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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill Williams said:
We need to start a list. Come Jan 15, Machiavelli will be denying he'd ever said that the trial against Mignini for abuse of office was only a preliminary hearing.

(...)
Click to expand...

The Jan 15. hearing is a hearing before the GIP/GUP (investigating judge). It's obvious to anyone with a basic knowlede of procedure that it is not a trial.

It is also obvious to anyone that there will be no trial, because there are no legal grounds. There would be not even time - even in the theoretical event Mignini and Giuttari were indictable - because of the statutory expiration terms.
 
Strozzi said:
I want to know if Filomena had drugs in her room and, if so, whether she checked for or removed them from her room when she retrieved her laptop. If she did have drugs in her room, I would think she would be very concerned that they could be found by the police and used to compromise her, an apprentice lawyer beginning her legal career in Perugia, her hometown.

When she removed her laptop (and possibly any drugs she might have had), how much disturbance did she cause to the distribution pattern of broken glass in her room? Did her disruption contribute to the early police conclusion that the window break-in was fake - and thus cause the police and Mignini to pursue a wrong suspect-centric investigation and prosecution - with great damage to many including Italy. Did Filomena tell the police the true extent of what she touched, opened, and disturbed in her room? Would she really admit to messing up the original glass distribution pattern or did she downplay it?

Lastly, did the police find her drugs in her room and upon Napoleoni's or Mignini's order their existence withheld from the records in order to initially protect her as a "good Italian girl"? And later was it leverage to ensure she went along with the prosecution?
Click to expand...

LondonJohn said:
Hypothetical:

What if Filomena had had a stash of drugs? What if she had been hiding her stash of drugs somewhere in her room? What if, for example, her stash had been perhaps hidden behind or under the clothing in her closet?

Might Filomena therefore have had both the motive and the opportunity to rush into her bedroom, ostensibly to retrieve her laptop, but also to retrieve her stash? Might she therefore have quickly turfed belongings over (perhaps, say, clothes from within the closet) to locate and pocket the stash? Might that not possibly therefore account for at least some of the state of her room by the time it came to be photographed and properly documented later that afternoon?

Of course this is only a hypothetical. But still................
Click to expand...
The one thing nearly everyone is agreed upon is that the girls upstairs who survived Rudy, were all afraid that the drug use there would come back to bite them - no one more so that Filomena. But then the other women counselled each other not to be too forthcoming about the drug use - and the one verifiable lie that Knox told was about just that. It was the wedge Ficarra needed at 11:30 pm Nov 5 to say, "It's time for honesty" and get the soon to be interrogated back on her heels.

It was the Elephant in the room for everyone. No wonder they breathed a sigh of relief when they could dump the whole crap load on to Amanda.
 
Machiavelli said:
It's instead entirely consistent with the behavior of the police with all witnesses. And I'm very surprised of this uninformed comment. The police didn't record any other talk with witnesses. They behaved the same way with everybody. Their behavior is totally consistent.

Wiretappings and recording of private conversation is one thing. Usable in court btw. But talking with the police is police activity, it's normally secret, not usable, and must be redacted.
Click to expand...


It's already clear just how and why Knox should have been considered a suspect (rather than a regular witness) before she even entered the interrogation room late in the evening of 5th November. De Felice's own words make that all too clear, as does the unchallenged evidence of how that interrogation played out.

What happened - it's plain to see - is that the police/PM deliberately decided to pretend that Knox was still just a witness, up until that point where they couldn't maintain the pretence any longer (i.e. when she finally "buckled"). This is apparently an endemic police practice in Italy, aimed at denying suspects their proper rights and protections under the law in an attempt to twist more information out of them.

What's more, it's also plain to see that even after they were forced to accord Knox "suspect" status, Mignini and the police played further games around the so-called "spontaneous declaration" some hours later.

The evidence is clear: Knox should have been considered a suspect, and therefore her interrogation should have been recorded. Of course, had Knox correctly been categorised a suspect, that interrogation would never have taken place in any case, since Knox would have been able to receive proper legal advice and protection (and this, of course, is exactly why she wasn't declared a suspect!).

So now the police and PM can try to hide behind the self-serving circular argument that "we didn't record the interrogation because she wasn't a suspect". It won't wash. And in spite of all the above, the fact remains that it should have been routine - even if not mandatory - for the authorities to have been electronically recording the interviews with every significant witness in this important case. In fact, they DID record many other witness interviews. And Knox was sitting in the state-of-the-art Perugia police HQ: a facility that must have had several rooms with full recording facilities.

Even Mignini had to sheepishly mumble something about "police budget cuts" in a further pathetic attempt to justify the absence of a recording. The whole thing stinks very badly.

(FWIW, I believe that there IS (or at least was at one time) an audio recording of Knox's interrogation, which was concealed from the defence and from the courts)
 
Machiavelli said:
The Jan 15. hearing is a hearing before the GIP/GUP (investigating judge). It's obvious to anyone with a basic knowlede of procedure that it is not a trial.

It is also obvious to anyone that there will be no trial, because there are no legal grounds. There would be not even time - even in the theoretical event Mignini and Giuttari were indictable - because of the statutory expiration terms.
Click to expand...

My info says that this hearing happened on Friday, Nov 22. Check your sources. You may be being lied to.
 
Skind said:
None of Merediths friends were formal suspects, yet Mignini has just said he taped them all.

You are wrong.

You.

Are.

Wrong.

Not right. Wrong.

False. Wrong. Not correct.
Click to expand...

Who

cares.

Most other witnesses were not.

YOU

are

wrong.

Much more wrong than me.
 
Machiavelli said:
I suggest you quit this nonsense void insulting.
Click to expand...

This is what kwill posted, proving that Mignini lied about not being able to tape an interrogation, which was required to be taped.

kwill said:
I'm sorry, but what did he just say?
He always tapes in his own office and has transcripts made.
He taped what Amanda said while she was in prison.
He says no one is taped at the police station during an investigation, because the cost of making transcripts would be too much for the budget.
He says that video would be better, because then body language could be read.

What a liar. We know that Amanda and Raffaele were taped while they were in a bugged room at the police station, and that tape was transcribed.

And he lies by implication, when he conflates the questioning of the English women -- who were not suspects -- with the interrogation of Amanda, who certainly was.



Mignini just said they did. Is he lying?



If this is true, why were the English women's conversations with Mignini taped? And why does Mignini suggest that budget problems prevent taping of police interviews? Why not just tell the interviewer what you just said, that in Italy suspects can be questioned in complete secrecy, and no one can know what happens during those interviews? If that's the case, why pretend that it was simply too expensive?

He's a liar.
Click to expand...

Do you think we cannot track conversations? Why do you lie for Mignini?
 
Machiavelli said:
Mignini is not indicted of anything.

I found out there is a hearing scheduled on Jan 15 2014, but it's not a trial. And there is no indictment. That is the preliminary hearing I was waiting for long time!
There is no request of indictment by the prosecution. But the case goes in the hand of the preliminary judge first, before being assessed by the prosecution office, as a procedure because this is from a case of territorial competence.

That preliminary judge in Turin will decide what to do with the investigation file on Giuttari and Mignini, and I tell you, there will be no trial. Nor indictment.
The only possible result will be a dropping of charges. The only question to see is the legal formula for that.
Click to expand...



Why is there a preliminary hearing if the time period for prosecution has elapsed?

Why have you been "waiting for" this hearing for a "long time!"?

Strange.......
 
LondonJohn said:
It's already clear just how and why Knox should have been considered a suspect (rather than a regular witness) before she even entered the interrogation room late in the evening of 5th November. De Felice's own words make that all too clear, as does the unchallenged evidence of how that interrogation played out. (...)
Click to expand...

This is your theory. You repeated that many times already.

You are wrong. Any possible claim related to your assessment about Knox's status was rejected by all courts including the Supreme Court, so there is actually nothing to add. Your 'point of law' is literally made up.
Moreover you seem to ignore all implications of it. Saying Knox was to be considered suspect before, it's equivalent to say she should have been arrested before.
De Felice's words are also, as usual, made up and twisted to serve your bias. De Felice in fact did not even say what you claim he did; I already wrote this in the past.
 
Machiavelli said:
Who

cares.

Most other witnesses were not.

YOU

are

wrong.

Much more wrong than me.
Click to expand...

Remind me : who said "The police didn't record any other talk with witnesses."?

MY argument was the Mignini and chums recorded some talks with witnesses. The preponderance of how many were/were not recorded does not invalidate that.

Admit you got it wrong and we can all move on.

Come on. You're holding us all up. Hold you hand up and admit you got it wrong.
 
Machiavelli said:
But Mignini is talking about interrogation of formal suspects.
You are talking about interrogation of police witnesses (informants).

This is two completely different things.
Statements of suspects are usable, they are trial matter; statements of informants are not, they are investigation stuff.
Click to expand...
You ignored this question.

And why does Mignini suggest that budget problems prevent taping of police interviews? Why not just tell the interviewer what you just said, that in Italy suspects can be questioned in complete secrecy, and no one can know what happens during those interviews? If that's the case, why pretend that it was simply too expensive?

He was lying. If you're correct, and police NEVER tape interrogations because they couldn't use the transcripts in court anyway, then Mignini is lying when he tries to say they couldn't have afforded to pay for the cost of transcribing. If you're wrong, and police DO tape interrogations, then Mignini is lying when he says that it's "never done."

He's a liar.
 
LondonJohn said:
Why is there a preliminary hearing if the time period for prosecution has elapsed?
Click to expand...

The time period will elapse between Jan 25 and Jan 30, as for my calculations. It's not the time period for prosecuting, it's the time period for convicting, so you understand the impossibility to proceed.
But this is not the point. A judge can proceed also beyond the time limit if the person under trial requests it.

Why have you been "waiting for" this hearing for a "long time!"?
Click to expand...

Because this means the investigation on Mignini-Giuttari will finally move towards closure. The unfreezing will unplug the machine keeping the Florentine case in artificial vegetative state. The accusation on Mignini-Giuttari fill be finally allowed to pass away.
Then, I expect a long-awaited counter attack to start.
 
Last edited:
PS:

Machiavelli said:
It's instead entirely consistent with the behavior of the police with all witnesses. And I'm very surprised of this uninformed comment. The police didn't record any other talk with witnesses. They behaved the same way with everybody. Their behavior is totally consistent.
Click to expand...


Skind said:
None of Merediths friends were formal suspects, yet Mignini has just said he taped them all.

You are wrong.
Click to expand...


Machiavelli said:
Who cares.

Most other witnesses were not.

YOU are wrong.
Click to expand...


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......

*breathes*

......AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
Machiavelli said:
This is your theory. You repeated that many times already.

You are wrong. Any possible claim related to your assessment about Knox's status was rejected by all courts including the Supreme Court, so there is actually nothing to add. Your 'point of law' is literally made up.
Moreover you seem to ignore all implications of it. Saying Knox was to be considered suspect before, it's equivalent to say she should have been arrested before.
De Felice's words are also, as usual, made up and twisted to serve your bias. De Felice in fact did not even say what you claim he did; I already wrote this in the past.
Click to expand...


I contend that you're either ignorant or lying. De Felice said the exact words that were directly ascribed to him by various of the world's media who were in the room that nasty, triumphalist morning in Perugia on 6th November 2007.

The question is this: why would you want to take such a contrarian position on this evidence, seeing as there's so much proof that it happened?

Better perhaps to suggest that De Felice was shooting his mouth off and was either lying or inventing the stuff about Knox "buckling" and telling the police what they already knew to be correct. It's really unedifying and somewhat sad to try to argue that he never said the words at all........

Just sayin'
 
Machiavelli said:
The time period will elapse between Jan 25 and Jan 30, as for my calculations. It's not the time period for prosecuting, it's the time period for convicting, so you understand the impossibility to proceed.
But this is not the point. A judge can proceed also beyond the time limit if the person under trial requests it.

Because this means the investigation on Mignini-Giuttari will finally move towards closure. The unfreezing will unplug the machine keeping the Florentine case in artificial vegetative state. The accusation on Mignini-Giuttari fill be finally allowed to pass away.
Then, I expect a long-awaited counter attack to start.
Click to expand...


Why would you, as an unconnected private citizen, be "looking forward" to the possible closure of an official investigation into a public magistrate? Why would it matter to you, an unconnected private citizen, what Mignini/Giuttari were or were not in judicial limbo over?

And this "long-awaited counter attack"? You're invested in this how, exactly? And who is going to be "attacked"?
 
Machiavelli said:
This is your theory. You repeated that many times already.

You are wrong. Any possible claim related to your assessment about Knox's status was rejected by all courts including the Supreme Court, so there is actually nothing to add. Your 'point of law' is literally made up.
Moreover you seem to ignore all implications of it. Saying Knox was to be considered suspect before, it's equivalent to say she should have been arrested before.<snip>
Click to expand...

Then what was the reason the Supreme Court ruled the 1:45 and 5:45 statements inadmissible?
 
kwill said:
You ignored this question.

And why does Mignini suggest that budget problems prevent taping of police interviews? Why not just tell the interviewer what you just said, that in Italy suspects can be questioned in complete secrecy, and no one can know what happens during those interviews? If that's the case, why pretend that it was simply too expensive?
Click to expand...

But why don't you try learn a bit about the law, instead of second guessing indirect reports, why a person Y said this about that thing X... I suggest you rather deal with the thing X directly instead.
Mignini was talking about a situation, a reality that has several causes and aspects. I probably wouldn't know what to say in his same situation: because there isn't one single answer. It's a reality. A reality has many aspects, not just one.

It is true that the police are allowed to question witnesses in complete secrecy and are not required to record anything.
It is true that police documents (summary information) must be redacted.
It is true that police normally do not record interrogations of witnesses; it's something very rare. Some times some corps may do that, when they have some peculiar needs.
Actually, even the prosecution is allowed to declare someone a formal suspect and don't let the suspect know this, keeping this secret from the person, for one year or more.

It is also true that recording is an expensive procedure, because it's followed by transcription which is rather expensive and interrogations are a huge amount of hours of material.
It is also true that in recent times police sometimes did record some activities, not because required ny the investigation, but only as a cautionary measure to defend themselves in case they are accused of misconduct. But this is not something they are required to do.

He was lying. If you're correct, and police NEVER tape interrogations because they couldn't use the transcripts in court anyway, then Mignini is lying when he tries to say they couldn't have afforded to pay for the cost of transcribing. (...)
Click to expand...

No there is nothing like "always" and "never" in this field. The code is clear: there is no need for me to explain why I am right. The recording of summary informations under *some* conditions is explicitly forbidden; in other conditions there is just an obligation to collect testimony "in a redacted way". In all cases, police interrogations are expected to be not readable in court.
But nowhere you can find an obligation for the police to record witnesses interrogation.

Actually, it should be sufficient to know that police normally do not reord informants interrogations. This information - which yu would be aware of if you were living in Italy - should be enough to deduce that the police behavior and Mignini's justifications were normal.
Often, magistrates and police do not record even suspects interrogations, or do not even declare the status of formal suspect, and the code provedes even for these events.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom