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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Machiavelli said:
Besides that I disagree that that was her right (given the definition of "exceptional grounds for caution" by the SC which I found), there is also the fact that before she named Lumumba (that is before 01:45) she was still a person informed about facts, not a formal suspect, hence there was no art. 104 § 1.
The art. 104 applies only to those who have already serious evidence against them and who are already under arrest.
Click to expand...
You keep shifting the goalposts Mach.

You have (correctly) said she was strongly suspected before she arrived that night. I assume the police in Italy do not strongly suspect people against whom they have no serious evidence (a dangerous assumption perhaps, but one which accords at least with principle if not with its application in practice). Paragraph 1 of article 104 says:

1. The defendant in custody has the right to meet with the lawyer from the beginning of the measure.
Click to expand...

You could try to argue she wasn't in custody but you would have to make us believe she was free to leave the questura at any point that night. I hope you don't think we are that stupid.
 
katy_did said:
But it's worth remembering that, as you say, the defence were arguing there should be major consequences for the violations - that the pre-trial detention order be revoked, for example - and so when the judges ruled on the defence objections, they weren't only considering whether the violations did actually occur, but also on whether the results of those violations should be those for which the defence were arguing.

The question of whether the documents exist is a straightforward one: either they were filed or they weren't; either the defence received copies at the appropriate time or they didn't. The question of what the consequences should be for those violations is a more complicated one. It seems to me much more likely that the judges disagreed on the latter point than on the basic factual question of whether the documents were there at all, something which could be very easily checked.
Click to expand...

Good point. The defense also went for the home run on the disclosure problems and that backfired on them as well.
 
anglolawyer said:
You keep shifting the goalposts Mach.

You have (correctly) said she was strongly suspected before she arrived that night. I assume the police in Italy do not strongly suspect people against whom they have no serious evidence (a dangerous assumption perhaps, but one which accords at least with principle if not with its application in practice). Paragraph 1 of article 104 says:



You could try to argue she wasn't in custody but you would have to make us believe she was free to leave the questura at any point that night. I hope you don't think we are that stupid.
Click to expand...

She wasn't asked to come in that night but chose to to accompany Sollecito. He when confronted with the conflicting phone evidence withdrew her alibi. This was the catalyst that resulted in her panic and naming of Lumumba. Up to that point they both could have gone home that night.
 
Briars said:
She wasn't asked to come in that night but chose to to accompany Sollecito. He when confronted with the conflicting phone evidence withdrew her alibi. This was the catalyst that resulted in her panic and naming of Lumumba. Up to that point they both could have gone home that night.
Click to expand...

We all know that Amanda went along with Sollecito that night. But it isn't like that the Perugian authorities didn't plan for this. In fact they fully expected Amanda to come with Raffaele as she had been with him almost non-stop since the night of the murder. There is the reason that there was a dozen detectives there that night and it wasn't only for Raffaele. Amanda did not panic, but she was worn down by the onslaught of the Italians. As Giobbi said, she told us what we already knew when she confirmed that Patrick killed Meredith.

They were wrong about Patrick and they were wrong about Raffaele and they are wrong about Amanda Knox.
 
I am just posting to say I am quitting the forum and to wish some buddies here goodbye (or see you elsewhere as the case may be).
 
Briars said:
She wasn't asked to come in that night but chose to to accompany Sollecito. He when confronted with the conflicting phone evidence withdrew her alibi. This was the catalyst that resulted in her panic and naming of Lumumba. Up to that point they both could have gone home that night.
Click to expand...

Det. Giobbi said with mathematical certainty they were both called in. I know Amanda says otherwise but who are going to believe, murder suspect or an experienced detective from the top office in Italy?

Since the two kids had been together most every minute since the death, especially at night, they could count on both showing up.

Could you provide the recording of Raf's interview for us? I don't remember his statements the way you do.

Could you also explain why de Felice said she told them what they knew to be correct when in fact it wasn't the truth?

What do you think of the recreation by channel 5? How about the glass and sound analysis?
 
anglolawyer said:
You could try to argue she wasn't in custody but you would have to make us believe she was free to leave the questura at any point that night. I hope you don't think we are that stupid.
Click to expand...

Technically she was free to get up and leave. It's one of the reasons she needed a lawyer as a suspect. Practically speaking no one ever does that esp. with no lawyer present, and the cops everywhere play on that fact.

It's the very reason why in Italy whether suspected or "strongly suspected", that Mignini himself stopped Ficarra's interrogation quoting article (63?) and then proceeded with his own.

I for one am grateful that Machiavelli is finally reading the Griffin interview Mignini gave, and that Machiavelli is starting to quote from it.

The scales will fall from Machiavelli's eyes, and perhaps Ms. Vogt's as well, if they connect the dots as to the way Mignini has been playing everyone here.

..... including his PR team of Machiavelli and Andrea Vogt.
 
Briars said:
She wasn't asked to come in that night but chose to to accompany Sollecito. He when confronted with the conflicting phone evidence withdrew her alibi. This was the catalyst that resulted in her panic and naming of Lumumba. Up to that point they both could have gone home that night.
Click to expand...

Briars.... at least get your facts straight. "Sollecito" was not presented with conflicting phone evidence. He was asked which night Knox "went out" and was refused to means to sort out what happened when the week before.
 
I'd like to see a full length recreation of the lone wolf scenario. I think once that is shone only the hard core guilters would still maintain the kids possible involvement.
 
Bill Williams said:
Technically she was free to get up and leave. It's one of the reasons she needed a lawyer as a suspect. Practically speaking no one ever does that esp. with no lawyer present, and the cops everywhere play on that fact.
Click to expand...


In this case, Amanda was never free to leave. One of the officers testified that she was sent to block Amanda's exit in case she tried to leave should Raffaele start screaming.
 
Grinder said:
Det. Giobbi said with mathematical certainty they were both called in. I know Amanda says otherwise but who are going to believe, murder suspect or an experienced detective from the top office in Italy?

Since the two kids had been together most every minute since the death, especially at night, they could count on both showing up.

Could you provide the recording of Raf's interview for us? I don't remember his statements the way you do.

Could you also explain why de Felice said she told them what they knew to be correct when in fact it wasn't the truth?

What do you think of the recreation by channel 5? How about the glass and sound analysis?
Click to expand...

I would like to see a transcript of Giobbi's testimony concerning who was called in that night to testify. I think the mathematical certainty comes from Perugia Shock but don't know if any other media wrote the same. Whether they counted on both showing up I can't say.

There is not a recording of Raffaele's statements but there is the article in Corriere Della Sera with quotes from his November 5 statement (this document has not been public as far as I know) and statements given during his November 8 court hearing.

And while you didn't ask me what I thought of the channel 5 recreation (which will air later today) I will give more validity to the recreations that take place in Perugia rather than those in the studio. I am especially intrigued by the climber going up the wall of the cottage.
 
Dan O. said:
I'd like to see a full length recreation of the lone wolf scenario. I think once that is shone only the hard core guilters would still maintain the kids possible involvement.
Click to expand...

From what I read on the recreation it seems it still is a case of proving innocence instead of guilt. When something is disputed it seems the pro guilt person says something like "well that isn't conclusive so maybe more testing could point at the kids" instead of "well, that isn't a match so throw it out, compatible just isn't a reasonable standard."
 
Bill Williams said:
Technically she was free to get up and leave. It's one of the reasons she needed a lawyer as a suspect. Practically speaking no one ever does that esp. with no lawyer present, and the cops everywhere play on that fact.
Click to expand...
Dan O. said:
In this case, Amanda was never free to leave. One of the officers testified that she was sent to block Amanda's exit in case she tried to leave should Raffaele start screaming.
Click to expand...
Then the cops at the PLE were thugs, weren't they!

I was talking about her legal right. If she'd been forceably confined that would have been kidnapping.

When did this "blocking of Amanda's exit" happen? If it had happened after Mignini's arrival, everyone could have testified to Mignini quoting Article 63, thus placing Knox under formal suspicion. The point is, if the cops were blocking her exit, that is further evidence that she should have been provided with a lawyer.
 
Dan O. said:
In this case, Amanda was never free to leave. One of the officers testified that she was sent to block Amanda's exit in case she tried to leave should Raffaele start screaming.
Click to expand...
And we know what happened when Amanda screamed. Raffaele was told there would be blood on the floor if he tried to help her.
 
christianahannah said:
I would like to see a transcript of Giobbi's testimony concerning who was called in that night to testify. I think the mathematical certainty comes from Perugia Shock but don't know if any other media wrote the same. Whether they counted on both showing up I can't say.

There is not a recording of Raffaele's statements but there is the article in Corriere Della Sera with quotes from his November 5 statement (this document has not been public as far as I know) and statements given during his November 8 court hearing.

And while you didn't ask me what I thought of the channel 5 recreation (which will air later today) I will give more validity to the recreations that take place in Perugia rather than those in the studio. I am especially intrigued by the climber going up the wall of the cottage.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on this and I have tried to get my hands on the Giobbi testimony, so far without success. I am most interested in the climber as well. It looks like the actual cottage. I will try to pin down that article again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom