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

[Machiavelli]

And it's not disputed by me. I was just wondering aloud what it is about the system I don't understand that makes Bongiorno think it a good idea to criticise Mig for not questioning Raf when she herself didn't do so.

It's not a good idea within the system. It's only for the media.

 

[Machiavelli]

You have the cops version on one side and Amanda's account on the other. One of the cops said he heard her scream during the interrogation. Maybe the tea was too hot.

Nah, read what Giobbi actually said. All what they say is consistent.

 

[Machiavelli]

She asked if she needed a lawyer and they said it would just bring her more trouble and land her in jail. They forget to tell her she was going to jail anyway.

She reported to have asked this before she named Patrick in the 01.45 interrogation.
The 05.45 is another time. She was no longer asking for a lawyer: she had been already informed she needed to appoint one, and meanwhile she had already been given one.

 

[Diocletus]

Italian procedure: Art. 104 c.p.p (used by Mignini) provides for the possibility to delay the right of immediate counsel for up to 5 days, and jurisprudence establishes what the "exceptional circumstances" are (danger of jeopardizing investigation). The justice comittee of Low Chamber of Italian parliament deemed the law compatible with ECHR standards. Found compatible with HR statute and Constitution by Constitutional Court too.

Mignini didn't use that provision because he didn't submit a declaration.

Also, according to Mignini, he exclaimed "stop the interrogation, she must have a lawyer."

Anyway, if she couldn't have a lawyer for up to 5 days, then why did they say that they told her she could have a lawyer and she refused. Are the lying about advising her of the right a lawyer, or are the lying about deciding that she couldn't have a lawyer for several days?

 

[Bill Williams]

Absolutely false. It's made up. First of all it is false that she should have been declared a suspect and afforded counsel, because the police cannot declare someone a suspect. They can either issue a provisional decision waiting for a magistrate's assessment or leave it to a magistrate immediately that will make his assessment and then decide. But there is no immediate suspect status automatically triggered.
Then, we all know that after the interrogation was stopped at 01:45, Knox was offered chamomille tee and was left alone in a room, in silence and in the company of only one police officer, who even conforted her (she was hugging him he stroke her hair etc.).
Then Knox was informed about a change of status and the need to nominate a lawyer, and she decided to release a statement, which was partly translated by Anna Donnino (and partly said in Italian by Knox).
The SC actually did not say the statements - that were collected and dictated, not just "signed" - were "not usable" (not "inadmissible") because collected in violation of a procedure, but instead that they had a "different regime of usability", in particular the 01:45 were non usable because all statements released by police witness are not usable agaisnt the witness itself, and as for the 05.45 statement, not usable in a trial in the case of murder because - albeit already a suspect - she was still not defended by a lawyer at the time.
However, they are usable in the case of calunnia, because she was not a suspect for the charge of calunnia at the time.

People are learning to recognize your crap. It's colored by your inability to admit that the police could ever do anything wrong.

Nice finesse, Machiavelli.

You are correct, "the police cannot declare someone a suspect."

What you omit is that it was the PM, Mignini, who stopped the interrogation telling Drew Griffin that he'd done so by quoting Article 63.

Police cannot declare someone a suspect, but what needs to happen is that they stop - until a lawyer, proper translator, and video tape equipment is turned on before they or anyone else continues.

This is what they did not do. You continue to try to finesse this.

I'm not sure I understand why you keep going on this malarky, Machiavelli... within the Italian system you have won.

You see this is not about being right or wrong, this is about winning, and you have (so far) won.

All you are succeeding in doing is explaining to us the mechanics of the wrongful conviction. But your goal has been reached. You have unjustly convicted.

Why bother continuing here?

 

[Machiavelli]

The pseudo wiki you cite has been shown to mislead with respect to transcripts and with respect to a knife brought to court. No serious student of the case should look there for information, except for addition evidence of its bias and tinkering with facts. (...)

To mislead with respect to the transcripts? What does that mean?
Those who look for information should not read the transcripts?

 

[acbytesla]

Well in that case you need to petition a change to the law, because the child sexual abuse law does provide for a mitigating factor, and the principles for the "minor gravity" mitigating factor is well established in jurisprudence.

I guess I don't have a clue what you mean by this. It is more than reasonable to argue that there is a difference between forcible rape and what we in the states refer to as statutory rape. Which is having sex with a minor. If that is the difference, than fine.

However, if they are considering the "amorous" nature as mitigating to excuse or diminish a sexual relationship between an 11 year old and a 60 year old..well than I think your courts and your culture needs some serious introspection.

So my question to you. Is this differentiating between "forcible rape" and statutory rape?

 

[Mary_H]

And they don't call and report crimes in other countries? Really? Such as?

As far as confidence in the police goes, the lates Eurispes Poll (2014) has the Italians confidence in the police at 61%. In the Carabinieri at 69,9%.

The latest Gallup poll on the subject 2011-2013 has Americans confidence in the police listed this way: Whites 60%. Non whites 48%.

Your tu quoque argument is a fallacy and a time-wasting distraction. Other posters should avoid reacting. We are talking about Italy.

 

[Machiavelli]

Nice finesse, Machiavelli.

You are correct, "the police cannot declare someone a suspect."

What you omit is that it was the PM, Mignini, who stopped the interrogation telling Drew Griffin that he'd done so by quoting Article 63. (...)

I already said this is false. Mignini was not there, he arrived after 2am.
Maybe you need to learn a bit of the language you try to read.

 

[Bill Williams]

Then Knox was informed about a change of status and the need to nominate a lawyer, and she decided to release a statement,

She decided to release a statement?

This is a lie, Machiavelli. And the one who condemns you for lying is Mignini himself.

Mignini is clear in his interview Drew Griffin. Knox said nothing. It was him who through some intuition inferred that she still "wsihed to continue with spontaneous statements."

It was he who said he spoke, he offered to let her speak and he would write things down and act, "as if only a notary."

You are lying and you know you are lying. You translated the Griffin interview with Mignini.

 

[Bill Williams]

I already said this is false. Mignini was not there, he arrived after 2am.
Maybe you need to learn a bit of the language you try to read.

Machiavelli - this is what Mignini told Drew Griffin!!!! He told Drew Griffin that he stopped the interrogation, but that he also continued with by ignoring the very guarantees he'd told Ficarra she should stop for!

I don't know why you're trying to finesse this?

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
So my question to you. Is this differentiating between "forcible rape" and statutory rape?

Basically yes, it's the equivalent, but it's not called so. Here there might be an exact correspondence with these concepts. But minor gravity mitigation can be derived also on other grounds.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli - this is what Mignini told Drew Griffin!!!! He told Drew Griffin that he stopped the interrogation, but that he also continued with by ignoring the very guarantees he'd told Ficarra she should stop for!
(...)

No it isn't. I already told you this. N-O . False.
The problem is that you are not able to read properly in Italian.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli, I do not know why you wish to lie about what Mignini said. First of all, he did stop the interrogation (so he says anyways - why do you disbelieve him now). And he specifically said that it was not Amanda's idea to proceed.

Read it below (underlining and highlighting not in the original, for emphasis only:

0’50’’ Mignini: Oh, the police interrogated her. I was told about it. I wanted to explain this. I remember that I had gone to sleep and the director of the flying squad, Dr. Profazio, called me, because he tells me: “There are developments; Raffaele in fact has denied what he had said before”. So I went down* [Translator’s note: This seems to imply Mignini was not sleeping at home but instead somewhere on a higher floor at the Questura.] and the head of the flying squad told me what had happened. At some point they tell us that Amanda has made this statement.

And thus her interrogation as a person informed of the facts was suspended by the police in compliance with Article 63 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure [c.p.p. - Codice di Procedura Penale], because if evidence appears that incriminates the person, the person being questioned as a person informed of the facts can no longer be heard, and we must stop. “Everyone stop! There must be a defense attorney [present]”. And thus the police stopped and informed Amanda, who had placed herself on the scene of the crime and who said that she had accompanied Lumumba and let him in and that then Lumumba, in the other room, allegedly committed a sexual act and killed Meredith. This is what she said.

2’11’’ Then I was called, I was informed about this, I went to Amanda who, I remember how she was, what she looked like, I remember her very well, she remained imprinted in my memory, I still remember then two things about Amanda that struck me at the time: first, she looked like she was relieved of a burden and second, she was like, and this is another detail that was impressive, it seemed as if she was terrified of Lumumba.

20’48’’ Then I, as I had in some way to, let’s say… this police interrogation had been suspended. At that point I remember that… they made me notice that Amanda, because she wanted to go on talking, I remember she had, like a need to. So I told her: “you can make statements to me; I will not ask questions, since if you make a spontaneous statement and I collect it, I will collect your statement as if I were in fact a notary”. She then repeated [her story] to the interpreter, who was Mrs. Donnino, I remember there was a police woman officer who wrote the statement down [verbalizzava], I did not ask questions. She basically repeated what she had told the police and she signed the statement. Basically I didn’t ask Amanda questions. Not before, since the police asked them and I was not there, and not after, since she made spontaneous statements. Had I been asking her questions, a defense attorney should have been there. This is the procedure.

So without Amanda saying anything, Mignini said, "So I told her: “you can make statements to me; I will not ask questions"......"

Why are you lying about this?

 

[Machiavelli]

She decided to release a statement?

This is a lie, Machiavelli. And the one who condemns you for lying is Mignini himself.

Mignini is clear in his interview Drew Griffin. Knox said nothing. It was him who through some intuition inferred that she still "wsihed to continue with spontaneous statements."

It was he who said he spoke, he offered to let her speak and he would write things down and act, "as if only a notary."

You are lying and you know you are lying. You translated the Griffin interview with Mignini.

1. Mignini told Knox about her rights, that is he read her a number of legal things, and he explained that he could not interrogate her. He said she had the faculty to release statements anyway.
This is exactly what Mignini said.

2. I did not translate the whole interview with Draw Griffin, as far as I recall I corrected some parts on request by other translators.

 

[Bill Williams]

No it isn't. I already told you this. N-O . False.
The problem is that you are not able to read properly in Italian.

You are lying, my friend, and you know you are lying.

 

[acbytesla]

Absolutely.
Unless perhaps Kevin has evidence that she was actually 12 not 11 [which makes a huge difference apparently] and she set out to entrap this kind 60yr old guy in some kind of 'badger game'.

But not wishing to drag this thread further OT he suggest its better to just drop the issue and concentrate on the real victim here - Britn Amanda.

This is the kind of nobility towards victims for which this thread is famed.

If Amanda and Raffaele are innocent as most of us believe that she is, then THEY ARE VICTIMS as well as Meredith. Both Amanda and Raffaele spent 4 years in prison and both have had a 4th of their life defined by the accusation as well as living under a cloud that they could spend many more years behind bars.

If you cannot see that, then I think it is time to take the guilt glasses off.

 

[Vibio]

Your tu quoque argument is a fallacy and a time-wasting distraction. Other posters should avoid reacting. We are talking about Italy.

My post was entirely logical and was in response to an exchange between me and another poster.

"We are talking about Italy." The US/Italy comparison is brought up constantly here.

Furthermore: "Other posters should avoid reacting." Sorry if the statistics I posted touched a nerve.

 

[Bill Williams]

1. Mignini told Knox about her rights, that is he read her a number of legal things, and he explained that he could not interrogate her. He said she had the faculty to release statements anyway.
This is exactly what Mignini said.

2. I did not translate the whole interview with Draw Griffin, as far as I recall I corrected some parts on request by other translators.

This is not an answer to explain the lie you have just told. You said that Amanda asked to continue. She did not such thing. Even Mignini says that to Drew Griffin.

I never thought it possible - you have just called Mignini a liar.

 

[Machiavelli]

[Machiavelli, I do not know why you wish to lie about what Mignini said. First of all, he did stop the interrogation

It's absolutely false. He naver said this. Not even in the English translation you quoted.
It's not him the person who orders the interrogation to be stopped. He naver said this. Actually he was not even there.

(so he says anyways - why do you disbelieve him now). And he specifically said that it was not Amanda's idea to proceed.

What does it mean Amanda's idea? It was Amanda's decision and Amanda's will.

So without Amanda saying anything, Mignini said, "So I told her: “you can make statements to me; I will not ask questions"......"

Exactly.
This is what he is supposed to say. And Knox decided to release a statement.