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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Machiavelli said:
Talk about your inability to admit Knox is an obvious liar.
Click to expand...

Funny you should mention lying. It's very clear to me that Amanda DIDN'T LIE. Your police and prosecutors on the other hand is a different matter. But those scumbags are given the benefit of the doubt in your demented mind.
 
This is what you said, Machiavelli.... repeated here for the third time.

Machiavelli said:
Then Knox was informed about a change of status and the need to nominate a lawyer, and she decided to release a statement
Click to expand...

This is your modification of it, you are already backing off this flase claim that it was Amanda who decided this....

Machiavelli said:
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.
Click to expand...

So, you admit it was Mignini who encouraged Knox to release statements, even in the knowledge he'd just told the police that they must stop until her rights were seen to. You are making this up and modifying your lies as we go along.

Friends and lurkers.... this is the very mechanics of the wrongful conviction of Knox and Sollecito, and Machiavelli lays it out for all to see.
 
Yep, it's pretty clear that by Mignini's own words he asked her to make a statement without a lawyer present. You can talk to me Dearie, I will just be a notary.
 
Machiavelli said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is there a recording of Mignini reading her her rights?
 
Vibio said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your first response to Diocletus's claim was appropriate. Everything after that was off-topic.

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

Ad hominem fallacy. And Straw Man.
 
Machiavelli - there's also the possibility that you are having trouble with nuances of English, and for that I apologize if I've been unjustly hard on you.

Kind of like Amanda at interrogation.
 
Bill Williams said:
(...)
So, you admit it was Mignini who encouraged Knox to release statements, even in the knowledge he'd just told the police that they must stop until her rights were seen to. You are making this up and modifying your lies as we go along.

Friends and lurkers.... this is the very mechanics of the wrongful conviction of Knox and Sollecito, and Machiavelli lays it out for all to see.
Click to expand...

I am a bit tired of being accused of lying on the basis of idiotic ravings.
Knox decided to release a statement. It's what I said, never changed, and this assertion will remain there unchanged.

It is a plain lie that Mingnini ordered to stop the interrogation; it is false that he says that in the Draw Griffin interview. He did not this in the Draw Griffin interview, it is not in the English translation of it, and by all reports Mignini was not even there at the police station until after 2 am.
 
Machiavelli said:
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.
Click to expand...

I love the revisionist history. All of sudden, all of the article are false.

At least you are consistent Machiavelli, You have blinders when it comes to obvious flaws of your judicial system and the characters involved.
 
Machiavelli said:
I said that Amanda Knox decided to release a statement.
Which is what she did.
Click to expand...

Where is the evidence that she knew that she was making a statement?
Where is the evidence that she knew the difference between a statement as informally defined and a spontaneous statement under law?
Where is the evidence that she knew she was making a statement to a person that could legally recieve it?
 
So which is the claim:

1. Mignini apprised Knox of the right to have counsel present after which Knox voluntarily made the 5:45 statements to Knox, or

2. Migini decided that Knox had no right to counsel, and held her without counsel for 2 days under the mafia law.

Because as far as I can tell, migini has claimed both, yet they are mutually exclusive ( which means he's a liar).
 
Machiavelli said:
I am a bit tired of being accused of lying on the basis of idiotic ravings.
Knox decided to release a statement. It's what I said, never changed, and this assertion will remain there unchanged.

It is a plain lie that Mingnini ordered to stop the interrogation; it is false that he says that in the Draw Griffin interview. He did not this in the Draw Griffin interview, it is not in the English translation of it, and by all reports Mignini was not even there at the police station until after 2 am.
Click to expand...

The thing is that you are lying about Amanda lying. One of you is a liar and it isn't who you say it is.
 
Diocletus said:
So which is the claim:

1. Mignini apprised Knox of the right to have counsel present after which Knox voluntarily made the 5:45 statements to Knox, or

2. Migini decided that Knox had no right to counsel, and held her without counsel for 2 days under the mafia law.

Because as far as I can tell, migini has claimed both, yet they are mutually exclusive ( which means he's a liar).
Click to expand...

Mignini said she had the right (and the duty) of appointing a lawyer, not a right to immediate counsel. The art. 104 procedure code is not a "mafia law".
 
Machiavelli said:
It is not a nuance, it is called a statement.
Click to expand...

It's only a statement if it meets the pre-conditions of being one.

One of the pre-conditions of a spontaneous statement is the spontaniety. Having an official standing over you and heavily implying that you can just make a statement, and then staying in the room until you make one even though their duties have been discharged and there is no legal compulsion or pragmatic reason for them to still be standing there (unless they are standing there to induce a "spontaneous statement"), removes the spontaneity.

If Italian prosecutors are allowed to collect 'spontaneous' statements by standing over the person until they make one, then you need to stop calling them spontaneous.
 
acbytesla said:
The thing is that you are lying about Amanda lying. One of you is a liar and it isn't who you say it is.
Click to expand...

Amanda Knox does not need another person to contradict her, she is able to do that herself.
What are you accusing me of lying about?
 
Skind said:
Where is the evidence that she knew that she was making a statement?
Where is the evidence that she knew the difference between a statement as informally defined and a spontaneous statement under law?
Where is the evidence that she knew she was making a statement to a person that could legally recieve it?
Click to expand...

You see what happens when you le like this, Machiavelli? Questions like this are asked.

What I do not get is why you would knowingly lie. You've won, Machiavelli. They are convicted. Wrongfully convicted, but convicted just the same. (With the caveat of confirmation by Cassazione, the architects of this travesty.)

Why don't you just sit back and gloat? Why continue to bald-faced lie? Your lies have won the day! Deal with it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom