• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Machiavelli said:
Italy has an inquisitorial system. There isn't a right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer for the common citizen in a police context, in the Anglo-Saxon sense. ...
In Italy you need to be a formal suspect in order to recive an equivalent of the Miranda warning. The citizen who speaks with police is not told his rights as in the Miranda warning, because he has no such rights: he must always cooperate and always has to answer....you can leave when you want. However, if they deem they can take in custody a person, but if they take someone in custody they must call a magistrate with no delay...
Click to expand...

I'm having trouble understanding this. I think I grasp to some degree the distinction between a "witness" and a "suspect." But if a witness "must always cooperate" and "always has to answer," the police could (and most likely would) decide that someone is uncooperative if he doesn't tell them what they want to hear. Imagine that a crime has occurred in your neighborhood. You didn't do it and you don't know anything about it. But the police have decided that you either did it yourself or helped one of your friends do it. Maybe a neighbor pointed the finger at you to deflect attention from himself. So you tell the cops honestly you're not their guy, and they say "We know you did it. Who helped you? Tell us the truth!" Now what? Can you just leave now? Really? Can you call a lawyer now? Suppose you answer every question with some variation of "I don't know" or "I don't remember" or "God Bless America!," and the cops don't like it? It sounds like the police can do what they want with you -- without a lawyer, without a recording -- as long as they don't call you a "suspect," and then when they do they can lock you up without bail until you go to trial. What rights does anyone have in a system like this?
 
Bob001 said:
I'm having trouble understanding this. I think I grasp to some degree the distinction between a "witness" and a "suspect." But if a witness "must always cooperate" and "always has to answer," the police could (and most likely would) decide that someone is uncooperative if he doesn't tell them what they want to hear. Imagine that a crime has occurred in your neighborhood. You didn't do it and you don't know anything about it. But the police have decided that you either did it yourself or helped one of your friends do it. Maybe a neighbor pointed the finger at you to deflect attention from himself. So you tell the cops honestly you're not their guy, and they say "We know you did it. Who helped you? Tell us the truth!" Now what? Can you just leave now? Really? Can you call a lawyer now? Suppose you answer every question with some variation of "I don't know" or "I don't remember" or "God Bless America!," and the cops don't like it? It sounds like the police can do what they want with you -- without a lawyer, without a recording -- as long as they don't call you a "suspect," and then when they do they can lock you up without bail until you go to trial. What rights does anyone have in a system like this?
Click to expand...

Yeah, this really sounds like a catch 22!
You have no rights until you are a suspect?!
So you have to stay if questioned as long as the police want, they get you to say what they want because you can't leave, then you can have a lawyer, but you've just incriminated yourself.

BTW, off topic, but yesterday was the first I'd heard confirmation (from Dr. Solelcito) that Raf's interrogation wasn't recorded either. Now, I'd alwys suspected it wasn't, and I think it definitely rules out Mignini's first excuse of there being too much commotion because of what was going on with Amanda. That leaves budgetary problems, which is even more hogwash and harder to believe.
 
Machiavelli said:
Do you think you can say whatever unproven thing you want about someone because has a pending charge?
Click to expand...


This line deserves isolation and bolding as one of the most hypocritical things written by anyone in the entire online debate over this case. It says everything about Maciavelli's arguing position: anything that supports his pre-determined investment in Knox's/Sollecito's guilt is "true", and anything that doesn't support it is "false".

I suspect that somewhere down the line we might find out that certain contributors to the online debate about this case were far more closely affiliated to it than anyone realised.......
 
LashL said:
I don't know why you mentioned me in this post, <snip>
Click to expand...

Because you're the only lawyer I recognize in the thread and I know through your Legaltainment stuff that you do follow American law, certainly enough to recognize that I'd sort of overstepped the premise a bit.

(Totally insignificant - sorry for the derail.)
 
HumanityBlues said:
Graham Johnson is an idiot who had made up dialogue in his book. To boot, he also think the motive for the murder had to do with the "missing money". Guy is a joke.
Click to expand...

Also a revealing choice of words in point no. 3:

Her defence claimed that Knox's blood could have been there because she was a resident at the farm house on Pergola Road.
Click to expand...

... as though this would be contentious in some strange way.

The other assertion that only the "weakest" evidence is considered in the appeal is simply bizarre. IAC, no amount of rationalisation by Mignini supporters can place the "evidence" concerning the knife, bra clasp and Curatolo anywhere other then central to the prosecution's original case.
 
LondonJohn said:
...

The fact is that the DNA evidence was the only half-decent evidence the prosecution ever had (if one took it at face value, that is).
Click to expand...

The crucial words are "if taken at face value". But even then, we had to suspend all logic - a knife with a scrap of Meredith's DNA on it, and a bra clasp with Raff's DNA, were never proof that this DNA was deposited at the time of the murder.
 
HumanityBlues said:
Graham Johnson is an idiot who had made up dialogue in his book. To boot, he also think the motive for the murder had to do with the "missing money". Guy is a joke.
Click to expand...

My concern is the validity that his opinion counts as it is on the BBC news site. Amazing how many times I've seen this re-presented as a fact. I've dropped a line to the BBC to ask for their comments.
 
DarkStar2011 said:
I'm just trying to figure out how you think Hellmann not calling Massei an idiot is "ominous for the defense." :confused:
Click to expand...

Sorry, I will reconstruct. My comment was directed to Kaosium who had responded to a post by Machiavelli who said:

Note Hellmann does not say "there is no evidence", says "there is no proof"
Click to expand...

This clinging to what Hellmann did not say and putting great emphasis on it just seems to me to be a bit desperate.

The ominous thing, as pointed out by another poster, is a dig at The Machine who on many occasions would list some pretty innocuous statement/non statement and add "this is ominous for the defense".
 
Despite everything, the media whores, not to mention the reprobates at PMF and TJMK, continue to get their jollies repeating lies that trash Amanda Knox. Just get a load of some of the pre-written stories after her release - harping on about her imminent "stardom" and all the money she's going to make - no TRACE of compassion or sympathy for what she's been put through.

How could anyone who witnessed the enormous, practically incapacitating release of emotion of a bawling Amanda, when she realised it was over, not have gained (or pretend not to have gained) some inkling that all those stories about her "cold, calculating character" are COMPLETELY bogus? HOW??!!.

They will not get away with it for much longer, as the truth of who she really is soon going to become widely known.

She has not been able to speak freely and defend herself against these slanderers AT ALL for nearly 4 years, but that's about to change.
If Amanda has to become a “star” to undo all the damage done to her character and reputation over these last few years, so be it – the slanderers and cowards have left her no choice.

I would suggest that everyone who hasn't done so read a page ot two of comments at the PMF hell-hole. Any doubt that these people do what they do because they enjoy it, because it gives them pleasure will quickly be dispelled.

People who know me would confirm that I am far from naive and I certainly haven't led a 'sheltered' life, but this affair has illuminated the 'human condition' in a way nothing ever has before - truly - in all my 52 years. That there are enough of these dispicable people that they are able to seek each other out and come together to organise such a wicked campaign of gratuitous (**) slander and vilification doesn't bode well for any of us.

(**) for some of them, it wasn't strictly 'gratuitous' - they have an agenda springing from a racist (e.g. Charles Mudede, Maundy Gregory) or 'ethnic'/cultural (e.g. Peggy Ganong) hatred which they will never openly admit to, and of which Amanda was unfortunate enough to become the defenseless personification.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
This line deserves isolation and bolding as one of the most hypocritical things written by anyone in the entire online debate over this case. It says everything about Maciavelli's arguing position: anything that supports his pre-determined investment in Knox's/Sollecito's guilt is "true", and anything that doesn't support it is "false".

I suspect that somewhere down the line we might find out that certain contributors to the online debate about this case were far more closely affiliated to it than anyone realised.......
Click to expand...

I thought it was interesting that Machiavelli indicated Mignini should have sued more people that said bad things about him. I also thought it was strange that Machiavelli called one of the defense lawyers a liar. I can only guess this has something to do with the Italian legal system protecting cops and prosecutors and judges from this sort of thing but not everybody else. Then again, I see Italians at PMF who indicated Hellmann may have made his decision based on politics or corruption or a vast PR Supertanker. Then you have the case of Amanda's parents that simply repeat what they have been told by their daughter who end up getting taken to court and Frank getting his blog shut down for being critical of Mignini. There is something broken, something very wrong about this system.
 
For those unfamiliar with the American media cycle, Amanda will slip from the headlines until she writes her book or makes some appearances for the foundation she's talking about setting up for the falsely accused. The death of Steve Jobs knocked the Knox's off the front page. The GOP primary cycle dominates political reporting. And the case of Robyn Gardner's disappearance has taken the top spot for tabliod headlines.

The sick, bizarre fantasies of the deviants at PMF, etc. about Amanda becomming a "star" are just that.
 
Malfie Henpox said:
I have a question, please.

Now what she's been acquitted, why do you all care what people think?
Click to expand...

Beacuse the irrational accusations are still there, the impossible scenarios are still believeable for those on the guilt side, the idiotic remarks are still being written and the harrasment of Amanda Knox (and to the lesser degree of Sollecito) didn't stop. Not to mention that they now accuse the judge of being corrupted or scared and suggesting that there is a conspiracy theory and it's the only reason why they were freed.

They still have hope that the Supreme Court will send them back to jail, but as most well known and educated people suggested, it's close to impossible.
Simple as that.
 
Last edited:
snook1 said:
Beacuse the irrational accusations are still there, the impossible scenarios are still believeable for those on the guilt side, the idiotic remarks are still being written and the harrasment of Amanda Knox (and to the lesser degree of Sollecito) didn't stop. Not to mention that they now accuse the judge of being corrupted or scared and suggesting that there is a conspiracy theory and it's the only reason why they were freed.

Simple as that.
Click to expand...

But why does this bother you?
 
Malfie Henpox said:
But why does this bother you?
Click to expand...

It's not bothering me.
What is bothering me is that the Knox/Mellas family, including Amanda Knox is being harrased. What is bothering me is that Meredith's Kercher memory is being falsely used as the excuse of existance of PMF, while it's nothing more than a hate site.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom