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

[anglolawyer]

Mignini never said they "didn't record the 5:45AM interrogation because of budget". He said the police didn't record the interrogation (01:45 interrogation) because they just don't do that because of budget.
Then he said that HE didn't record Knox statement (the 05:45 sponteneous statement, the one she delivered to him) because of confusion due to the hurry to arrest Lumumba, and they didn't think about it.
snip

You are kidding, right?

 

[Mary_H]

So this is what you have? That you don't believe the police does not record interrogations?

So you assume they recorded all the witnesses interrogations in this investigation?

They even recorded their interviews with the English girls. But I guess those were more important than the interrogations of the suspects.

 

[RoseMontague]

So this is what you have? That you don't believe the police does not record interrogations?

So you assume they recorded all the witnesses interrogations in this investigation?

No. I believe they recorded only the witnesses that they suspected unless they had lawyers with them, then they recorded those as well. The law and the rules mean nothing to them. What happened to the tape?

 

[Matthew Best]

Then he said that HE didn't record Knox statement (the 05:45 sponteneous statement, the one she delivered to him) because of confusion due to the hurry to arrest Lumumba, and they didn't think about it.

So he's not dishonest, just incompetent.

 

[Mary_H]

I was talking about the 17. interrogation as opposed to the 2009 court interrogation - she was a suspect.
About her position during the preliminary investigation and trial as opposed to that in her book - she was a suspect.

You didn't say you were talking about the 17. If you don't say it -- or better yet, file a complaint about it -- then it never happened.

 

[acbytesla]

So he's not dishonest, just incompetent.

No, he's dishonest too.

 

[Diocletus]

Do you intend to use his words in Knox's defence or not?

Of course. The prosecution called him as a witness and he says that she was screaming. Sollecito says the same. It's logical that they are both referring to the same scream and therefore by osmosis we can be sure that it happened and that it was Knox's screams caused by the cops.

If your source was not in that room, how can you have from your source a testimony that she was being interrogated in that room?

I guess you should ask Mignini: ""I was with the director, Dr. Porfazio, and she was being questioned in a different place." I realize that the source is not reliable, though.

If a guy (Mignini) says he is elsewhere (as he says in the quoted snippet), that means NOT in the room where Knox is, this implies he CANNOT tell that they are actually interrogating her in that moment (in fact he doesn't say that).

Unless he was listening in, or he heard her screaming. Gubbio did. And they were all there together. I wish that I had a tape of their conversation.

 

[Matthew Best]

Sorry, I should have said he's not only dishonest, he's also incompetent!

 

[Machiavelli]

I have no doubt the indication was nuanced.

It's simple: you don't have any shred of element to assert that any illegality was committed.
You have no document that states so. Not even in the slightes degree.
You have no law article that was acknowledged to have been violated.
You don't even have an idea yourself of what procedure code article violation you may be talking about. And you are unable to make any deduction that stands under the law.
(you don't even have the SC ruling you refer to, btw!)

Any honest person in your position would conclude by saying "sorry, I withrdaw all claims that there was an illegal interrogation" or "sorry, I withdraw all my claims that any illegality was committed".
That is the only thing that you could do in your intellectual position. (If you were intellectually honest - which unfortunately, is not what I think).

 

[Mary_H]

No. I believe they recorded only the witnesses that they suspected unless they had lawyers with them, then they recorded those as well.

What happened to the tape?

It's with the medical records and the cancelled check signed by Hellmann. In Machiavelli's garage. He's going to write a helluva tell-all some day.

 

[Diocletus]

Any honest person in your position would conclude by saying "sorry, I withrdaw all claims that there was an illegal interrogation" or "sorry, I withdraw all my claims that any illegality was committed".
That is the only thing that you could do in your intellectual position. (If you were intellectually honest - which unfortunately, is not what I think).

Why does Mignini continue to assert that the 5:45 statement was spontaneous, when the Supreme Court has said that it wasn't spontaneous?

 

[acbytesla]

Sorry, I should have said he's not only dishonest, he's also incompetent!

Actually I don't think he's incompetent. I think he is a cunning sociopath without morals. Yes I know Mignini considers himself to be a good Catholic and is a prude.

But my idea of morals for a prosecutor is someone who has personal integrity. Mignini has lied so many times during these proceedings that you'd think his name was Machiavelli.

 

[Mary_H]

It's simple: you don't have any shred of element to assert that any illegality was committed.
You have no document that states so. Not even in the slightes degree.
You have no law article that was acknowledged to have been violated.
You don't even have an idea yourself of what procedure code article violation you may be talking about. And you are unable to make any deduction that stands under the law.
(you don't even have the SC ruling you refer to, btw!)

I am basing my deductions on the article by Andrea Vogt in which she quotes Italian legal experts, whose opinions, to me, explain why the Court ruled out the admissibility of the interrogations. If there is something else I should know, then tell me. Don't just tell me what I don't have. That's like saying you know how the murder was committed but you are not going to tell me so I should just not worry my pretty head about it.

I have asked you a couple of times just today to be specific about the ruling and about the laws, but you answer in generalities. You could clarify all of this for us by explaining specifically why the judges said the interrogations were not usable. Why don't you do it?

Any honest person in your position would conclude by saying "sorry, I withrdaw all claims that there was an illegal interrogation" or "sorry, I withdraw all my claims that any illegality was committed".
That is the only thing that you could do in your intellectual position. (If you were intellectually honest - which unfortunately, is not what I think).

Can you explain what you mean by intellectually honest? Does intellectual honesty differ from regular honesty? I am asking sincerely.

In your case, I won't speak of honesty, but I will speak of consistency. You said Amanda's lawyers did not allege illegalities, and then you said they did, right here: "or better, their allegations about legality were never accepted." Explain?

 

[Machiavelli]

Of course. The prosecution called him as a witness and he says that she was screaming.

Well, let the defence use his words then.
And btw, offer us the transcript of his interrogation!

Sollecito says the same. It's logical that they are both referring to the same scream and therefore by osmosis we can be sure that it happened and that it was Knox's screams caused by the cops

.

Sollecito said nothing. He refused to answer questions. And he made no statement about that.

I guess you should ask Mignini: ""I was with the director, Dr. Porfazio, and she was being questioned in a different place"

I think you should try to read in Italian, understanding the Italian way of speaking, possible meaning of verbal tenses etc... And you may avoid such ludicrous deductions. Knox was interrogated at 22.40 (the beginning) and we know Mignini was at his home going to bed at that time. He may have arrived at the police station at midnight but sìcertainly he was not there while Amanda was "being interrogated".
Anyway, where Mignini actually was is totally irrelevent, insofar as he was not in the room where Knox was being interrogated.

Unless he was listening in, or he heard her screaming. Gubbio did. And they were all there together. I wish that I had a tape of their conversation.

You know, everybody is able to make up things the way you do. You imagine they were there together.. you mention Gobbi but you don't even know what he said.. (like a couple of month ago people on this forum were mentioning Chiriboga, saying she stated that Knox didn't enter Quintavalle's shop; these claims are made up).

 

[Matthew Best]

Actually I don't think he's incompetent. I think he is a cunning sociopath without morals.

Let me try one more time - people here think he's dishonest, while Machiavelli thinks he's incompetent. Either way he sounds like someone who shouldn't be in his current job.

But my idea of morals for a prosecutor is someone who has personal integrity. Mignini has lied so many times during these proceedings that you'd think his name was Machiavelli.

I see what you did there!

 

[anglolawyer]

Mach

You have claimed a masonic conspiracy to fix the Hellman appeal. Such a thing would be a grave stain on Italy's legal system, if true. As a citizen possessed of relevant information about this crime it is your duty to make a complaint about it. If you don't make a complaint I shall assume it never happened.

 

[RoseMontague]

It's with the medical records and the cancelled check signed by Hellmann. In Machiavelli's garage. He's going to write a helluva a tell-all some day.

Is that where he keeps the large file of evidence he claims shows that Amanda was sexually attracted to Meredith. Still waiting on that one, Mach.

 

[anglolawyer]

Sollecito said nothing. He refused to answer questions. And he made no statement about that.

If you mean at trial this is untrue. Mignini did not schedule him for questioning. Bongiorno criticised him for what she plainly saw as an underhand tactic during her closing argument in the appeal.

 

[Matthew Best]

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.

He may have arrived at the police station at midnight

You are floundering.

 

[acbytesla]

I am basing my deductions on the article by Andrea Vogt in which she quotes Italian legal experts, whose opinions, to me, explain why the Court ruled out the admissibility of the interrogations. If there is something else I should know, then tell me. Don't just tell me what I don't have. That's like saying you know how the murder was committed but you are not going to tell me so I should just not worry my pretty head about it.

I have asked you a couple of times just today to be specific about the ruling and about the laws, but you answer in generalities. You could clarify all of this for us by explaining specifically why the judges said the interrogations were not usable. Why don't you do it?



Can you explain what you mean by intellectually honest? Does intellectual honesty differ from regular honesty? I am asking sincerely.

In your case, I won't speak of honesty, but I will speak of consistency. You said Amanda's lawyers did not allege illegalities, and then you said they did, right here: "or better, their allegations about legality were never accepted." Explain?

With all due respect Mary, if you're waiting to get a straight direct answer out of Machiavelli, better pull up a chair, because he never ever responds with a direct and straightforward answer. I've never been around anyone who twists every remark like Mach. I call it a lawyers or a PR lie where misleading and obfuscation is the trade. I've often wondered if Mach didn't learn his craft from Goebbels himself. Probably not, considering Goebbels has been dead 68 years.