with verbalized judicial acts when they are not recorded.

5. 6. already answered

7. False. And there exists no act by which you may corroborate your assertion that the statements were taken illegally. The statements were taken legally.

 

[Machiavelli]

I believe you are correct in that the Supreme Court excluded the statements because the police failed to tape the interrogations. However, ironically, Knox's human rights actually were violated because the police conducted an illegal interrogation in violation of Knox's right to counsel. AFIK, The Supreme Court has not yet been asked to decide this issue.

Absolutely not. The court did not "exclude" the statements, and not because there was no lawyer. This limitation of use is due to: the first statement changes the status from person of interest to formal suspect; the second because a lawyer had not been appointed.
The court declared the statements not usable in some ways, and limited to some specific charges. This ruling comes from one section of the Sureme Court as an indication which is, even itself, subject to some conditions which depend from another ruling from the United Sections Supreme Court council.
Note that, by the supreme Court, even the second statement is legal. It is not usable in court for judicial purposes, but it is usable during the investigation to obtain cautionary measures.

 

[Keeper]

Well before the 1:45am false statement the police interpreter Anna Donnino was present. I believe the complaints about there being no translator present are derived from the innocenti observation that Knox didn't have a "professional" (or official) translator which is technically accurate but easily misconstrued. Donnino was clearly brought into to translate and her English seems to have been up to the task. However, once she broke protocol and became actively involved in the interrogation she was no longer able to fulfill the proper role of a translator. Hard to sum the situation up in a single sentence IMO, so it often gets somewhat misrepresented.

Something I've never seen addressed is that Donnino probably didn't translate into Italian everything she said on her own to Knox . . . so the repressed memory visions may have been something that was understandably incredibly confusing to the Police because they didn't realize that it was Donnino who started Knox down that path. Knox's handwritten gift statement makes a point of saying not only did her visions not seem real, but that also she had told the police that already repeatedly, but that detail is not in the Italian statements they had her sign earlier. I suspect a recording of the interrogation would show less abuse then some imagine but would also show there had been some glaringly selective translating by Donnino.

Thanks. It's a bit hard to back-track on this thread and find details.