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

[Mary_H]

<snip>There was no second interrogation. There are spontaneous statements. They are provided by the law. And, there has never been a claim, by the defence, tht a "second" interrogation ever occurred.
If a second interrogation occurred and the defence attorney never filed a complaint about it, they would be guilty of an extremely serious violation and thy should be disbarred.
But in fact, nor Knox, nor her defence attorneys claimed that a second interrogation took place. Such claim belongs only to forum supporters and to the recent Knox's book. It does not belong to the trial documentation. There was no claim about that. There has never been any second interrogation.<snip>

Ah, but they did claim it, in open court. Here, from the transcript of Amanda's trial testimony, is where Amanda's lawyer, Carlo dalla Vedova, referred to the 5:45 "interrogation:

Carlo Dalla Vedova: --if a reference is made to the facts of that night, there is no arguing [nulla quaestio]. We are in agreement, and our client is ready to answer. But I do not agree with specific references to the interrogation of 5:45 which obviously contains reported facts, because I insist that once there is a declaration of inadmissibility, it is a formal question.

CDV: This interrogation has been disallowed except for the slander case. It seems to me that it is the Kercher's defense lawyer who is asking the question.
FM: Yes.
CDV: So, we oppose this. Because all of this was reconfirmed in the following
one.
AK: So, should I answer?
GCM: In what following?
CDV: The 5:45 one.FM: [simultaneously] The 5:45 one. Yes.

And here is where Carlo Pacelli, Patrick Lumumba's lawyer, refers, in open court, to the 5:45 "interrogation:"

CP? Excuse me, Presidente, but this objection is really "peregrina" [bizarre].The interrogation of November 6 at 1:45 and the interrogation of November 6 at 5:45 have both been acquired [included in the dossier] in the body of evidence of the slander case, and thus they are perfectly admissible in the aim of any contestation from this attorney [CP speaking of himself in the 3rd person]. Otherwise, we would be in a situation that lies outside any logic of the legal code, so I will repeat and reformulate my question. On November 6, 2007, at 1:45, you said that you went to the house in via della Pergola with Patrick. Did you go?

CP: In the interrogation of November 6, 2007, at 5:45, you declared that before she died, you heard Meredith scream. How could you know that Meredith
screamed before she was killed? Who told you?

Why did Judge Massei not reprimand dalla Vedova and Pacelli and instruct them to stop using the term "5:45 interrogation?"

Why did Massei and Mignini not call for the prosecution of Amanda's lawyers for not filing a complaint?

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli - it is amazing the spin you put on things. I will not be surprised to see Ms. Vogt blogging about this in the future.

You and Ms. Vogt are virtual press agents for Mr. Mignini.

The source of the "two interrogations" is Mr. Mignini himself. He specifically tells Drew Griffin that when Ficarra reported that certain "admissions" had been made, resulting in the 1:45 am statement, that he himself quoted the law to Ficarra and stopped the process, because Knox was now a suspect and had rights.

That's completely false. Mignini is not involved in the 1:45 interrogation. He was not in the room. He was not even yet at the police station at that time.
In the trial there is no document where you can infer otherwise. You even have Anna Donnino's testimony.

This is what Mignini tells Drew Griffin. You can read it for yourself. Mignini even references the applicable law.

I suspect you misunderstood. Mingnini sees Knox vis-a-vis for the fist time at around 3.00 am. (maybe even later). He never heard her talking before, never was in a room with her before that moment.

THEN, Mignini's portion of the events of Nov 5/6 begins, as Mignini relates which is "the second interrogation" because as Mignini tells it he'd not bee there for the first one. At the second he relates to Griffin, without asking her if it was true, that she looked like she needed to make more spontaneous statements. Also without asking her he said it was clear that she was afraid of Patrick Lumumba. He also said, without asking her, that she looked relieved of a great burden.

What does it mean "without asking her"? Mignini describes how the situation looked like to him. I don't ask someone to know hoe he/she looks like.

That is what Mignini said to Drew Griffin.

Nothing he told Griffin contradicts what I am telling you.
(in any event, Griffin interview is no trial document - even less so your interpretation of the Griffin interview)

In 2010. And the only other thing Mignini tells Griffin is that he from that point on, "I acted as if only a notary," so as so that Mignini would be complying with the very legislation he'd quoted to Ficarra.

Mignini does not "quote legislation to Ficarra". He told Knox her rights. He talks to Knox (at 3 am) not to Ficarra.

Did Mignini lie to Griffin or was he telling the truth?

It's you who are going along on you mind trip. I already explained you what you need to know about witness/suspect.

Now Andrea Vogt is reporting on a change of story. Now there is only one interrogation, apparently with Mignini there throughout, and apparently with Knox considered "a witness" throughout.

Is Andrea Vogt lying for Mignini? Both accounts cannot be true. They both claim to be from Mr. Mignini.

I'm losing you. Don't even understand what you are talking about. I see no logic nor link to reality in your previous statements and now I don't know what you are trying to say.
I told you that Knox could have been "witness" (in fact he was a witness against Lumumba - albeit the correct definition is "person informed about facts") even if she was already a suspect.
But you seem to not understand that the status witness/suspect has no implication whatsoever as for the possibility of collecting spontaneous statements.
And you miss the simple point that there is no illegaility.

 

[Mary_H]

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.

Can you explain specifically why the 5:45 interrogation/spontaneous statement was declared unusable?

 

[anglolawyer]

No, I do not. He could go to the US to attempt to enforce the judgment, but the judgment would be collaterally attacked on grounds that it is the result of what probably constitutes torture under applicable international law. His newspaper interview would be Exhibit A.

He'll get his money if she ever has any Italian assets, if not, then he's probably SOL.

ETA: Come to think of it, it would be awesome if he would try this. Then we would potentially have a US court judgment that she was tortured, which would pretty much assure that she would never be extradited. Maybe I will buy Patrick's judgment for a few hundred bucks and try to enforce it in Seattle.

 

[Mary_H]

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.

Great post, anglo.

 

[Mary_H]

That's completely false. Mignini is not involved in the 1:45 interrogation. He was not in the room. He was not even yet at the police station at that time.

Didn't he tell someone in an interview that he was at the police station at that time?

I'm losing you. Don't even understand what you are talking about.

The idiom is "you're losing me."

And you miss the simple point that there is no illegaility.

How convenient that the laws for magistrates are so flexible that there seems no possibility of violation. Maybe we should start using the term "bent the rules" instead of "broke the law.

 

[Machiavelli]

Why did Judge Massei not reprimand dalla Vedova and Carlo Pacelli and instruct them to stop using the term "5:45 interrogation?"

But because they just used the wrong word. Judges do not reprimand lawyers when they spin things or use rhetorics. How many times people use improper terms expressing themselves? Are you too adopting a new enhanced version of Bill Williams search-of-evidence of things throgh absence-of-things?
There is no claim of a second interrogation. The confusion and imprecision in language that we saw many times among lawyers and parties in this trial, and the informal way of speaking or retorics accepted as a right of the parties. do not make a claim of second interrogation.

Why did Massei and Mignini not call for the prosecution of Amanda's lawyers for not filing a complaint?

Massei call for the prosecution of Knox's lawyers? Are you deluding yourself? Because there was nothing to prosecute them for. There was no interrogation.
There is no claim of such. The lawyers never filed a complaint. They never made a claim. Amanda never told her lawyers nor complained about them. There is nothing.
And we are talking about an alleged event of 2007 (Dalla Vedova's oral expression is from 2009, and still carries no claim).
Do you understand what claiming an illegal interrogation means?

 

[Diocletus]

That's completely false. Mignini is not involved in the 1:45 interrogation. He was not in the room. He was not even yet at the police station at that time.

Yes he was. He was in the control room with Giobbi. Giobbi said that he heard Knox screaming. Therefore, so did Mignini.

 

[Diocletus]

Do you understand what claiming an illegal interrogation means?

Hmm, let's see . . . oh, I know . . . it means that the illegally acquired not-spontaneous statement can't be used. Just like the supreme court said.

 

[Mary_H]

But because they just used the wrong word.

I actually did laugh out loud when I read that.

Is it too late for Amanda to explain she used the wrong word when she said the cops hit her? She meant they encouraged her.

If Amanda's lawyers did not complain about the 5:45 interrogation, then how did it get to the Supreme Court?

 

[Machiavelli]

Not according to Amanda Knox. I believe she is telling the truth. I believe Mignini is a lying liar. Let's see the tape.

You mean she was "telling the truth" in the book she wrote 5 years later, or she was "telling the truth" when she, throught defence, did not claim any 05:45 interrogation for years, and claimed a false memory syndrome?
She was telling the truth in the Dec. 17. 2007 interrogation, when she told that she had a vision of Lumumba in her apartment just "one instant" after she was shown the text message on her call hone, or was she telling the truth in her 2009 court testimony, when she told that she endured a questioning for quite a while after she was shown the text message?

 

[Diocletus]

I meant to say that Mignini was in Profazio's room (with Giobbi, too). Check it out:

From summary of Giobbi testimony:

The Perugian police boasted of how nicely they treated Amanda. They gave her cake and camomile, etc. Giobbi wasn't in the interview rooms, instead hiding in the director's room. He testified that he could hear Amanda screaming, something not mentioned by the chamomile bearing Perugian police. http://knoxarchives.blogspot.com/201...-confirms.html


Mignini interview by CNN:
11’03’’ CNN: No one hit her?
11’06’’ Mignini: No, look, absolutely not. I can state this in the most positive way, and then, let’s say… I wasn’t there when she was being questioned by police, the rooms are quite far away… you don’t know but I was… it’s quite far, there’s a corridor, and I was with the director, Dr. Porfazio, and she was being questioned in a different place. I also remember that passing through, I also saw Sollecito who was alone in a different room; he was also being questioned, as I recall. I don’t exclude…well…it’s clear that I wasn’t there, but I don’t believe that anything whatsoever happened, and in my presence absolutely not.

 

[anglolawyer]

According to Follain, Mignini was at the questura during the first interrogation. And didn't Giobbi say he and Mignini were in another room listening to her scream at that time? Why does Mach deny these well-known things? Why is it so important to deny them when we are supposed to believe nothing untoward occurred.

 

[acbytesla]

That's completely false. Mignini is not involved in the 1:45 interrogation. He was not in the room. He was not even yet at the police station at that time.

Does anyone actually believe this? Mignini and his crew has lied so many times, does anyone think Mignini wouldn't lie about this as well? And even if Mignini wasn't in the room, I'm sure he orchestrated everything about this farce.


How convenient that the laws for magistrates are so flexible that there seems no possibility of violation. Maybe we should start using the term "bent the rules" instead of "broke the law.

In the US, a police officer could go to jail for doing to Amanda and Raffale what they did in Italy and certainly be liable for civil damages for being denying them their civil rights.

I think about this case and wonder what was Mignini's worst disgusting atrocity was. The man should be in jail for his ridiculous behavior in the Monster of Florence case, not to mention what has done to Amanda and Raffaele. Mignini is a ruthless cunning scumbag who should be strung up like his hero Mussolini. Unfortunately, Italy doesn't seem to hold it's PMs accountable to anyone so he continues his atrocious behavior.

 

[RoseMontague]

You mean she was "telling the truth" in the book she wrote 5 years later, or she was "telling the truth" when she, throught defence, did not claim any 05:45 interrogation for years, and claimed a false memory syndrome?
She was telling the truth in the Dec. 17. 2007 interrogation, when she told that she had a vision of Lumumba in her apartment just "one instant" after she was shown the text message on her call hone, or was she telling the truth in her 2009 court testimony, when she told that she endured a questioning for quite a while after she was shown the text message?

Yes, she is telling the truth. Mignini is a liar.

 

[Diocletus]

You mean she was "telling the truth" in the book she wrote 5 years later, or she was "telling the truth" when she, throught defence, did not claim any 05:45 interrogation for years, and claimed a false memory syndrome?
She was telling the truth in the Dec. 17. 2007 interrogation, when she told that she had a vision of Lumumba in her apartment just "one instant" after she was shown the text message on her call hone, or was she telling the truth in her 2009 court testimony, when she told that she endured a questioning for quite a while after she was shown the text message?

False dichotomies.

 

[anglolawyer]

I actually did laugh out loud when I read that.

Is it too late for Amanda to explain she used the wrong word when she said the cops hit her? She meant they encouraged her.

If Amanda's lawyers did not complain about the 5:45 interrogation, then how did it get to the Supreme Court?

 

[Mary_H]

Part of what is exceptional is using another country's laws and applying them to this case without fully understanding (or purposely misunderstanding) the Italian laws on which this case is being tried. Does this mean one has to agree with all these laws and not question them or that the Italian system is perfect? Absolutely not. But to denigrate a whole country, its people, and individuals involved in this case (judicial system) is wrong and shuts down conversation on what, where and if any reform of the system should be done.

There has been much misinformation written in comments and by journalists and pseudo journalists concerning Italy, its people, its judicial system and individuals involved in this case. But if one tries to correct that misinformation they are labeled and discussion more or less stops.

And the unkind and derogatory comments doesn't just apply to one side in this case. I quit posting on two forums because of the comments written about the defendants and their families. I have never felt these comments - on both sides - furthered the cause of justice.

I can't add too much to the great response acbytesla gave you, but just a few points.

First, when PIP denigrate the individuals involved in the case, they do not intend to denigrate the whole country or its citizens. That has been made clear many times. PIP are pretty good about naming names, and they're very good about reaching conclusions based on evidence, not prejudice.

I cannot speak personally of Mignini's heart and mind because I am not him but I don't think he is above making mistakes and I doubt he thinks he is. Is anyone? I think you place too much emphasis on him as solving the case (did he say that?) and what exactly was his first crime theory?

Do the impressions and theories of cases evolve as evidence is gathered throughout an investigation? I would be sure they do. Are there rush to judgments? Yes, some of this can be credited to the evidence given at an early time in a case. Hopefully safeguards are in place (laws) to correct a rush to judgment and along with more evidence collected those two things will rule out a person or theory concerning that case.

I see that you are trying to be understanding and take the high road. But you are giving Mignini and his accomplices way too much leeway. Surely you can see the unnecessary pain these proceedings have caused so many people.

There are higher laws than Italian laws.

 

[Machiavelli]

I actually did laugh out loud when I read that.

Is it too late for Amanda to explain she used the wrong word when she said the cops hit her? She meant they encouraged her.

If Amanda's lawyers did not complain about the 5:45 interrogation, then how did it get to the Supreme Court?

Listen, try stop twisting and look at things. Knox's lawyers did not bring the issue of the 05:45 interrogation at the supreme court. They brought the issue of the 05:45 spontaneous statement at the supreme court.
They brought it in wìone instance as an issue together with the 01:45 interogation and the hand written memorial, and together with the request of annullment of the order of cautionary custody.

Btw they basically lost, because the Court rejected their instance of annullment and she remained in jail.

Their complaint was not about the legality ot it - or better, their allegations about legality were never accepted - the issue was strictu sensu about usability.
Usability is not legality.

The Court answered with a nuanced indication, saying the various statements have different degrees of usability. But that kind of indication of the High Court is - besides being legally not binding for courts - with a limited scope of application. It was limited to one specific charge and to one state of proceedings (when the indictment and the case changed its shape, Massei reconsidered the issue and basically considered the statements as usable).

 

[Matthew Best]

The figure is approximately 10x higher. The money comes from US sources (namely, I have the names of people in the media buisness). Why should I be kidding? This is not a game.

Oh my goodness this is hilarious!

You do know we have an entire sub-forum dedicated to paranoid ravings like this, don't you? It is, as I'm sure you are aware, thataway =====>>>>

You should go there - you might be lucky and meet up with the Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy who is another conspiracy loon who believes 9/11 was an "inside job". Is there something in the water over there?