Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

Possibly. Or just simply to indicate the presence of "someone else".

Oh, I think there was ample evidence of "someone else" in Meredith's bedroom.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Your retreating. Now its the prison guards let the media go in knox's cell and copy her diary.

Straw man.

My argument is that multiple people from multiple departments and factions (including the defence) had the opportunity of access, ergo, it is not possible to determine the source of the leak. You have to prove the leak and the culprit.

This is in no way compatible to Dr Lalli who was actually working on the case and was recorded on tape leaking and the tape was broadcast on national television...it's kind of a smoking gun.

 

[katy_did]

You are either an expert of the case, or you're not an expert on the case...which one is it?

I've read as much as I can on the case, but it hadn't even occurred to me that there might be people who considered themselves to be 'experts' on it. What does one have to do to be an "expert" on the case? Do you need to take a class or what? Oddly, considering you stated I "claim to be one", I have absolutely no idea what being "an expert" on this case would entail.

And more importantly, what on earth does this have to do with anything? I think if you want to have a constructive discussion on this board, Fulc, you're going to have to start providing cites, not just dismissing people's points with glib comments that contain nothing of substance. It's not productive, it's just point-scoring sophistry, and I think the discussion on the thread deteriorates as a result.

 

[Fulcanelli]

So now I'm a liar? I have no reason to sit here and be verbally abused by people like you. I have no vested interest in this case, whether they stay in prison or not, I could care less.

I appreciate everyone who has gone out of there way to welcome me and debate with me with respect, honestly there are more of you than there are of people who don't, but unfortunately all it takes is one person to act like this for me to say enough, I don't have to take it. Nice meeting everyone, goodbye

That's what they want. Don't let them bully you out.

 

[katy_did]

Ahh, I see...you mean it means "Go away and waste time to look up stuff that everyone who knows the basics of this case knows already just to give us a break from you bullying us with facts". Get ya

This is exactly what I mean. How on earth can we discuss anything if you won't provide evidence for your claims? It's pointless.

And since there is nothing in Micheli's report about a mark on the outer shutter, looking in there for it is also pointless. The onus is on you to back up your statements.

 

[Fulcanelli]

It's all in the transcripts of the police officers' testimonies. You know where they are, surely?

Use this: KNOX AND SOLLECITO TRIAL HEARINGS TIMELINE

It tells you the dates of when certain individuals of import gave testimony. Then look up those dates in the relevant main discussion thread in the The Murder of Meredith Kercher subforum (up to two days or so after, some reports took a couple of days to be published). There, you'll find links to all the media reports and including translations of the Italian reports.

 

[Chris C]

Straw man.

My argument is that multiple people from multiple departments and factions (including the defence) had the opportunity of access, ergo, it is not possible to determine the source of the leak. You have to prove the leak and the culprit.

This is in no way compatible to Dr Lalli who was actually working on the case and was recorded on tape leaking and the tape was broadcast on national television...it's kind of a smoking gun.

You the one building the straw man. The diary was leaked while in custody of the prosecution. You know who the diary was leaked to. File criminal charges against the person it was leaked to. Or is it not illegal to access material while its in custody of the prosecution without their knowledge?

 

[katy_did]

Use this: KNOX AND SOLLECITO TRIAL HEARINGS TIMELINE

It tells you the dates of when certain individuals of import gave testimony. Then look up those dates in the relevant main discussion thread in the The Murder of Meredith Kercher subforum (up to two days or so after, some reports took a couple of days to be published). There, you'll find links to all the media reports and including translations of the Italian reports.

AAAAARGH...

That's not how it works. You make a claim, you back it up with evidence. You don't tell people to go search through pages from another forum to back up the claims you made.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Hows it going to make it worse? What are they going to charge her with? They made the accusation that she was there first. So if she asked for a lawyer what are they going to arrest her for. She went from being a witness to a suspect the moment the accusation that she was hiding something, lieing, or was at the apartment and is lieing about it. So now that they have established she is a suspect, by law she is required a lawyer. So how does it make it worse for her. She is a suspect. The supreme court even ruled she was a suspect. Her phone was tapped. She is a suspect. So at what point does her asking if she needs a lawyer make it worse. Are you saying that because she is a suspect they have to arrest her? Why are suspects required to be arrested if they want a lawyer?

They'd arrest her...put her in jail.

Suspects aren't arrested if they demand lawyers, witnesses are.

She was told it would make it worse for her BEFORE she was made a suspect and arrested, not after.

No, she's wasn't entitled to a lawyer merely by being made a suspect. She was only entitled to a lawyer if she was interrogated further. As soon as they made her a suspect, they kalted the interrogation (she was made a suspect at 1:45 am. The interrogation was halted at 1:45 am). It is not status that defines the requirement, but the action performed by the ILE while under that status.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I've read as much as I can on the case, but it hadn't even occurred to me that there might be people who considered themselves to be 'experts' on it. What does one have to do to be an "expert" on the case? Do you need to take a class or what? Oddly, considering you stated I "claim to be one", I have absolutely no idea what being "an expert" on this case would entail.

And more importantly, what on earth does this have to do with anything? I think if you want to have a constructive discussion on this board, Fulc, you're going to have to start providing cites, not just dismissing people's points with glib comments that contain nothing of substance. It's not productive, it's just point-scoring sophistry, and I think the discussion on the thread deteriorates as a result.

I see...you're not an expert on the case and as someone not an expert on the case you all the same assert innocence on behalf of Amanda and Raffaele? Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Fulcanelli]

This is exactly what I mean. How on earth can we discuss anything if you won't provide evidence for your claims? It's pointless.

And since there is nothing in Micheli's report about a mark on the outer shutter, looking in there for it is also pointless. The onus is on you to back up your statements.

Ha...it's not as if we've been drowning in cites from you lately, is it?

 

[Chris C]

They'd arrest her...put her in jail.

Suspects aren't arrested if they demand lawyers, witnesses are.

She was told it would make it worse for her BEFORE she was made a suspect and arrested, not after.

No, she's wasn't entitled to a lawyer merely by being made a suspect. She was only entitled to a lawyer if she was interrogated further. As soon as they made her a suspect, they kalted the interrogation (she was made a suspect at 1:45 am. The interrogation was halted at 1:45 am). It is not status that defines the requirement, but the action performed by the ILE while under that status.

Well apparently the Supreme Court ruled she was a suspect at the time of those statements so she was entitled a lawyer. Which means her asking for a lawyer when your a suspect was her right. Which means if she would have asked for a lawyer and they arrested her, they would be violating her rights. Which they did by not allowing her to have a lawyer. So either way the police violated her rights.

All that being said, the SUPREME COURT ruled she was a suspect. Thats right, the Supreme Court.

 

[Fulcanelli]

You the one building the straw man. The diary was leaked while in custody of the prosecution. You know who the diary was leaked to. File criminal charges against the person it was leaked to. Or is it not illegal to access material while its in custody of the prosecution without their knowledge?

She wan't in the custody of the prosecution, she was in the custody of Capanne prison under order of an Italian court.

 

[Fulcanelli]

AAAAARGH...

That's not how it works. You make a claim, you back it up with evidence. You don't tell people to go search through pages from another forum to back up the claims you made.

I'm telling you to wipe your own bum...I'm not wiping it for you.

 

[Chris C]

She wan't in the custody of the prosecution, she was in the custody of Capanne prison under order of an Italian court.

The diary was in custody of the prosecution.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Well apparently the Supreme Court ruled she was a suspect at the time of those statements so she was entitled a lawyer. Which means her asking for a lawyer when your a suspect was her right. Which means if she would have asked for a lawyer and they arrested her, they would be violating her rights. Which they did by not allowing her to have a lawyer. So either way the police violated her rights.

All that being said, the SUPREME COURT ruled she was a suspect. Thats right, the Supreme Court.

The High Court ruled she became a suspect at 1:45 am. At 1:45 am the interrogation was over. A lawyer was only required if she was to be interrogated again. She wasn't, until December 2007...at which time she had two lawyers present.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The diary was in custody of the prosecution.

Was it? Did Mignini come and get it himself? Did he walk into her cell and take it?

 

[Dan O.]

I always have understood it at 11AM as well, not as 11PM as Fulcanelli has stated.

Maybe she was confused on the date and was talking about 11AM on November 3 when Amanda was to return to the police station after being kept there till 530 that morning from the afternoon before.

I can sympathize with Amanda's need to stretch after being kept up so long and such a short night to recuperate. It wasn't until the 5th that Amanda thought she was going to have one day free from questioning. But that of course was a school day and she had to be up early for classes.


Yes, Amanda probably did some stretching on the 5th and it was quite probably after they started the informal questioning around 10:32PM. After half an hour of questions by the first team that was sent in with the easy pitches just to get her talking, Amanda would be thinking "oh boy, here we go again!" and taken the opportunity to do a few stretches before the second team comes in to work her over.

 

[Chris C]

Was it? Did Mignini come and get it himself? Did he walk into her cell and take it?

So now your saying the Prosecution didn't take the diary?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Maybe she was confused on the date and was talking about 11AM on November 3 when Amanda was to return to the police station after being kept there till 530 that morning from the afternoon before.

I can sympathize with Amanda's need to stretch after being kept up so long and such a short night to recuperate. It wasn't until the 5th that Amanda thought she was going to have one day free from questioning. But that of course was a school day and she had to be up early for classes.


Yes, Amanda probably did some stretching on the 5th and it was quite probably after they started the informal questioning around 10:32PM. After half an hour of questions by the first team that was sent in with the easy pitches just to get her talking, Amanda would be thinking "oh boy, here we go again!" and taken the opportunity to do a few stretches before the second team comes in to work her over.

Or maybe the reporter just made a typo.

It matters not, several police testified to the cartwheels and times.