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

[Diocletus]

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

It's in his book. He and Giobbi say the same thing. They agree!

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".

The statement was signed at 1:45. She would have been screaming just before, not at midnight.

Anyway, where Mignini actually was is totally irrelevent, insofar as he was not in the room where Knox was being interrogated.

Unless he heard the scream, like Giobbi, who was right there with him.

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..

Ah, yes, the old it's-different-in-the-10,000-page-file-and-it's-in-Italian answer to everything. This always signifies the end of the argument.

 

[Mary_H]

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.

Perfection.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

I really have to wonder what kind of drugs is he on to claim such a thing. Mach said that Hellmann was paid $2 million dollars to fix the verdict for Amanda and Raffaele. Where does he think that money came from? He can't really believe that Amanda's very middle class family had two million dollars laying around. Does he?

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

But it is quite the other way around: I am saying that the "murder" (the illegality) was not committed.
If you say that it was committed you bear a burden. Now it come out that your opinion is based on your own legal deductions that processes information you inferred from opinions quoted in an article by Andrea Vogt...
You statement "if there is something else I should know, then tell me" is not intended to be irony, i suppose.

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?

But I actually did!
The 01:45 interrogation is not usable, because interrogation of informants (witnesses) cannot be used in a case against the witness himself/herself.
The 05:45 statement is not usable (in a trial, against the person who released it, as evidence in the case that was being investigated at the time) because the person was a suspect for that same charge but yet did not have full enforcement of defensive rights.

But there is no acknowledgement of illegality in this. There is no violation of code articles whatsoever.

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

I think intellectual honesty is just the quality of honesty when applied to intellectual processes.

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?

The alleged illegailty I was talking about (meaning what attorneys never alleged) is the existence of a second interrogation.
I actually don't know if they allege some varticle iolations of some other kind, because I did not carefully read the instance they submittted to the SC. But their instance was basically rejected: what the SC ruled in fact is that only the 05:45 statement is "ruled out" in terms of usability against anyone, the others are still usable in a trial. But no violation is implied in this: non-usability of statements is provided by the code itself, while collection of such statements is allowed.

 

[Mary_H]

I really have to wonder what kind of drugs is he on to claim such a thing. Mach said that Hellmann was paid $2 million dollars to fix the verdict for Amanda and Raffaele. Where does he think that money came from? He can't really believe that Amanda's very middle class family had two million dollars laying around. Does he?

It was people in the media business: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9508703&postcount=11664

Maybe the ones who wanted to get the first interview with Amanda.

 

[Diocletus]

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

Aren't you sneaky. If you go to the PMF wiki page, they have lots and lots of transcripts from Massei's trial--maybe 40 or 50 transcripts. All sorts of cops and everything else. I can't even imagine who else would have testified in that trial.

I noticed just one transcript that was missing: Giobbi.

 

[anglolawyer]

I really have to wonder what kind of drugs is he on to claim such a thing. Mach said that Hellmann was paid $2 million dollars to fix the verdict for Amanda and Raffaele. Where does he think that money came from? He can't really believe that Amanda's very middle class family had two million dollars laying around. Does he?

It came from American media sources he said. Wonder what they will describe it as in the accounts.

ETA Ninja'd by Mary

 

[Diocletus]

The 05:45 statement is not usable (in a trial, against the person who released it, as evidence in the case that was being investigated at the time) because the person was a suspect for that same charge but yet did not have full enforcement of defensive rights.

Oh, so you're allowed to interrogate suspects who don't have "full enforcement of defensive rights" (i.e., lawyers)?

 

[HumanityBlues]

This is the great thing about these online forums is you can claim whatever you want. For instance: I have it on good authority that Mignini was illegally paid $2 million dollars by a group of U.S. media people in exchange for secret documents and sexual services. I have a list of names for these people as well.

Now, isn't it funny that this claim is as supportable as this other stupid $2 million theory floating around?

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

But you are buying really everything... You pick up all possible crap from that book and you believe it.
Sollecito requested to be interrogated in November 2007, he was scheduled fro December, but on the day the prosecutor came to interrogate him Sollecito invoked his right to remain silent. What changed meanwhile? Rudy Guede was arrested.

Raffaele Sollecito ieri è comparso davanti al pm Giuliano Mignini e che, pur avendo richiesto l'interrogatorio, si è avvalso della facoltà di non rispondere.

http://www.repubblica.it/2007/11/sezioni/cronaca/perugia-uccisa5/interrogatorio-guede/interrogatorio-guede.html

Highlight: "Raffaele Sollecito, despite he had requested to be interrogated as he appeared before the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, he invoked his right to remain silent".

Raffaele Sollecito invoked his right to remain silent. Then he never requested to be questioned again.

 

[acbytesla]

It was people in the media business: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9508703&postcount=11664

Maybe the ones who wanted to get the first interview with Amanda.

Ahhhhh, violating not only Italian laws but US laws as well. Doesn't seem reasonable to me Thanks Marry and Anglo

 

[Machiavelli]

Oh, so you're allowed to interrogate suspects who don't have "full enforcement of defensive rights" (i.e., lawyers)?

In some cases, yes. But in this case, there was no interrogation. There was a spontaneous statement.

 

[Machiavelli]

Aren't you sneaky. If you go to the PMF wiki page, they have lots and lots of transcripts from Massei's trial--maybe 40 or 50 transcripts. All sorts of cops and everything else. I can't even imagine who else would have testified in that trial.

I noticed just one transcript that was missing: Giobbi.

You better have a second look, what you've noticed is incorrect. Several documents are missing. For example, Quintavalle's testimony is (by now) missing. Cutatolo, Capezzali and Monacchia are missing. Mignini's closing arguments are missing. Preliminary hearing documents are missing. The British girls testimony is missing. A lot of things are missing in that page besides Giobbi's testimony.

 

[Machiavelli]

I really have to wonder what kind of drugs is he on to claim such a thing. Mach said that Hellmann was paid $2 million dollars to fix the verdict for Amanda and Raffaele. Where does he think that money came from? He can't really believe that Amanda's very middle class family had two million dollars laying around. Does he?

Btw, she couldn't even afford a private jet. But somebody hired it for her.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

It's hard to follow Mach 1's consistent story here. No wonder he resists putting together a credible timeline for the crime on the 1st, he can't even get the timeline right for the interrogations.

I say there were two interrogations, one ending at 1:45 am, the other at 5:45 am. Andrea Vogt says there was only one interrogation. Machiavelli agrees with her, saying I do not understand.

Then Machiavelli in a couple of posts since actually argues for 2 interrogation's saying once that Mignini did not start his questioning of Knox until 3 am.

THEN he has Mignini in the building at midnight, not hearing the screams from Knox that both Giobbi and Sollecito also hear.

I am having a hard time keeping up with Mach 1's ever changing account of the interrogations - remember all this started because he said I was misquoting Mignini's own account of 2 interrogations, the first one put a stop to by Mignini himself acc. to the CNN Griffin interview.

Machiavelli's intent here is to confuse and befuddle. I've never used this word in a sentence before but Machiavelli's views are pure sophistry.

What is in it for Machiavelli and for Andrea Vogt to be this kind of press agent for Mignini?

 

[Mary_H]

But it is quite the other way around: I am saying that the "murder" (the illegality) was not committed.

If you say that it was committed you bear a burden. Now it come out that your opinion is based on your own legal deductions that processes information you inferred from opinions quoted in an article by Andrea Vogt...
You statement "if there is something else I should know, then tell me" is not intended to be irony, i suppose.

It is not. I seriously want to know the details, which I see you have begun to share, here:

But I actually did!
The 01:45 interrogation is not usable, because interrogation of informants (witnesses) cannot be used in a case against the witness himself/herself.
The 05:45 statement is not usable (in a trial, against the person who released it, as evidence in the case that was being investigated at the time) because the person was a suspect for that same charge but yet did not have full enforcement of defensive rights.

But there is no acknowledgement of illegality in this. There is no violation of code articles whatsoever.
<snip>
The alleged illegailty I was talking about (meaning what attorneys never alleged) is the existence of a second interrogation.
I actually don't know if they allege some varticle iolations of some other kind, because I did not carefully read the instance they submittted to the SC. But their instance was basically rejected: what the SC ruled in fact is that only the 05:45 statement is "ruled out" in terms of usability against anyone, the others are still usable in a trial. But no violation is implied in this: non-usability of statements is provided by the code itself, while collection of such statements is allowed.

So, I think you and I are in the same boat. We both made claims without having complete knowledge.

Anyway, I think I get it: The collection of non-usable statements is allowed.

But what about the guys in Andrea's article? They talk about laws, not codes.

In response to numerous reader questions as the trial has progressed, seattlepi.com has asked Giancarlo Costa, a criminal defense lawyer in Rome, and Maffei, who also has a doctorate in law from the University of Oxford and has been a guest lecturer at The University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, to answer some basic legal questions about the case.
(....)
The law is very clear: A suspect must not be interrogated without a lawyer.

Once a suspect, an interrogation must be interrupted, the suspect read his or her rights to remain silent and be provided a lawyer. Italian law does not allow waiver of one's right to counsel. Even if a suspect doesn't want a lawyer, the authorities are required to appoint one.

If a suspect's freedom of movement is hindered, the interrogation must be videotaped.

In Knox's case, a video or audio recording of the entire police interrogation -- authorities have denied that any such recordings exist -- could identify when police began treating Knox as a suspect and what procedures were followed.

In fact, Italy's Supreme Court has already said that some of her early statements may not be used against her because they were made without an attorney present.

Are we to take all of that with a grain of salt?

I think intellectual honesty is just the quality of honesty when applied to intellectual processes.

Well, I'm pretty honest; don't know what else to say.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

Sorry, but what makes you think that I did not make a complaint?

 

[RoseMontague]

In some cases, yes. But in this case, there was no interrogation. There was a spontaneous statement.

Was this a case where it is allowed, or not? What's the difference? I have seen statements from Mignini claiming he told the cops to stop questioning. If it was allowed, why?

Mignini asked her a bunch of questions (read her book).

There was nothing at all "spontaneous" about her statement.

How would she know what her rights are about this?

How would anybody?

 

[anglolawyer]

But you are buying really everything... You pick up all possible crap from that book and you believe it.
Sollecito requested to be interrogated in November 2007, he was scheduled fro December, but on the day the prosecutor came to interrogate him Sollecito invoked his right to remain silent. What changed meanwhile? Rudy Guede was arrested.

What book? The thing about Bongiorno is in Follain's bible book.

Highlight: "Raffaele Sollecito, despite he had requested to be interrogated as he appeared before the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, he invoked his right to remain silent".

Raffaele Sollecito invoked his right to remain silent. Then he never requested to be questioned again.

You were not specific before. I thought you meant the trial. Why do you think Mignini didn't want to question him in open court?

 

[Mary_H]

It came from American media sources he said. Wonder what they will describe it as in the accounts.

ETA Ninja'd by Mary

Haha.

Sorry, but what makes you think that I did not make a complaint?

Ha! Good one.