Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Hahahahahahahah. The chutzpah!

What did de Felice say then? Were you there in person to hear what he said? Because it was reported pretty much verbatim in several media outlets that he'd said exactly what I said he said. So who's in the realm of "wild inventions" here?

Not there, I just remember that I've read what he said verbatim in a newspaper, and I remember (at the time I was not even itnerested in the knox case) that understood perfectly, and I understood something quite different. You are the person who makes wild claims - yes, you, not me - and yours is the chutzpah (the chutzpah of ignorance). You didn't quote anyting verbatim, because what you have quoted could have been only an English translation.
I know that there was a wrong translation that was picked by English papers, and lead to this myth. You don't. Because you never understood De Felice's words in their meaning in teir original language in the first place. You chose to believe a wrong translation.

It is also a self-evident fact that the pro-Knox main site is packed with lies, presents lies in rows from line 1 in presentation paragraphs, come on you can see that! They adjusted with lies even their translation of the B/M verdict! Do "innocents" need to hide themselves behind this kind of curtain of lies?

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli translated the Drew Griffin CNN interview with Mignini from 2010, from Italian to English - Machiavelli knows very well that Mignini concedes that by the end of the 1:45 am interrogation (at least) all of Knox's rights as a suspect should have kicked in.

How Mignini fudges all of that is that he told Knox (acc. to his narrative of the events leading up to the 5:45 am memorale) that he would act as if only a notary, if she wanted to continue making "spontaneous" statements.

That is how Mignini explains that her rights were not violated, and Machiavelli is not only singing off of that songsheet, he himself translated Mignini's words.

​

Mignini's words to Drew Griffin, which Machiavelli graciously translated so that we could read them, seem at first blush to be relevant to this. Mignini admits she needed a lawyer.....

..... then he proceeds without one.
(...)

No. Mignini was not there. You re-invent even the Griffin interview. Mignini never says he was there! This is what you always do Bill! You re-invent the words of others.
Mignini makes it very clear actually in numerous occasions that he was not present at the interogation, never interrupted an interrogation (they - they police - reportedly interrupted it, not him), this is what is said even in all court testimonies. You can't be so dishonest and dull.

 

[Machiavelli]

"Today the tide has turned. We are destroying them" - Baghdad Bob (Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf).

Time to realise that you've been wrong all along about this trial process. Time perhaps also to evaluate the way you analyse cases like this one, and whether you in fact have the required level of objectivity, insight and understanding to enable any kind of fair, balanced analysis (let alone any type of analysis which is borne out by events). Or you can just continue to shout about how correct you are, even as the tanks roll into Baghdad. Your prerogative

I take note that you have no argument. You don't bring any argument, don't point any fact, you only present void rhetoric, this is a fact.

 

[Bill Williams]

No. Mignini was not there. You re-invent even the Griffin interview. Mignini never says he was there! This is what you always do Bill! You re-invent the words of others.
Mignini makes it very clear actually in numerous occasions that he was not present at the interogation, never interrupted an interrogation (they - they police - reportedly interrupted it, not him), this is what is said even in all court testimonies. You can't be so dishonest and dull.

Machiavelli - Mignini told Drew Griffin:

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”.​

Do you care to revise your claim above?

 

[Machiavelli]

No no no! Stop being logical and intelligent! Mach knows that his interpretations and inferences are FACTS, and that he is not - and cannot - be wrong!

My interpretations and inferences are certainly not predictions.

One might discuss them and disprove them with arguments. Logical arguments. Only you have none.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli - Mignini told Drew Griffin:

​

Do you care to revise your claim above?

Bill, you decide you want to play the fool? You act as one, don't you?

Mignini said arrived later. About after 2 am. This has always been his claim. And has always been consistent.
Where do you see him disproving this claim? Nowhere. There is no passage in Griffin's interview that contradicts his version.
There is not even a defence claim that contradicts it during the investigation phase or preliminary hearings. Not even Knox's testimony in court contradicts Mignini's timings.

 

[Kauffer]

"many"? I didn't make "many" predictions. And those "predictions" that I have done (but how many?) were just assessments of probability based on law (I may have talked about probabilities). And btw, they were also basically correct. But it's not my job making predictions, that's not what I do. You stupids think that "predictions" are a kind of important thing because only because this is what interests you and what you would like to have from me - instead wht I report is only facts. Yes if they are not facts I am wrong, but they are. Talking about things unseen to expect: the B/M verdict is indeed extraordinary and unseen in law: it is a political monstrum in fact, something crazy not a piece of law. It is not possible to "predict" (let's say to expect) something like that; but I did expect that something wery wrong was going on when I heared that the person speaking was Bruno, and when I heared him spelling the same code statement uttered by Zanetti. It is a matter of fact that 35+ judges agreed with me - not with you - on almost everything. It is also a matter of fact that even the crazy Bruno/Marasca (the latter the former minister of finance of a city that went bankrupt) call it a "proven fact" that Knox was on the murder scene when Knox was killed and washed her hands of Meredith's blook; and emphasize that it is "incontrovertible" that the murderers ar multiple and that Knox was a malicious liar; and dismisses as ridicule the idea that a finding of a violation by ECHR could change the verdict in the calunnia case. Yes they said this, it's fact.

Your arguments are the craziest things to come out of Italy since Caligula made his horse a consul and served him gold flakes for his supper. Nevertheless, I do sympathise. After all, there was all that damning evidence of Knox in Kercher's room to call on in support of your thesis wasn't there? I mean, how could they get that wrong? After all, when there's a bloody murder in a small room there's going to be a huge amount of forensic evidence identifying the perpetrator. You can't wash blood off your hands if you weren't in the room, now, could you?

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, you decide you want to play the fool? You act as one, don't you?

Mignini said arrived later. About after 2 am. This has always been his claim. And has always been consistent.
Where do you see him disproving this claim? Nowhere. There is no passage in Griffin's interview that contradicts his version.
There is not even a defence claim that contradicts it during the investigation phase or preliminary hearings. Not even Knox's testimony in court contradicts Mignini's timings.

Nice bait an switch. It seems it is now up to the ECHR to determine if that part after Mignini says, "I went to Amanda," constitutes part of the interrogation. I'm sure you'll think of some reason why it does not; which of course will also be part of what the ECHR hears.


Keep on keeping on, Mach.

 

[Numbers]

It's rather absurd that the arguments here continue.

The ECHR has communicated Amanda Knox's application, claiming that Italy violated her Convention rights by allegedly unfairly convicting her of calunnia based upon statements she made under alleged coercion and duress, to Italy.

None of the absurd arguments posted by guilters on this forum will have any influence on the ECHR case, and they certainly don't bring any clarity to the understanding of how the ECHR proceeds in such cases.

As one poster here has pointed out, the ECHR has, for the moment, assigned an "importance" of 3 - the lowest level - to this case. That does not mean that the case is not of importance to the victim or others, but it does mean that the ECHR expects that no new legal ground - that is, no new case law - will be generated by this case. It seems to ECHR that they can judge it simply on the basis of existing case law.

Some posters here, including myself, have presented summaries of that existing case-law, for example, regarding interrogation without a lawyer, Ibrahim et al. v. the UK and all its citations back to Salduz v. Turkey.

There can be only one reasonable outcome based on that case-law.

BTW, here is the ECHR text explaining what the "importance" level means:

Case Reports: Judgments, decisions and advisory opinions delivered since the inception
of the new Court in 1998 which have been published or selected for publication in the
Court's official Reports of Judgments and Decisions. The selection from 2007 onwards
has been made by the Bureau of the Court following a proposal by the Jurisconsult.
Judgments of the former Court (published in Series A and Reports of Judgments and
Decisions) and cases published in the former Commission's series Decisions and Reports
have not been included in the Case Reports category and are therefore classified by
levels 1, 2 and 3 only.
1 = High importance: All judgments, decisions and advisory opinions not included in the
Case Reports which make a significant contribution to the development, clarification or
modification of its case-law, either generally or in relation to a particular State.
2 = Medium importance: Other judgments, decisions and advisory opinions which, while
not making a significant contribution to the case-law, nevertheless go beyond merely
applying existing case-law.
3 = Low importance: Judgments, decisions and advisory opinions of little legal interest,
namely judgments and decisions that simply apply existing case-law, friendly
settlements and strike outs (unless raising a particular point of interest).
The importance levels are mentioned in the Case Details which accompanies each
judgment or decision.

Thus, the "importance" is whether or not the ECHR expects that the case will generate new case law, or rather will it merely require the application of existing case law. An importance of 3 means that the ECHR believes at this point that only existing case law will be required to formulate a judgment in this case. That does not mean that the case is not important to the persons who are the victims of violations of the Convention.

Source: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/HUDOC_FAQ_ENG.pdf

 

[LondonJohn]

Not there, I just remember that I've read what he said verbatim in a newspaper, and I remember (at the time I was not even itnerested in the knox case) that understood perfectly, and I understood something quite different. You are the person who makes wild claims - yes, you, not me - and yours is the chutzpah (the chutzpah of ignorance). You didn't quote anyting verbatim, because what you have quoted could have been only an English translation.
I know that there was a wrong translation that was picked by English papers, and lead to this myth. You don't. Because you never understood De Felice's words in their meaning in teir original language in the first place. You chose to believe a wrong translation.

So why don't you inform us all then of your "understanding" of what de Felice said? Tell us the words, and their "meaning in their original language", and just how/why the terms referring to Knox "buckling" and "telling us what we already knew to be correct" could have been so incorrectly translated into English. This should be entertaining

It is also a self-evident fact that the pro-Knox main site is packed with lies, presents lies in rows from line 1 in presentation paragraphs, come on you can see that! They adjusted with lies even their translation of the B/M verdict! Do "innocents" need to hide themselves behind this kind of curtain of lies?

Ah, more "self-evident facts" I see. Oh dear. And in any case, all of that is totally irrelevant to the underlying matter. But while you're ranting about "the main pro-Knox site", perhaps you'll enlighten us all as to why the "main pro-Mignini sites" are so jam-packed with lies and misrepresentations? Or does that rule apply to one "side" and not the "other" in this bizarro world?

Actually, a more relevant and important question to ask would be why so many figures in the Italian police and prosecutors' office lied, dissembled, obfuscated and misdirected in this case. That's rather more relevant to the misapplication of justice than a few obscure online forums, dontcha think?

Anyhow I'm off to bed. Some of us sleep occasionally.........

 

[LondonJohn]

My interpretations and inferences are certainly not predictions.

One might discuss them and disprove them with arguments. Logical arguments. Only you have none.

Oh dear oh dear. I've set out my arguments on these pages over many years now. And guess what: in substance, they've pretty much all been borne out by events. Yours have not. You're wrong. And you're fatally biased and incapable of making rational judgements in this case. But as I said, do carry on - it's entertaining to have you keep popping up at times like this to tell us all how correct you are

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach (and most/all pro-guilt commentators for that matter) signally fails to understand (or perhaps wilfully chooses to ignore) that even if one accepts that Knox entered that interrogation room on the night of 5th/6th November as nothing more than a witness* (and thus with no need to be informed of her rights or provided with a lawyer), the fact remains that as soon as Knox "buckled" and made her verbal "confession/accusation", everything should have stopped at that precise moment. As soon as those words had left Knox's lips, the police should have terminated proceedings, placed Knox under arrest, informed her of her rights, and told her to get a lawyer. Before any statement was typed up and given to her to sign. Before she made her second statement. And then the PM should have seen her the next day after she had had a chance to consult with her lawyer, and in the presence of her lawyer, and asked her if she wanted to confirm what she had said the previous night and sign a statement to that effect.
(...)

I just note that there are several legal idiocies in the above paragraph.
1) the police cannot declare someone a formal suspect; they can stop interrogation if they think there could be a legal instance, but they have to wait for a magistrate, because they don't have a power to declare someone a suspect; they cannot decide themselves, they cannot inform suspects of their rights.
2) the interrogation did stop at 01.45, where she is reported saying "I confusely remember Lumumba killed her". The interrogation does stop at that point, when she places evidence of herself at the scene of murder. At that point there was no interrogation, and she was given a chamonille tee.
3) the Italian Procedure Code though allows to collect statements also from suspects without a lawyer, in condition of diminshed right of defence, if it's deemed useful for the immediacy of investigation;
4) there is no law prohibiting a PM to see a potential suspect before he/she sees a lawyer; not only, the legal provisions are quite the opposite; the Code stays that the police shall place the person of itnerest at disposition of the magistrate "without waiting", the sooner the better. No one-day-waiting at all! That is just one of your gracious inventions. The PM shall see the person immediately if possible. Only then, the PM can decide whether he/she is a suspect and then tell the suspect about his/her rights. Not before.
5) the PM cannot ask a person "to confirm what he/she told to the police"; the PM does not interrogate the person; it's the ivestigation judge the first person that interrogates the suspects.

Do you see how ignorant you are?
It's unbelievable.
After all thse years, your grasp of the law is so miserable... I'm speechless

Btw Amanda Knox also wrote multiple pieces of paper herself, she did so "voluntarily" and gave them "voluntarily" without being requested byt anyone. Those writings further place false evidence against Lumumba.
Amanda Knox then refused to respond when it was the turn of the prelimiary judge, the one who could have actualy interrogate her.

 

[Machiavelli]

Oh dear oh dear. I've set out my arguments on these pages over many years now. And guess what: in substance, they've pretty much all been borne out by events. Yours have not. You're wrong. And you're fatally biased and incapable of making rational judgements in this case. But as I said, do carry on - it's entertaining to have you keep popping up at times like this to tell us all how correct you are

Arguments like the idiocies you make up about the procedure code in your post above?

 

[Bill Williams]

I just note that there are several legal idiocies in the above paragraph.
1) the police cannot declare someone a formal suspect; they can stop interrogation if they think there could be a legal instance, but they have to wait for a magistrate, because they don't have a power to declare someone a suspect; they cannot decide themselves, they cannot inform suspects of their rights.
2) the interrogation did stop at 01.45, where she is reported saying "I confusely remember Lumumba killed her". The interrogation does stop at that point, when she places evidence of herself at the scene of murder. At that point there was no interrogation, and she was given a chamonille tee.
3) the Italian Procedure Code though allows to collect statements also from suspects without a lawyer, in condition of diminshed right of defence, if it's deemed useful for the immediacy of investigation;
4) there is no law prohibiting a PM to see a potential suspect before he/she sees a lawyer; not only, the legal provisions are quite the opposite; the Code stays that the police shall place the person of itnerest at disposition of the magistrate "without waiting", the sooner the better. No one-day-waiting at all! That is just one of your gracious inventions. The PM shall see the person immediately if possible. Only then, the PM can decide whether he/she is a suspect and then tell the suspect about his/her rights. Not before.
5) the PM cannot ask a person "to confirm what he/she told to the police"; the PM does not interrogate the person; it's the ivestigation judge the first person that interrogates the suspects.

You're telling us what a PM can and cannot do. The ECHR will decide what, in fact, Mignini did. The CNN/Griffin interview will go a long way to hanging Mignini.

Ok, Machiavelli, this is your cue to spew ad hominem.

 

[LondonJohn]

I just note that there are several legal idiocies in the above paragraph.
1) the police cannot declare someone a formal suspect; they can stop interrogation if they think there could be a legal instance, but they have to wait for a magistrate, because they don't have a power to declare someone a suspect; they cannot decide themselves, they cannot inform suspects of their rights.
2) the interrogation did stop at 01.45, where she is reported saying "I confusely remember Lumumba killed her". The interrogation does stop at that point, when she places evidence of herself at the scene of murder. At that point there was no interrogation, and she was given a chamonille tee.
3) the Italian Procedure Code though allows to collect statements also from suspects without a lawyer, in condition of diminshed right of defence, if it's deemed useful for the immediacy of investigation;
4) there is no law prohibiting a PM to see a potential suspect before he/she sees a lawyer; not only, the legal provisions are quite the opposite; the Code stays that the police shall place the person of itnerest at disposition of the magistrate "without waiting", the sooner the better. No one-day-waiting at all! That is just one of your gracious inventions. The PM shall see the person immediately if possible. Only then, the PM can decide whether he/she is a suspect and then tell the suspect about his/her rights. Not before.
5) the PM cannot ask a person "to confirm what he/she told to the police"; the PM does not interrogate the person; it's the ivestigation judge the first person that interrogates the suspects.

Do you see how ignorant you are?
It's unbelievable.
After all thse years, your grasp of the law is so miserable... I'm speechless

Btw Amanda Knox also wrote multiple pieces of paper herself, she did so "voluntarily" and gave them "voluntarily" without being requested byt anyone. Those writings further place false evidence against Lumumba.
Amanda Knox then refused to respond when it was the turn of the prelimiary judge, the one who could have actualy interrogate her.

You're very angry, aren't you?!

Why did the police type up Knox's verbal statement and present it back to her to sign, all without informing her of her rights or status? You're screwed on that point alone. And I'm guessing you know perfectly well that the "get-out" clauses in the code allowing for police to collect statements from suspects without a lawyer etc are only applicable in the instance of real, immediate and clear danger. In this case, even if the police were convinced that Lumumba was the killer, he'd already been "at large" for over three days. There was no need to arrest him that was so extraordinarily urgent that the police could invoke special powers. It's the same sleight of hand that Mignini used in denying Knox and Sollecito proper access to counsel on 6th and 7th November. Experienced police and prosecutors knowingly gaming the rules for their own ends. Corruption under another name.

But if it suits you to keep expressing dramatic incredulity at my "ignorance", then carry on by all means! I'll particularly enjoy you telling me how ignorant and incorrect I am when the ECHR finds for Knox, and Italy has no choice but to annul her criminal slander conviction. Just as I enjoyed you telling every pro-acquittal commentator how wrong they were and how correct you were when the murder convictions were thrown out by the Supreme Court. Or maybe you'll slip away into the shadows quietly when the last part of the grandiose pro-Mignini folly crumbles to dust and rubble. I guess only time will tell.....

 

[Machiavelli]

So why don't you inform us all then of your "understanding" of what de Felice said? Tell us the words, and their "meaning in their original language", and just how/why the terms referring to Knox "buckling" and "telling us what we already knew to be correct" could have been so incorrectly translated into English. This should be entertaining

I did inform you already. But maybe you forgot.
What De Felice said is (my paraphrase): "we were aware (we knew, we understood) that the accounts this witness was giving us before were false; we also understand (we know) that there is something true in the new version that she presented".

Ah, more "self-evident facts" I see. Oh dear. And in any case, all of that is totally irrelevant to the underlying matter. But while you're ranting about "the main pro-Knox site", perhaps you'll enlighten us all as to why the "main pro-Mignini sites" are so jam-packed with lies and misrepresentations? Or does that rule apply to one "side" and not the "other" in this bizarro world?

Actually, a more relevant and important question to ask would be why so many figures in the Italian police and prosecutors' office lied, dissembled, obfuscated and misdirected in this case. That's rather more relevant to the misapplication of justice than a few obscure online forums, dontcha think?

And what are your evidences?
Btw, do you know Maori is under investigation and cautionarily disbarred from courts for tampering with DNA evidence? And do you know it's because what his expert witness Onofri (also investigated) confessed? Onofri happens to belong to Tagliabracci's institute at the Marche Univrsity.
Pascali was charged with false expert report too -and he was caught by Stefanoni.
Vecchiotti was found guilty of gross negligence in a civil trial on a famous murder case.
Brizioli (another lawyer of Sollecito) as a young man was the member of a mob related to secret services in the sixties.
Have you counted how many supporters belonging to pro-Knox and pro-Sollecito mob have either records or currently problems with justice?
Ann Bremner... Frank Sfarzo... Mario Spezi... Doug Preston who was caught lying about Spezi by Mignini? Raffaele Sollecito himself?
Even judge Bruno was investigated for mafia, while Marasca was a politician who was investigated and "saved" from a scandal because of the bankruptcy of the city of which he was the minister of finance...
Who, yout think, obfuscates and cheats?

 

[Kauffer]

I just note that there are several legal idiocies in the above paragraph.
1) the police cannot declare someone a formal suspect; they can stop interrogation if they think there could be a legal instance, but they have to wait for a magistrate, because they don't have a power to declare someone a suspect; they cannot decide themselves, they cannot inform suspects of their rights.
2) the interrogation did stop at 01.45, where she is reported saying "I confusely remember Lumumba killed her". The interrogation does stop at that point, when she places evidence of herself at the scene of murder. At that point there was no interrogation, and she was given a chamonille tee.
3) the Italian Procedure Code though allows to collect statements also from suspects without a lawyer, in condition of diminshed right of defence, if it's deemed useful for the immediacy of investigation;
4) there is no law prohibiting a PM to see a potential suspect before he/she sees a lawyer; not only, the legal provisions are quite the opposite; the Code stays that the police shall place the person of itnerest at disposition of the magistrate "without waiting", the sooner the better. No one-day-waiting at all! That is just one of your gracious inventions. The PM shall see the person immediately if possible. Only then, the PM can decide whether he/she is a suspect and then tell the suspect about his/her rights. Not before.
5) the PM cannot ask a person "to confirm what he/she told to the police"; the PM does not interrogate the person; it's the ivestigation judge the first person that interrogates the suspects.

Do you see how ignorant you are?
It's unbelievable.
After all thse years, your grasp of the law is so miserable... I'm speechless

Btw Amanda Knox also wrote multiple pieces of paper herself, she did so "voluntarily" and gave them "voluntarily" without being requested byt anyone. Those writings further place false evidence against Lumumba.
Amanda Knox then refused to respond when it was the turn of the prelimiary judge, the one who could have actualy interrogate her.

i doubt there's anything clarified in Italian law, which permits the interrogation of unrepresentated suspects other than for real emergencies such as terrorist threats etc. Otherwise, nobody would get a lawyer. But why was she given a document to sign without a lawyer to advise her? The ECHR will cut through this nonsense by relying on its well established case law on the subject.

The constitutional court may well have to intervene again with regard to realigning Italian legal culture with convention law. Remember, convention law stands above ordinary law in Italy.

 

[Annella]

I did inform you already. But maybe you forgot.
What De Felice said is (my paraphrase): "we were aware (we knew, we understood) that the accounts this witness was giving us before were false; we also understand (we know) that there is something true in the new version that she presented".





And what are your evidences?
Btw, do you know Maori is under investigation and cautionarily disbarred from courts for tampering with DNA evidence? And do you know it's because what his expert witness Onofri (also investigated) confessed? Onofri happens to belong to Tagliabracci's institute at the Marche Univrsity.
Pascali was charged with false expert report too -and he was caught by Stefanoni.
Vecchiotti was found guilty of gross negligence in a civil trial on a famous murder case.
Brizioli (another lawyer of Sollecito) as a young man was the member of a mob related to secret services in the sixties.
Have you counted how many supporters belonging to pro-Knox and pro-Sollecito mob have either records or currently problems with justice?
Ann Bremner... Frank Sfarzo... Mario Spezi... Doug Preston who was caught lying about Spezi by Mignini? Raffaele Sollecito himself?
Even judge Bruno was investigated for mafia, while Marasca was a politician who was investigated and "saved" from a scandal because of the bankruptcy of the city of which he was the minister of finance...
Who, yout think, obfuscates and cheats?

Dont you feel a little embarrassed reading this piece again Mach? What a dreadfully sad indictment on Italy!! Nothing has changed for centuries has it.

 

[Machiavelli]

You're very angry, aren't you?!

No.
Certainly not with you. Would say I am fairly disgusted by people like you, not angry. To me it's like talking to a Holocaust denier or to a fascist propaganda-guy. It's quite disgusting to see the horror of things in people's minds. But I note they are like that. I'm not shocked by single things that you say or do, I am a bit shocked by the thing you are.

Back to facts, I have shown that you are wrong about certain facts. You make claims about the law that are just plain false. Your picture of the procedure code is a fantasy. A serious, fact-checking individual just doesn't put that series of statements in a row. You apparently don't know the procedure code. Despite many years following the case, it appears you haven''t understood it a bit. It's what I witness, I can't help that. And yet, I note you make it up. And you seem to wanna lecture people about it...
What shall I think?

Why did the police type up Knox's verbal statement and present it back to her to sign, all without informing her of her rights or status? You're screwed on that point alone.

What? First I remind you of a concept, so that you don't miss it: you are the one who just wrote a series of false assumptiosn and inferences, a series of idiocies, about the procedure code. You, not me.
I pointed out what the correct facts in point of law are, in the paragraph where you were wrong. Well. Without forgetting this starting point, let's check the consistency with reality of what you jst wrote in the line quoted above.
How would anyone make sense of what you said, from a legal point of view? Why should't the police not present the minutes to sign to a witness? Not presenting minutes from a questionig for signing, would that be legal?
In fact, the police did exactly what they are supposed to do.
Stetements released to the police are papers that must always be typed and presented for signature. Always. They are not usable in courts, by definition. But they are usable for the investigating judge.

And I'm guessing you know perfectly well that the "get-out" clauses in the code allowing for police to collect statements from suspects without a lawyer etc are only applicable in the instance of real, immediate and clear danger.

Absolutely not. There is no provision in the code about "immediate and clear" danger. There is not even provision about "danger" at all. The condition is instead about the "immediate utility for the investigation". That means, whenever a delay has a potential to harm the immediate results in the investigation.

In this case, even if the police were convinced that Lumumba was the killer, he'd already been "at large" for over three days. There was no need to arrest him that was so extraordinarily urgent that the police could invoke special powers.

This is fantasy. There is nothing like that in the Procedure Code.

It's the same sleight of hand that Mignini used in denying Knox and Sollecito proper access to counsel on 6th and 7th November. Experienced police and prosecutors knowingly gaming the rules for their own ends. Corruption under another name.

Fantasy. There is a dispute about the denial of access to counsel after the 6th, because Mignini denies he ever ordered the denial of counsel and says there was a misunderstanding with Profazio, and also claims that by 12am of Nov. 7th he had already shifted powers to the investigating judge; and on the other hand, the Procedure Code also provides for the denial of counsel whenever there is some danger that multiple suspects could somehow send messages one another, which in my opinion is valid in the case of Knox ("blood on hands... but probably fish").
But all this is not relevant to the point, because it doesn't change the fact that Knox wrote her handwritten notes voluntarily. Those statements were released by her and her alone, not by "experienced police".

But if it suits you to keep expressing dramatic incredulity at my "ignorance", then carry on by all means! I'll particularly enjoy you telling me how ignorant and incorrect I am when the ECHR finds for Knox, and Italy has no choice but to annul her criminal slander conviction.

What? Aren't you a bit running fast?
And don't you know that defnintive convictions cannot be annulled?
In the very best and exceptionally optimistic case, she could get a trial review, one day. I doubt.

Just as I enjoyed you telling every pro-acquittal commentator how wrong they were and how correct you were when the murder convictions were thrown out by the Supreme Court.

Yes, the Supreme Court wrote an idiotic toilet paper roll, it objectively violates rules and laws, this is also another matter of facts, I can't help that. I can also tell that it is obviously political. But I am telling you things of the Procedure Code that are much more on a basic knowledge level.

 

[Machiavelli]

Dont you feel a little embarrassed reading this piece again Mach? What a dreadfully sad indictment on Italy!! Nothing has changed for centuries has it.

But you are not in a position of judging Italy, Annella And that's not even interesting, actually (except maybe for certain racists)

Italy is the land of Machiavelli, other countries are lands of genocides or racial laws, and that doesn't change the fact Amanda Knox is a murderer