Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Mary_H]

If Mignini is telling Andrea Vogt that when he interrogated Knox that Knox was still only a witness, why did Mignini in 2010 tell CNN's Drew Griffen that song and dance about being "only a notary"?

Someone should slap Mignini on the back of the head to get his story straight.

It sure won't be Vogt demanding that!

Maybe she can reach Slappy Ficarra in Perugia and ask for a hand (literally).

 

[davefoc]

I of course was being a little tongue in cheek and flippant....

I had no doubt that it was meant as tongue and cheek. I thought the comment was over the line because I wasn't sure that everybody would take it that way.

I appreciate your polite consideration of my criticism.

As an aside I have enjoyed and been informed by every other post that I have read of yours. Thank you.

 

[anglolawyer]

It would be good if there were a tape recording of her saying she didn't want an attorney.

The 1.45 statement finishes by recording that she was placed 'at the disposal of the proceeding (sic) judicial authority'. I assume this means something. Something along the lines that the police are portraying themselves as acting with due decorum in selflessly refraining from further questioning having elicited the shocking revelation that she was present. Mignini then steps in and, according to himself, regards her still as merely a witness. Does the law of 'spontaneous statements' apply to mere witnesses? A witness does not need protection. Why would they? The rule provides an exception to render otherwise inadmissible statements usable. So why does her 5.45 statement by saying she wants to say something spontaneously?

I think I get what Mach's saying about the law but I don't know why an apparently intelligent person would defend this blatant impropriety on the part of a quasi-judicial figure supposedly owing a duty to the suspect.

 

[Mary_H]

Quick look there's the elephant.

I don't think her happy life in Seattle will convince people she didn't have a role in killing Meredith.

We all know her to be? I know no such thing and I doubt you do.
<snip>
Perhaps i'm "overly harsh" but I see myself as seeing her with unjaded eyes. I think many here can't see that she is not well spoken and appears to be being overly dramatic. Before the flood of attacks about her suffering and having PTSD, that may be the case and make my case even stronger that she needs to give the stage to Grinder someone else.

The problem with this case is that everyone continues to lie either to themselves or to the press and that includes even Miss Knox.

Recently she was given the chance to explain how she really feels about the case in Italy. Matt Lauer asked her why she would not return to Italy for trial.

What she said was blah blah blah blah...

What she should have said was...look I was locked away a year without charge by Italy. Then I was kept in jail for another year while the trial dragged along at a snails pace and which concluded in a guilty verdict even though there were no facts that I was involved in any way let alone a actual murderer...meanwhile I was vilified by the media because of false information leaked to it by someone ...who could that possibly be? No matter I was finally exonerated after another 2 years and I am free. The fact that the Italian Supreme Court decided to break the law and make an illegal decision by going against their mandate or at least that is what I understand the appeal judge Hellmann believes since he stated that.
<snip>
Dose she say this? NO! She says I have to trust that Italy will provide me with a fair trial.

And I say to her...WTH you thinking girl? Pussy footing around these clowns has allowed them to continue this farce they call a case. How many times do you have to get screwed to understand that they have no interest or idea what fair means? That's why your lawyers are silenced by threats of suits by the prosecutor...list them all just by Mignini alone...and that is enough to show just how high this kangaroo court actually hops...<snip>

In my opinion, it is inappropriate to criticize Amanda in any way, shape or form. One of the pro-innocence supporters on Facebook wrote a very good post yesterday, in response to the remarks made by Paul Callan on CNN:

Does she show too much emotion? Does she show too little? Is she cold? Is she warm and friendly? Is she odd? Is she is a freak? Is she an "ice queen"?

Chris Cuomo: "Why do people think you're a freak?"

This is precisely Amanda's complaint throughout this process from day one. At this point I assume she feels she can barely breathe when she is under this type of scrutiny. She knows she has to choose every word carefully and she has said many times that writing is more comfortable for her. So if this dude is worried about her demeanor, then too bad he hasn't walked even a day in her shoes as far as being targeted by the media in this horrific fashion. Because then he would probably reserve his insensitive comments.

I want to add only one more point. Predators intuitively recognize and pick their victims based on the vulnerability of the victims. Amanda was chosen by predators to play out a role for them because of who she was. If she were anyone different, then she might act the ways you guys want her to act, but she is a vulnerable person, and that's all there is to it. I know you want to be helpful, but I don't think she would interpret your remarks in that spirit.

 

[Mary_H]

Coincidentally, Andrea has a brand-spankin'-new blog piece out:

Oops! My mistake -- that article is from May; it is not new. Sorry about that.

 

[anglolawyer]

One more word on the 'I was there' thing. Hitherto, we have only discussed whether she meant her place or his. Having established that she meant his, there is the further question as to what this statement, coupled with the follow up - 'I cannot lie' - signifies. Assuming Raffaele is right about the context, in which Amanda was being leaned on by somebody to say she was not at his apartment and was thus unable to vouch for his movements, is it more consistent with guilt or innocence for her to say 'I was there. I cannot lie'?

She was speaking to her mother (widely assumed in the guilter community to be a repository for her daughter's guilty confidences) without knowledge that she was being taped. The statement signifies that a guilty Amanda has settled on a strategy of complete loyalty to a guilty Raffaele. This is despite the fact he had told Matteini only two days before that he wanted nothing more to do with her and despite dropping him in it by leaving his bare footprint unwashed on the mat and telling Mignini he was there. That's a funny defence strategy.

In the ongoing case of Shrien Dewani (alleged to have hired two guys to kill his wife on their honeymoon in South Africa) the killers have been ratting on each other very readily. In the David Camm case, Charles Boney has been singing like a canary to drop an obviously innocent Camm in it. This is what guilty people do in the face of overwhelming evidence. They go for plan B - try to get a lesser sentence with some invented account that fits the evidence. Guede did it too, crafting his account to fit what he knew the cops would eventually figure out.

There was enormous scope for that here. Amanda could have stuck with her 'I was in the kitchen' story. So it's odd that on day two she has nailed her colours to the mast, not having had any opportunity to confer with Raffaele or sound him out through the lawyers.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

In my opinion, it is inappropriate to criticize Amanda in any way, shape or form. One of the pro-innocence supporters on Facebook wrote a very good post yesterday, in response to the remarks made by Paul Callan on CNN:




I want to add only one more point. Predators intuitively recognize and pick their victims based on the vulnerability of the victims. Amanda was chosen by predators to play out a role for them because of who she was. If she were anyone different, then she might act the ways you guys want her to act, but she is a vulnerable person, and that's all there is to it. I know you want to be helpful, but I don't think she would interpret your remarks in that spirit.

I believe he made a valid point regarding public relations; it seems to me that Amanda’s appearance in printed media and TV is about trying to win the hearts and minds of mainly the American public and as such how she comes across is kind of important, especially if the Florence appeal doesn’t go well for her.

 

[Supernaut]

I watched the UK interview with Amanda.

What's striking is that there's still no acknowledgement whatsoever of the actions by Giuliano Mignini and other Italian officials in obtaining the "confession", arrest and ultimately conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

I don't mean very little, but absolutely none, not even implicit.

Questions are still put to Amanda about the "confession" as if it were obtained via entirely legitimate means, as if Amanda is the ONLY one who has any explaining to do.

Which is to say, the Italian authorities are still pussy-footed around.

Christianahannah slyly asked if there is any "documentation" concerning criminality on Mignini's part. There's plenty of it, of course.

But I suspect she was trying to draw people into a discusion about indictments. She needs to be reminded that Mignini already has a conviction for abuse of office, for which he was never acquitted - an appeal court simply annulled it on the basis that the convicting court had "no jurisdiction". The old boy network apprently decided that a "wrist-slap" for him sufficed. Naughty Mignini.

It would seem that there is an implicit understanding amongst MSM reporters and journalists that, failing Italian law-enforcement taking action agaisnt its own, the latter's "authority" is not to be disparaged or undermined in any way.

Which leaves Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito at the mercy of the reprobates and slanderers who can continue their nasty little campaign with the appearance of endorsement by "authority", without which such cowards wouldn't DARE behave as they do.

 

[acbytesla]

I had no doubt that it was meant as tongue and cheek. I thought the comment was over the line because I wasn't sure that everybody would take it that way.

I appreciate your polite consideration of my criticism.

As an aside I have enjoyed and been informed by every other post that I have read of yours. Thank you.

Thank you, I appreciate that. This case makes me crazy. Mostly because the prosecution and seemingly the entire justice system of Italy seems hellbent on carrying out a travesty of justice.

While this farce makes me sorry for Amanda and Raffaele as they are having to face this farce, it also makes me feel sorry for the entire nation of Italy. If this kind of travesty is happening to Amanda and Raffaele, how many other defendants are being treated this way and no one ever hears about it?

I read Machiavelli's pedantic sophistry and then surprisingly I find the courts rulings in Italy make as little sense as his. I've read countless US Supreme Court rulings in my life. Everything from Marbury v Madison, to Dred Scott, to Brown v the Board of Education. While I disagree with many of their decisions as have later courts, I can understand their reasoning however flawed. That said, the ISC's ruling is not only is incorrect, it is illogical and nonsensical.

 

[Machiavelli]

I watched the UK interview with Amanda.

What's striking is that there's still no acknowledgement whatsoever of the actions by Giuliano Mignini and other Italian officials in obtaining the "confession", arrest and ultimately conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

I don't mean very little, but absolutely none, not even implicit.

Questions are still put to Amanda about the "confession" as if it were obtained via entirely legitimate means, as if Amanda is the ONLY one who has any explaining to do.

Which is to say, the Italian authorities are still pussy-footed around.

Christianahannah slyly asked if there is any "documentation" concerning criminality on Mignini's part. There's plenty of it, of course.

But I suspect she was trying to draw people into a discusion about indictments. She needs to be reminded that Mignini already has a conviction for abuse of office, for which he was never acquitted - an appeal court simply annulled it on the basis that the convicting court had "no jurisdiction". The old boy network apprently decided that a "wrist-slap" for him sufficed. Naughty Mignini.
(...)

False.
Mignini has NO conviction for abuse of office.
Moreover, and above all, Mignini has no indictment for abuse of office.

A Florentine court did not "simply annull" a conviction; they also annulled the investigation.
And that was not done on the simple point that the convicting court had no jurisdiction; it was done on the fact that the prosecuting office had no legitimacy for prosecuting (nor investigating) Mignini.
(this means: he was NOT the one carrying on some illegal, political-drivemn, non-credible investigations: it's others who were doing that, against him)

Hence, there is no investigation and no indictment of Mignini, and Mignini currently does not stand accused of anything.

 

[Machiavelli]

It would be good if there were a tape recording of her saying she didn't want an attorney.

The 1.45 statement finishes by recording that she was placed 'at the disposal of the proceeding (sic) judicial authority'. I assume this means something. Something along the lines that the police are portraying themselves as acting with due decorum in selflessly refraining from further questioning having elicited the shocking revelation that she was present. Mignini then steps in and, according to himself, regards her still as merely a witness. Does the law of 'spontaneous statements' apply to mere witnesses? A witness does not need protection. Why would they? The rule provides an exception to render otherwise inadmissible statements usable. So why does her 5.45 statement by saying she wants to say something spontaneously?

I think I get what Mach's saying about the law but I don't know why an apparently intelligent person would defend this blatant impropriety on the part of a quasi-judicial figure supposedly owing a duty to the suspect.

It is apprent that you still don't get this simple point too.

You still talk about a status like "mere witness", it seems you can't see that the collecting of spontaneous statements and summary information by investigators is simply legal. It does not violate any law.

 

[Diocletus]

I believe he made a valid point regarding public relations; it seems to me that Amanda’s appearance in printed media and TV is about trying to win the hearts and minds of mainly the American public and as such how she comes across is kind of important, especially if the Florence appeal doesn’t go well for her.

This makes no sense. Why, then, would she be appearing in the UK and Italy? The answer is simple: they are attempting to defuse the prosecution-leak-fueled media circus that contributed to the conviction last time. They are trying to get a level playing field for the trial. In other words, since the Italian justice system won't assure them a fair trial, they are doing their best to get it for themselves. Seems smart to me.

 

[Machiavelli]

The highlighted part constitutes a violation. There is no way around it. If it were not illegal, it would have been usable.
(..)

The above statement is plain false under the law (and imho, intellectually coarse). It expresses a kind of gross ignorance of basic law principles. There are whole categories and sets of documents which are perfectly legal but not usable. Legal and provided by the law while not usable is standard status, provided under the law and absolutely normal.

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach - thank you for your detailed response. I simply do not believe you. You, like Ms. Vogt simply parrot the Perugian prosecutor's position. But I am grateful for your effort.

BTW - you have slightly changed your story about your masonic conspiracy. That is interesting, because you also claim that slight changes of story are indicative of guilt.

Does Ms Vogt believe in your first version or your second version? Or neither?

I never made any slight change.
Anyway, I have no "story" (I may have theories, which is different).

 

[MichaelB]

I never made any slight change.
Anyway, I have no "story" (I may have theories, which is different).

You sure do have theories

Would you like to discuss the one where you said the cottage was a brothel and Rudy Guede the client looking for a good time and paid for sex with drugs that night?

 

[Diocletus]

It is apprent that you still don't get this simple point too.

You still talk about a status like "mere witness", it seems you can't see that the collecting of spontaneous statements and summary information by investigators is simply legal. It does not violate any law.

Oh please. Everyone knows exactly what happened. Mignini found himself with a statement that couldn't use (1:45). So, instead of getting her a lawyer (which he admits he knew was required to do), he went in and tried to trick her into giving a "spontaneous" statement. And guess what? It worked . . . four hours later (5:45). Unfortunately for him, the supreme court then said that the statement wasn't spontaneous, which is something that is obvious from the surrounding facts anyway. And therefore, since her right to counsel was violated, the statement couldn't be used.

Mignini violated her right to counsel by tricking a suspect into making a non-spontaneous statement. I call that prosecutorial misconduct.

 

[anglolawyer]

It is apprent that you still don't get this simple point too.

You still talk about a status like "mere witness", it seems you can't see that the collecting of spontaneous statements and summary information by investigators is simply legal. It does not violate any law.

You are right Mach. I still don't get it. According to you (please correct the idiots at PMF who think I said this) she was already 'strongly suspected' before the interrogations began on 5th November. Yet, you would have us believe that your system affords none of the protections considered necessary elsewhere to be informed of:

1 the right to silence,
2 the right to a lawyer
3 the existence of one's status as a suspect
4 particulars of the offences of which one is suspected

Additionally, she was deprived of access to a lawyer by order of the PM prior to a crucial bail hearing before Matteini, to her great prejudice.

None of the safeguards considered basic in the UK and US applied in her case, with the consequences we have seen. Italian law may or may not permit this, or it may or may not permit it for terrorists and mafiosi (of whom she was not one) but, if it does, it is not compliant with Italy's treaty obligation to afford a fair trial to accused persons.

 

[acbytesla]

This makes no sense. Why, then, would she be appearing in the UK and Italy? The answer is simple: they are attempting to defuse the prosecution-leak-fueled media circus that contributed to the conviction last time. They are trying to get a level playing field for the trial. In other words, since the Italian justice system won't assure them a fair trial, they are doing their best to get it for themselves. Seems smart to me.

The only issue I have with Amanda's interviews is when she says she has faith in the justice system. I don't believe that. How could she? I understand why she says it, I just don't believe that is genuine. I think it would be better for her to say something more like I'm frustrated with this interminable prosecution and persecution but I remain hopeful that those that are about to review this case again will do it fairly.

 

[Bill Williams]

Does Ms. Vogt share your belief that Judge Hellmann was bought off by a Masonic conspiracy?

Ask her.
Anyway, I think Hellmann was bought off, but the Masons only found the contact and channels, they are not the ones who paid nor those who masterminded.

So, in fact, you are confirming that this was a Masonic Conspiracy! Thank you. The only remaining question is - does Ms. Vogt agree with you? Is this why Ms. Vogt is often the first to receive information from Mr. Mignini and publish it?

You also claim to know the amount of Euros it took to buy off Hellmann, but said nothing of the amount it took to buy off Zanetti. Did Zanetti receive the same amount, or did he do this one for free?

What is Ms. Vogt's view of these allegations of criminality against Hellmann and Zanetti, and does she plan to write an exposé of it?

Does Ms. Vogt share your belief that Amanda Knox is immune from sleep deprivation?

You are again (implicitly) attempting to offer a false picture my opinions. My stance about Knoxs' (let's say alleged?) sleep deprivation-related theories, is not about "immunity" from sleep deprivation; it is instead about irrelevance and lack of any factual element of it.

Your claim was that Amanda Knox arrived at the Questura on Nov 5 rested and relaxed ready to pull the wool over the eyes of the PLE at interrogation. You parsed some of Knox's writings to try to prove that she was was sleep-deprived, and tried to make a case that she did not require sleep - even in the most stressful time of her life - a friend and housemate had just been murdered.

You here, right here and right now, are modifying your former position. You, then, did not mention once the irrelevance and lack of any factual element. You are making that up, right here right now, on the fly to save yourself the embarrassment of when you also tried to claim you have sleep-deprivation credentials.

This one one of your sillier side shows. It embarrassed you badly. I'm astonished you try to recover the way you do. Remember, the one factor guilters use to gauge guilt or innocence is when someone changes their story. You are now deemed guilty of whatever crime we can throw your way, because you, simply put, keep changing your story.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli - was Mr. Mignini correct in his interview with CNN's Drew Griffin, or was he correct in what Ms. Vogt quoted about him?

With CNN's Drew Griffin, he said when he arrived to question Knox, he immediately quoted the law to Detective Ficarra about why the interrogation had to end at 1:45 am. Mignini said to everyone in the Questura that Knox was now a suspect. Under Italian law, the very law Mignini quoted to Drew Griffin, that Knox needed a lawyer.

His excuse for continuing with the second interrogation, as he put it, was that if he did not question her and informed her he could act "as if only a notary", then it would not be in violation of the law he'd just quoted to the police at the questura.

Or................

Is Andrea Vogt correct in quoting Mignini that the reason why Knox did not need a lawyer because Knox was "only a witness" all the way through to the 5:45 am termination of the second interrogation?

Both cannot be correct.

Using the guilter method of assigning guilt or innocence on the basis of the way people change their stories, Mr. Mignini is now guilty of any crime we can throw at him, don't you agree?

Can you now make a case that Mr. Mignini should not be regarded as a lying liar? I am not talking about his character.... I cannot know his character or see into his heart. I am talking about the contradictory statements he's made in relation to the interrogations of Amanda Knox.

If it turns out that Mr. Mignini is lying, does that make Andrea Vogt an accessory to the obstruction of justice?