Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not aware that you have ever stated you are a man. I do recall that once you speculated that I am a man-woman team. I didn't have a big hissy fit about it because it was ridiculous. If my question about you being Rita Ficarra were ridiculous, you would have ignored it, as you do all my other posts. Instead, you take the time to react. Very interesting.

I react only because you violate the rules (I also find that putting ad hominem insinuations in the place of arguments to be morally distasteful). You are again going off topic, and you are again violating the forum rules.

A man-woman is a thought that came after you wrote yourself - without me putting any question - that you were a man.
 
I'm afraid there will be people going on forever with this nonsense. However I think I have given a correct representation of how the law works and everyone who decides to be objective can acknowledge that there is no argument for the "right to counsuel" to be made on this.

The terms that people here use like "incrimination" and "suspect" are English terms, which do not have an exact equivalent in Italian. In Italian we use a term similar to "elements of evidence" (thus not "incriminating" statements). We don't have an equivalent of arraignment and we don't use a term equivalent to "incrimination" until the preliminary judge's decision.

I think that if you knew about Italian news - for example Berlusconi called to be qustioned as a "witness" by the procura of Naples (search words: "Lavitola", "caso Escort", "Lepore" "Procura di Napoli") - you would just know what I am talking about.

The right to counsuel of Knox was never violated. Your can find corroboration of this if you read the Cassazione ruling on the topic (n. 16410 21. April 2008). No finding nor doubt of violation of rights.
The warning that a counsuel would make things worse is connected to the fact that it is instead the status of formal supect that would "attach" to the refusal to answer and call for legal counsuel.

Perhaps they should tell Berlusconi things will go worse for him with a lawyer. Would that be good legal advice for him as well?
 
I react only because you violate the rules (I also find that putting ad hominem insinuations in the place of arguments to be morally distasteful). You are again going off topic, and you are again violating the forum rules.

A man-woman is a thought that came after you wrote yourself - without me putting any question - that you were a man.

At some point you need to get a life. If something is against the rules, click violation and stop talking about it. Otherwise stop complaining.
 
A long time ago I'm pretty damn sure Machiavelli either here or elsewhere stated he's a man. For what it's worth I believe him.

Don't wreck my fun, Kaosium! By the way, did you know that sex change operations in Italy are covered by national health insurance? Several people have noted that the woman with the long chestnut hair has never been found.
 
Your post is a lie. You don't know what she knew.

Apparently the court decided they knew.
That is the only part of the sentence that - as far as we know by know - has found something to be certain beyond reasonable doubt: she was lying voluntarily.

Maybe the court judges are all liars; what do you think?
 
At some point you need to get a life. If something is against the rules, click violation and stop talking about it. Otherwise stop complaining.

Since you are an impartial thinker, I know you are now going write another post identical to this to Mary_H.
 
That is, I think, a fair representation of the position Machiavelli has advanced in this thread. That a person is not a suspect unless there is evidence, regardless of what the police think. I was trying to point out that police who are not incompetent or corrupt do not suspect people without a reasonable basis - otherwise known as evidence. Also, Machiavelli is wrong anyway, because under Italian law the right to counsel attaches when an interviewee says something "that might lead to his incrimination." So actual incrimination is not a prerequisite.

But the point is moot, because the police clearly believed that Knox was a suspect. How do I know? Easy. When she asked for a lawyer, they told her it would make things worse for her, and they also told her that they called a lawyer and got no answer. What they did not tell her was that she was not a suspect and thus had no right to an attorney, which is obviously what they would have said if that is how they perceived the situation.
-

Very astute. Thank you Freddy.

I agree with your interpretation and assessment.

I know enough about lawyers and procedural law in general to know that a lawyers interpretation of the law isn't always the final word.

Is this different in Italy? Are judges allowed to interpret the law differently from other judges, depending on the circumstances surrounding each specific breach of the law.

Anyway, I'm also really curious about when exactly it became ok to hit a witness?

So does that mean you can shoot witnesses too?

How would that even work?

Halt! Don't take another step. If you do, I will shoot you. Since you are a witness, I can choose to hit you if I so desire, or shoot you. Technically, you are not a suspect, but deciding when you are a suspect is not up to us, but up to you. Give us a confession first and then we'll let you see a lawyer, because then you'll be a suspect.

And oh, by the way, until you actually sign that confession, you'll still be a witness and we can still hit and/ or shoot you, as we please,

Dave
 
Last edited:
Apparently the court decided they knew.
That is the only part of the sentence that - as far as we know by know - has found something to be certain beyond reasonable doubt: she was lying voluntarily.

Maybe the court judges are all liars; what do you think?

In light of the Massei debacle, you still question whether court judges can be mistaken? And continue to insist your culture is not authoritarian?
 
Since you are an impartial thinker, I know you are now going write another post identical to this to Mary_H.

Is Mary blabbering on about this or that being against forum rules? No one cares whether you're a man or a woman because you're just a random person on the internet like most people here. Your gender doesn't matter. Your arguments are just as unsound and atrocious regardless of whether you are male or female.
 
Apparently the court decided they knew.
That is the only part of the sentence that - as far as we know by know - has found something to be certain beyond reasonable doubt: she was lying voluntarily.

Maybe the court judges are all liars; what do you think?

Very well, how do you think the Hellmann Report will support the guilty verdict in the Motivations Report? You know how the game is played, you know the rules, what will he draw on as 'evidence' to support the contention that Amanda knowingly accused Patrick falsely?
 
In light of the Massei debacle, you still question whether court judges can be mistaken? And continue to insist your culture is not authoritarian?

No no, it's not me who questions. Its you who assert that "my post is a lie".
You do not question, you assert. And on what grounds do you say that? My statement, Knox was lying, is aligned with a sentence established in a court of Law, therefore entirely legitimate from any point of view. And that was even sentence by a court which apparently you deem credible.
But you do not question it: you "decide" that it is a "lie".
 
Don't wreck my fun, Kaosium! By the way, did you know that sex change operations in Italy are covered by national health insurance? Several people have noted that the woman with the long chestnut hair has never been found.

:p

I thought it was determined that the whupper of Amanda was probably Lovely Rita who hopefully will be lucky to be a meter maid when the smoke clears from all this?
 
No no, it's not me who questions. Its you who assert that "my post is a lie".
You do not question, you assert. And on what grounds do you say that? My statement, Knox was lying, is aligned with a sentence established in a court of Law, therefore entirely legitimate from any point of view. And that was even sentence by a court which apparently you deem credible.
But you do not question it: you "decide" that it is a "lie".

Will your assertion that Amanda was lying still be valid if the Supreme court overturns the calunnia conviction?
 
I'm interested. Details???

The Tarantini-Lavitola case. In mid September, the Procura of Naples was investigating over a criminal connection involving political corruption and prostitutes. Prosecutors in Bari had arrested an entrepreneur called Tarantino and his wife, and investigating also a journalist called Lavitola, currently in Bulgaria. They Procura of Naples is also on a track leading to the same people. Among the witnesses they wanted to hear there was Silvio Berlusconi. The body of evidence consists mainly in wiretappings and mney transfers; they found Berlusconi paid Tarantini, formally Tarantini blackmailed Berlusconi to extort him money in exchange of his silence in a prostitute-corruption affair. The investigators suspect that Berlusconi has bought the silence both of Tarantini and Lavitola. However, they did not declare him a formal suspect. Therfore they demanded him to come to be introgated without any right to remain silent nor to lie, nor with any right to be assisted by an attorney.
The prime minister attempted to refuse, and gave them a written testimony. They responded by sayin it was not sufficient, and offered him a choice among 4 different dates for the interrogation, and an ultimatum, after which they would bring him to testify by force by the Carabinieri.
Things went on for about a week, but the preliminary investigation judge suspended the conflict as they decided that it was the procura of Bari who should go on with the investigation. This is a temporary ceasefire. It is undecided which Procura is entitled to go on. But meanwhile, the preliminary judge also expressed his opinion that - based on the evidence collected by Bari - Berlusconi is a criminal and should be considered a suspect since there is evidence against him.

Whether someone is a "suspect" or a "person informed about facts" is a big topic of discussion in Italy, which goes on wor weaks and is not easy to solve.
 
Last edited:
According to Amanda's testimony the questioning continued after the 1:45AM statement, pressing for more details, like the alleged scream. You must have heard a scream? OK I heard a scream. Ok we will write that down then. Frank puts the questioning starting again about 3AM. Mignini and the cops are lying liars, there was nothing spontaneous about the 5:45AM statement. It wasn't taped because it was illegal.

Not at all. There is no report of pressure continuing after the 01:45 interrogation. After that we have a chamonille tee, and the cops "treating her like a person" ("yes, after I made his name they treated me well").
Yes there is also this explanation of Amanda about why she told about a scream: she kind of "attributes" this detail to a sort of incident like a casual comment given to someone who writes. But she says this only in court for the first time. And her account has obvious contradictions.

Recall there have been four other instances before a judge where she never objected of having been interrogated unlawfully, never stated the spontaneous statement of an interrogation, and no instance was ever submitted by her defence claiming that such interrogation of Amanda as a suspect ever took place.
 
The Tarantini-Lavitola case. In mid September, the Procura of Naples was investigating over a criminal connection involving political corruption and prostitutes. Prosecutors in Bari had arrested an entrepreneur called Tarantino and his wife, and investigating also a journalist called Lavitola, currently in Bulgaria. They Procura of Naples is also on a track leading to the same people. Among the witnesses they wanted to hear there was Silvio Berlusconi. The body of evidence consists mainly in wiretappings and mney transfers; they found Berlusconi paid Tarantini, formally Tarantini blackmailed Berlusconi to extort him money in exchange of his silence in a prostitute-corruption affair. The investigators suspect that Berlusconi has bought the silence both of Tarantini and Lavitola. However, they did not declare him a formal suspect. Therfore they demanded him to come to be introgated without any right to remain silent nor to lie, nor with any right to be assisted by an attorney.
The prime minister attempted to refuse, and gave them a written testimony. They responded by sayin it was not sufficient, and offered him a choice among 4 different dates for the interrogation, and an ultimatum, after which they would bring him to testify by force by the Carabinieri.
Things went on for about a week, but the preliminary investigation judge suspended the conflict as they decided that it was the procura of Bari who should go on with the investigation. This is a temporary ceasefire. It is undecided which Procura is entitled to go on. But meanwhile, the preliminary judge also expressed his opinion that - based on the evidence collected by Bari - Berlusconi is a criminal and should be considered a suspect since there is evidence against him.

Whether someone is a "suspect" or a "person informed about facts" is a big topic of discussion in Italy, which goes on wor weaks and is not easy to solve.

Thanks Machiavelli. I have seen something about Lavitola and the Freemasons. Was Berlasconi a member of one of those secret lodges that were closed down in the 1980's?

BTW, on my earlier question, didn't just about all of the cops convicted get no prison time due to the statute of limitations and most of the higher ranking cops did not even get a conviction?
 
Not at all. There is no report of pressure continuing after the 01:45 interrogation. After that we have a chamonille tee, and the cops "treating her like a person" ("yes, after I made his name they treated me well").
Yes there is also this explanation of Amanda about why she told about a scream: she kind of "attributes" this detail to a sort of incident like a casual comment given to someone who writes. But she says this only in court for the first time. And her account has obvious contradictions.

Recall there have been four other instances before a judge where she never objected of having been interrogated unlawfully, never stated the spontaneous statement of an interrogation, and no instance was ever submitted by her defence claiming that such interrogation of Amanda as a suspect ever took place.

Gee, we covered this yesterday. The cops hitting you is not a lawful interrogation and she made this claim on several occasions.
 
Was this the one that the sentences were waived because the statute of limitations had past? There was also something about the higher ups getting out of this with not even a conviction. Maybe I am confusing this with another case but I am interested if you want to give some details.

It's another very compliccate story. Three of the four trials had expired due to excessive lenght of the proceeding, or because of lack of proof. My position in one of them was anyway that of a witness, not a victim. One trial however - the most important one - went to the end and reached a conclusion.
Unfortunately, for some of the highest officers there was a problem of lack of evidence. There was a systematic problem also in recognizing who did what, due to the impossibility to identify covered up police officers.
But it is a very long story, won't be good to summarize it in few lines.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom