Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Strozzi]

A bit OTT. No one thinks the Italian police tortured Knox. Intimidated maybe, tortured, NO.

"Intimidated" is not the right word. It was much more than intimidation. I believe the police interrogation caused psychological harm (trauma).

 

[Kauffer]

Mignini and Machiavelli are not on the same page. Mach said she was 'strongly suspected' already when she arrived at the Q. True, per Mach, she was not strongly suspected of murder but only of the trivial offence of covering up a murder so, his argument presumably runs, she was fair game to be interrogated about the murder without a lawyer, tape running, comfort breaks etc. There must be a flaw in his argument somewhere but I can't think what Hopefully the ECHR will figure it out

It really doesn't matter what she was suspected of - the point is she was suspected. She gets a lawyer, caution, right to silence etc etc. I think they were chasing down Lumumba, principally, that night, but "knew" Amanda was involved. They needed her to implicate him in order to justify his arrest. Fools. They could have quietly investigated whether or not he had an alibi. Instead they rushed to judgement.

 

[Strawberry]

Could someone help me out here? I am not a member of Mensa, have never helped write a book about the case using made up facts and downright lies, or a native Italian speaker, so maybe that is my problem. But as I understand things:

There is no evidence Amanda ever traded sex for drugs.

In fact it was Meredith in a relationship with a drug producer.

There are no phone records showing Amanda in contact with any drug dealers.

Amanda's list of sexual partners, made while she was frightened for her life, does not show this abundance of conquests in Italy as some have implied.

There is no evidence of Amanda or Raff at the murder scene.

The courts have decided that basically what evidence there was, was fabricated or overly exaggerated.

There is no evidence that Meredith and Amanda were not on friendly terms.

There is no evidence Amanda and Raff had any more than a fleeting acquaintance with Guede.

There is certainly no record of any phone or email contact between them.

Yet we are still supposed to believe they are guilty.

Have I missed anything?

No, that's pretty much the size of it. You did omit such vital details as Amanda shopping for knickers two days after the murder and turning a cartwheel, but I think your understanding of the case will survive without them.

 

[anglolawyer]

It really doesn't matter what she was suspected of - the point is she was suspected. She gets a lawyer, caution, right to silence etc etc. I think they were chasing down Lumumba, principally, that night, but "knew" Amanda was involved. They needed her to implicate him in order to justify his arrest. Fools. They could have quietly investigated whether or not he had an alibi. Instead they rushed to judgement.

Trite, but true.

 

[carbonjam72]

A bit OTT. No one thinks the Italian police tortured Knox. Intimidated maybe, tortured, NO.

I would. Not in the sense of physical torture. But clearly this was psychological torture.

It was intended to "break" the defendant, both Amanda and Raf, and it did. They both experienced psychological breaks, which they both described in their books as taking about 10 days to 2 weeks to wear off.

It's an induced form of mental dissociation and suggestion to coerce false confessions "believed at the time" by the victims.
So broken on the wheel? No.

Broken in the mind? Absolutely. (And physical slaps from Ficarra are part of the process).

This was torture. It was deliberate, sustained, and they didn't stop until they got what they wanted: Patrick Lumumba.

 

[carbonjam72]

Could someone help me out here? I am not a member of Mensa, have never helped write a book about the case using made up facts and downright lies, or a native Italian speaker, so maybe that is my problem. But as I understand things:

There is no evidence Amanda ever traded sex for drugs.

In fact it was Meredith in a relationship with a drug producer.

There are no phone records showing Amanda in contact with any drug dealers.

Amanda's list of sexual partners, made while she was frightened for her life, does not show this abundance of conquests in Italy as some have implied.

There is no evidence of Amanda or Raff at the murder scene.

The courts have decided that basically what evidence there was, was fabricated or overly exaggerated.

There is no evidence that Meredith and Amanda were not on friendly terms.

There is no evidence Amanda and Raff had any more than a fleeting acquaintance with Guede.

There is certainly no record of any phone or email contact between them.

Yet we are still supposed to believe they are guilty.

Have I missed anything?

Yes, Raf had never met Guede.

Although Guede did live close by Raf, something like a few hundred feet further down the road, so he may have seen him in the street. But there's no record of any association of any kind between Raf and Guede, and I think the motivation report makes this point as well.

If it weren't for the guys downstairs, Amanda wouldn't have known Guede either. Totally different people, on totally different tracks in life.

 

[Mr Fied]

Yes, Raf had never met Guede.

Although Guede did live close by Raf, something like a few hundred feet further down the road, so he may have seen him in the street. But there's no record of any association of any kind between Raf and Guede, and I think the motivation report makes this point as well.

If it weren't for the guys downstairs, Amanda wouldn't have known Guede either. Totally different people, on totally different tracks in life.

Should have said Amanda OR Raff.

Didn't want to get into the old argument of whether they "knew" each other

 

[analemma]

A bit OTT. No one thinks the Italian police tortured Knox. Intimidated maybe, tortured, NO.

"Intimidated maybe"?
A bit OTT.

 

[Kauffer]

Trite, but true.

Every argument is now trite. The ECHR will provide a little originality, I'm sure.

 

[Strawberry]

Every argument is now trite. The ECHR will provide a little originality, I'm sure.

When is the ECHR likely to hear the case does anyone know?

 

[anglolawyer]

Every argument is now trite. The ECHR will provide a little originality, I'm sure.

Quite. We could save ourselves a little virtual ink by not repeating these every 5 bleedin' minutes.

 

[Diocletus]

Well quite. Mignini's ruse was designed to overcome the legal problem associated with the 1:45 statement, which he realised could not be used. She should have clearly had a lawyer at that point (even if she should have had one before) and questioning stopped. By asserting that events after 1:45 were Amanda being spontaneous and voluntary, he was attempting to create a situation in which lawyerless statements could be used against her. It's nonsense, because he was obviously interrogating her. His ruse worked, of course, for a considerable time.

Except the idiot failed even to get this one right. The ECHR doesn't care about so-called "spontaneity." All it cares about is whether there has been a knowing and intentional waiver of the right to counsel. Ordinarily, this requires the suspect to have had access to counsel in order to make an informed waiver. At the very least, you would have thought that Mignini would have written on the bottom of the "statement": "I have been informed of my right to counsel and with full appreciation of my rights, I hereby waive my right to counsel." But, he wasn't that smart, so all we have is a signed statement, which on its face is violative of Knox's right to counsel.

 

[Diocletus]

Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki 6h6 hours ago Imola, Emilia Romagna

#calunnia trial of #amandaknox in #Florence: Mignini said Knox was not clearly a suspect to him by the 05:45 interrogation.


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Er . . . Remember when Hellman convicted Knox of calunnia, which conviction Chieffi confirmed, and Hellman said this:

"The obsessive length of the interrogations, carried out during [both] day and night, by more than one person, on a young and foreign girl who at the time did not speak Italian at all well, was unaware of her own rights, did not have the assistance of an attorney (which she should have been entitled to, being at this point suspected of very serious crimes) . . ."

I guess Mignini forgot about that.

Also, if Knox wasn't a suspect before Mignini had her sign the 5.45 statement, then when was it that she became a suspect, given the fact that Mignini drew up the arrest warrant just a few hours later?

Mignini is a liar.

 

[Kauffer]

Except the idiot failed even to get this one right. The ECHR doesn't care about so-called "spontaneity." All it cares about is whether there has been a knowing and intentional waiver of the right to counsel. Ordinarily, this requires the suspect to have had access to counsel in order to make an informed waiver. At the very least, you would have thought that Mignini would have written on the bottom of the "statement": "I have been informed of my right to counsel and with full appreciation of my rights, I hereby waive my right to counsel." But, he wasn't that smart, so all we have is a signed statement, which on its face is violative of Knox's right to counsel.

Yes, exactly right. But Mignini was not cogniscent of the ECHR and Gemelli argued that Italian law, contrary to convention law permitted a consideration of the statement. Yet Italian constitutional law commands that where an ordinary Italian law is incapable of being interpreted in accordance with the convention it should be struck out.

 

[Kauffer]

When is the ECHR likely to hear the case does anyone know?

I would suggest not before this time next year. The first we will hear if they follow the most likely process is that the case has been "communicated" to Italy. Such an event will be published. Then Italy responds; then Amanda's lawyer rebuts. Then they try to reach a friendly settlement (which I do not believe is possible, for a number of reasons). Then the case waits again for consideration by the court.

Numbers might be able to help us, if he knows the usual amount of time between a case being communicated and finally being judged.

We may be looking as far as three more years - perhaps even longer. Then the case will go back to Italy and it could be a number of years again before the callunia verdict is quashed, assuming Amanda prevails at the ECHR.

 

[Bill Williams]

Ok, with apologies to Machiavelli....

There's one Italian newssource pedalling the, "they were involved in some unknown way," theory. They must have read Barbie Nadeau's CNN piece where Barbie writes that Knox "testified" that she was in the cottage that night.

Sheesh. Anyway, it's only two days since the release of the Marasca report and there's one Italian news conspiracist.

ETA - it takes the view peddled here by Machiavelli that Marasca wrote about "forte sospetto" in the sense that this is Marasca's opinion. I also says that Raffaele's DNA is definitive, and can only be time-stamped to the night of the murder, that Amanda confessed to being there (so it is a certainty that she was) and if Amanda is there then so is Raffaele, and finally that the only person who can really clear this up is Rudy Guede, and he's not talking.

 

[Strawberry]

I would suggest not before this time next year. The first we will hear if they follow the most likely process is that the case has been "communicated" to Italy. Such an event will be published. Then Italy responds; then Amanda's lawyer rebuts. Then they try to reach a friendly settlement (which I do not believe is possible, for a number of reasons). Then the case waits again for consideration by the court.

Numbers might be able to help us, if he knows the usual amount of time between a case being communicated and finally being judged.

We may be looking as far as three more years - perhaps even longer. Then the case will go back to Italy and it could be a number of years again before the callunia verdict is quashed, assuming Amanda prevails at the ECHR.

Thanks. Wow, I didn't realise it was such a slow process.

 

[acbytesla]

Could someone help me out here? I am not a member of Mensa, have never helped write a book about the case using made up facts and downright lies, or a native Italian speaker, so maybe that is my problem. But as I understand things:

There is no evidence Amanda ever traded sex for drugs.

In fact it was Meredith in a relationship with a drug producer.

There are no phone records showing Amanda in contact with any drug dealers.

Amanda's list of sexual partners, made while she was frightened for her life, does not show this abundance of conquests in Italy as some have implied.

There is no evidence of Amanda or Raff at the murder scene.

The courts have decided that basically what evidence there was, was fabricated or overly exaggerated.

There is no evidence that Meredith and Amanda were not on friendly terms.
There is no evidence Amanda and Raff had any more than a fleeting acquaintance with Guede.

There is certainly no record of any phone or email contact between them.

Yet we are still supposed to believe they are guilty.

Have I missed anything?

There is actual evidence they were friendly toward each other. The roommates testimony plus the multiple emails signed with kisses.

 

[acbytesla]

I would suggest not before this time next year. The first we will hear if they follow the most likely process is that the case has been "communicated" to Italy. Such an event will be published. Then Italy responds; then Amanda's lawyer rebuts. Then they try to reach a friendly settlement (which I do not believe is possible, for a number of reasons). Then the case waits again for consideration by the court.

Numbers might be able to help us, if he knows the usual amount of time between a case being communicated and finally being judged.

We may be looking as far as three more years - perhaps even longer. Then the case will go back to Italy and it could be a number of years again before the callunia verdict is quashed, assuming Amanda prevails at the ECHR.

Wow, that is ridiculous. So, at present. Amanda is not paying Lumumba waiting for the outcome of the ECHR? And she is unable to press her claim for 4 years of unjust imprisonment for as long as 7 years more? And that means she'll be about 40 when she might get paid? And in the mean time Mignini and his little gang of thugs are pursuing this absurdity about a slap? Italy is seriously screwed up.

 

[moije2]

Wow, that is ridiculous. So, at present. Amanda is not paying Lumumba waiting for the outcome of the ECHR? And she is unable to press her claim for 4 years of unjust imprisonment for as long as 7 years more? And that means she'll be about 40 when she might get paid? And in the mean time Mignini and his little gang of thugs are pursuing this absurdity about a slap? Italy is seriously screwed up.

Hi AC. Agreed in general.

I would just like to point out the danger in the hi-lited part. Of course Mignini and cohorts must have a lot of time on their hands to pursue this silly last ditch effort to stick something - anything it appears - to AK. I have been guilty in the past of saying "Italy" when it is particular players involved that deserve criticism. This is the part that I imagine rankles Machiavelli, and I understand it. There are many fine people in Italy so we should exercise caution in this regard. MOO.

Another topic.

I find interesting how much devotion Machiavelli has to Mignini and the ILE. Not one word of criticism. Yet he is merciless with his derogatory libelous comments of many of the Supreme Court justices. One would hope, as an insider to the Italian courts, that he can somehow translate part of his energy into reform of the system which he finds intolerable. It must be painful to live under a system you despise so much. And for him it is not just this case, but every other case affecting the thread and fabric of life in his country.