Did You Know Whips Have Crackers?
How it Works2 mins ago
Foxy Noxy Off Again !
96 Answers
http://
What on earth is going on here, is the Italian justice system really that bad?
What on earth is going on here, is the Italian justice system really that bad?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Implicating Patrick Lumumba
During the five days immediately following Meredith's murder, Amanda was repeatedly interrogated. Remember that she had originally gone to the police station as a witness, to try to help piece together any clues as to what might have happened.
She consistently told the same story. She told the same story over and over and over again. She repeatedly told the truth. She did not implicate Patrick. She did not even mention Patrick Lumumba.
But the prosecution were not happy with Amanda giving a clear and consistent statement. Mignini had an agenda. He had made an arrest, a bit prematurely, and he was not going to be made to look stupid. He was still smarting from his previous investigation, where he had falsely accused a whole group of innocent people of committing crimes involving (as usual with Mignini), a satanic ritual. And he himself was being charged with professional misconduct, corruption, and abuse of office. He needed Amanda to come up with the goods. All this "telling the truth" was not good enough for Mignini.
So, in the early morning hours of 6 November 2007, the nature of the interrogation changed dramatically. It became much more aggressive and physical.
Amanda did not have a lawyer present during her interrogation. She was told it would be worse for her if she did. She was told that it would look suspicious if she said she needed a lawyer, and might implicate her in the crime. This was not true. It was also illegal on the part of the prosecutors. Italian law is absolutely clear. No suspect is to be interrogated with out the presence of an attorney. The interrogation of Amanda Knox was completely and utterly illegal.
A common interrogation technique is to ask a suspect to imagine hypothetical scenarios. Prosecutor Mignini is big on imagining scenarios. He builds entire cases around imagined scenarios, and no evidence. Amanda's interrogation on 6 November lasted for several hours. But this is more or less how it went:
Prosecutor. Who was in the house?
Amanda. I don't know because I wasn't there.
P. Who was in the house?
A. I don't know.
P. You sent a text to someone called Patrick. Who is that?
A. Patrick Lumumba.
P. Was Patrick in the house?
A. No.
P. How do you know if you weren't there?
A. Well, I don't know, but I don't think he was there.
P. But he could have been.
A. Well I suppose so, but I don't think so.
P. Can you imagine a scenario where Patrick was at the house?
A. No.
P. You have to try ... or you will be in prison for 30 years!
A. I don't know.
P. Try harder!
A. Well, okay, I suppose so.
P. So you could imagine a scenario where Patrick was at the house?
A. Well, I suppose so.
At this point, physical force was being used on Amanda. Amanda stated in court that she was repeatedly hit on the head. The interrogator who slapped Amanda told her that she was trying to help her to remember. She was told that she would never see her family again.
The Police then told Amanda that Patrick had attacked Meredith. She did not suggest Patrick's name to the police. His name was suggested to her by the Police.
Amanda was told to imagine that she was at the house. She was told to imagine Patrick being there. None of it seemed possible to Amanda. She told the police that it made no sense. She knew that she had not been at the house, and neither was Patrick. She had stated the truth again and again and again, and now Mignini was trying to make her imagine something different.
(continued...)
During the five days immediately following Meredith's murder, Amanda was repeatedly interrogated. Remember that she had originally gone to the police station as a witness, to try to help piece together any clues as to what might have happened.
She consistently told the same story. She told the same story over and over and over again. She repeatedly told the truth. She did not implicate Patrick. She did not even mention Patrick Lumumba.
But the prosecution were not happy with Amanda giving a clear and consistent statement. Mignini had an agenda. He had made an arrest, a bit prematurely, and he was not going to be made to look stupid. He was still smarting from his previous investigation, where he had falsely accused a whole group of innocent people of committing crimes involving (as usual with Mignini), a satanic ritual. And he himself was being charged with professional misconduct, corruption, and abuse of office. He needed Amanda to come up with the goods. All this "telling the truth" was not good enough for Mignini.
So, in the early morning hours of 6 November 2007, the nature of the interrogation changed dramatically. It became much more aggressive and physical.
Amanda did not have a lawyer present during her interrogation. She was told it would be worse for her if she did. She was told that it would look suspicious if she said she needed a lawyer, and might implicate her in the crime. This was not true. It was also illegal on the part of the prosecutors. Italian law is absolutely clear. No suspect is to be interrogated with out the presence of an attorney. The interrogation of Amanda Knox was completely and utterly illegal.
A common interrogation technique is to ask a suspect to imagine hypothetical scenarios. Prosecutor Mignini is big on imagining scenarios. He builds entire cases around imagined scenarios, and no evidence. Amanda's interrogation on 6 November lasted for several hours. But this is more or less how it went:
Prosecutor. Who was in the house?
Amanda. I don't know because I wasn't there.
P. Who was in the house?
A. I don't know.
P. You sent a text to someone called Patrick. Who is that?
A. Patrick Lumumba.
P. Was Patrick in the house?
A. No.
P. How do you know if you weren't there?
A. Well, I don't know, but I don't think he was there.
P. But he could have been.
A. Well I suppose so, but I don't think so.
P. Can you imagine a scenario where Patrick was at the house?
A. No.
P. You have to try ... or you will be in prison for 30 years!
A. I don't know.
P. Try harder!
A. Well, okay, I suppose so.
P. So you could imagine a scenario where Patrick was at the house?
A. Well, I suppose so.
At this point, physical force was being used on Amanda. Amanda stated in court that she was repeatedly hit on the head. The interrogator who slapped Amanda told her that she was trying to help her to remember. She was told that she would never see her family again.
The Police then told Amanda that Patrick had attacked Meredith. She did not suggest Patrick's name to the police. His name was suggested to her by the Police.
Amanda was told to imagine that she was at the house. She was told to imagine Patrick being there. None of it seemed possible to Amanda. She told the police that it made no sense. She knew that she had not been at the house, and neither was Patrick. She had stated the truth again and again and again, and now Mignini was trying to make her imagine something different.
(continued...)
knox's case has been a joke from the start and i think the italians should hang their heads in shame for the joke that is their legal system. it is fairly easy to convict people of crimes they have committed (as in randy guede's case)......but the crap they pulled with the other two? embarrassing for italy......and a travesty for meredith, her family and amanda knox.
(...continued)
She was told over and over again to imagine that she was in the house. When she refused, she was slapped across the head.
This abuse went on for hours until Amanda was finally broken. Eventually, the Police took enough of the ideas that they had suggested to Amanda, and typed out a so called "confession", implicating Patrick. The statement was not written by Amanda. It was typed in Italian, and Amanda did not fully understand it. At least 12 police officers had taken part in the illegal interrogation.
But this story has an unbelievable punch line !!! (excuse the pun).
When Amanda later explained that she had not named Patrick, and that it was the Police who had forced the idea into her head, Mignini sued her for slander. Of course, there was an easy way to resolve that argument. Every single interview and interrogation that took place at the Police station was double taped, producing a "master" copy and a "working" copy. Listening to a copy of the working copy would provide the answer.
But, after a few days to think up an excuse, Mignini claimed that the Police could not produce the tape because, on one day, and one day only, they had ... ready to laugh until your sides hurt ... "forgotten to turn on the tape recorders"!
When you've finished laughing at the ridiculous absurdity of this preposterous lie, just think what Mignini was trying to have us believe. The Police recorded absolutely every word that Amanda uttered. They illegally bugged her cell. They tapped her phone. They tapped her family's phones and her friends' phones. They illegally bugged the room where she spoke to people at the Police station. They taped ... absolutely ... everything! But the tape that the Defence needed? They "forgot to turn on the tape recorders". That absolutely did not happen. It was a complete and utter lie by Mignini to hide what happened during the interrogation, where the Police had forced Amanda to implicate a man whom Amanda had repeatedly insisted was not involved.
Now clearly, in almost any Court other than in Italy, a judge would have felt obliged to reject Mignini's version of events, because it was a legal requirement that the prosecution taped the interrogation and, if they illegally failed to do so, then they would have to accept the consequences. But not in Italy. The Court accepted Mignini's somewhat implausible story about Amanda pointing a finger at Patrick Lumumba on the day when the Police "forgot to switch on the tape recorder". The Judge ruled in favour of Mignini, and convicted Amanda of slander.
And, since then, Amanda has had to live with the fiction that she accused Patrick. She can't argue any more, because she would be sued by Mignini again. And she can't prove what really happened, because the prosecutors, err ... "forgot to switch on the tape recorder"!
And that is why the so-called statement accusing Patrick has never been anything more than a sheet of paper in Italian, written by the Police, waved at the Press by Mignini. Because, when the Defence said Let's listen to the tape, and see what really happened ... the prosecutors destroyed the tape, and pretended that the Police had forgotten to switch on the tape recorder.
So, Amanda falsely accusing an innocent man? It never happened.
She was told over and over again to imagine that she was in the house. When she refused, she was slapped across the head.
This abuse went on for hours until Amanda was finally broken. Eventually, the Police took enough of the ideas that they had suggested to Amanda, and typed out a so called "confession", implicating Patrick. The statement was not written by Amanda. It was typed in Italian, and Amanda did not fully understand it. At least 12 police officers had taken part in the illegal interrogation.
But this story has an unbelievable punch line !!! (excuse the pun).
When Amanda later explained that she had not named Patrick, and that it was the Police who had forced the idea into her head, Mignini sued her for slander. Of course, there was an easy way to resolve that argument. Every single interview and interrogation that took place at the Police station was double taped, producing a "master" copy and a "working" copy. Listening to a copy of the working copy would provide the answer.
But, after a few days to think up an excuse, Mignini claimed that the Police could not produce the tape because, on one day, and one day only, they had ... ready to laugh until your sides hurt ... "forgotten to turn on the tape recorders"!
When you've finished laughing at the ridiculous absurdity of this preposterous lie, just think what Mignini was trying to have us believe. The Police recorded absolutely every word that Amanda uttered. They illegally bugged her cell. They tapped her phone. They tapped her family's phones and her friends' phones. They illegally bugged the room where she spoke to people at the Police station. They taped ... absolutely ... everything! But the tape that the Defence needed? They "forgot to turn on the tape recorders". That absolutely did not happen. It was a complete and utter lie by Mignini to hide what happened during the interrogation, where the Police had forced Amanda to implicate a man whom Amanda had repeatedly insisted was not involved.
Now clearly, in almost any Court other than in Italy, a judge would have felt obliged to reject Mignini's version of events, because it was a legal requirement that the prosecution taped the interrogation and, if they illegally failed to do so, then they would have to accept the consequences. But not in Italy. The Court accepted Mignini's somewhat implausible story about Amanda pointing a finger at Patrick Lumumba on the day when the Police "forgot to switch on the tape recorder". The Judge ruled in favour of Mignini, and convicted Amanda of slander.
And, since then, Amanda has had to live with the fiction that she accused Patrick. She can't argue any more, because she would be sued by Mignini again. And she can't prove what really happened, because the prosecutors, err ... "forgot to switch on the tape recorder"!
And that is why the so-called statement accusing Patrick has never been anything more than a sheet of paper in Italian, written by the Police, waved at the Press by Mignini. Because, when the Defence said Let's listen to the tape, and see what really happened ... the prosecutors destroyed the tape, and pretended that the Police had forgotten to switch on the tape recorder.
So, Amanda falsely accusing an innocent man? It never happened.
That's the real tragedy, lcg
When they decided to pursue this ridiculous case, Mignini and his team stopped trying to find out what really happened.
They didn't even search for the murder weapon. They found a knife in Raffaele's drawer, and said that they "instinctively" felt that it was the murder weapon. No evidence for that.
They pinned their case on the knife with the DNA. One of their more amusing one liners. When the medical examiner said that the knife was inconsistent with the wounds, and was definitely NOT the murder weapon, instead of searching for the actual murder weapon, Mignini's said ... Ahaa! There must have been two knives!
What? Seriously??
So the whole case was conducted with no murder weapon, and no attempt to find the murder weapon.
Comedy police work at its finest.
But the tragedy for the Kerchers is that Mignini's ego stopped the investigation to find out what actually happened. Because of Mignini, the Kerchers will probably never know.
Oh, and the only person who does know what happened, Rudy Guede ... Mignini cut a deal with him to halve his sentence. So there's no way that Guede will now tell the truth, because then he would have to admit that he lied before, and he might lose his cushy deal.
When they decided to pursue this ridiculous case, Mignini and his team stopped trying to find out what really happened.
They didn't even search for the murder weapon. They found a knife in Raffaele's drawer, and said that they "instinctively" felt that it was the murder weapon. No evidence for that.
They pinned their case on the knife with the DNA. One of their more amusing one liners. When the medical examiner said that the knife was inconsistent with the wounds, and was definitely NOT the murder weapon, instead of searching for the actual murder weapon, Mignini's said ... Ahaa! There must have been two knives!
What? Seriously??
So the whole case was conducted with no murder weapon, and no attempt to find the murder weapon.
Comedy police work at its finest.
But the tragedy for the Kerchers is that Mignini's ego stopped the investigation to find out what actually happened. Because of Mignini, the Kerchers will probably never know.
Oh, and the only person who does know what happened, Rudy Guede ... Mignini cut a deal with him to halve his sentence. So there's no way that Guede will now tell the truth, because then he would have to admit that he lied before, and he might lose his cushy deal.
Thanks JJ. I wish I had your memory. BTW you must be very pleased with the verdict.
We need NoM back now. I see she posted this morning on the Memory thread she has an >>absolutely photographic memory, particularly for anything numerical, chronological or sequential but also for finer detail in some well known criminal cases
We need NoM back now. I see she posted this morning on the Memory thread she has an >>absolutely photographic memory, particularly for anything numerical, chronological or sequential but also for finer detail in some well known criminal cases
It's a conspiracy, LB
Personally, I suspect Guiliano Mignini is involved!
The final verdict, I'm pleased for Amanda and Raffaele because (I don't know if I've mentioned this before) I've always thought that they were not involved.
But I'm desperately sad for the Kercher family.
In time, will they come to accept ... Amanda and Raffaele were not involved? And then, will they start to look at Guiliano Mignini. He was put in charge of Meredith's murder case. He abandoned the investigation to pursue hair brained imaginary theories ("hypotheses" as he called them).
He agreed to halve the sentence of a person who definitely WAS involved in the murder, to try to incriminate two people who were not.
He fabricated evidence.
He told lies, both to the Press, and in Court.
He covered up and destroyed important information.
And, as a result, he failed to solve the crime.
If I were the Kerchers, I would want to see Mignini punished. In fact, I'd want to see him in prison.
Personally, I suspect Guiliano Mignini is involved!
The final verdict, I'm pleased for Amanda and Raffaele because (I don't know if I've mentioned this before) I've always thought that they were not involved.
But I'm desperately sad for the Kercher family.
In time, will they come to accept ... Amanda and Raffaele were not involved? And then, will they start to look at Guiliano Mignini. He was put in charge of Meredith's murder case. He abandoned the investigation to pursue hair brained imaginary theories ("hypotheses" as he called them).
He agreed to halve the sentence of a person who definitely WAS involved in the murder, to try to incriminate two people who were not.
He fabricated evidence.
He told lies, both to the Press, and in Court.
He covered up and destroyed important information.
And, as a result, he failed to solve the crime.
If I were the Kerchers, I would want to see Mignini punished. In fact, I'd want to see him in prison.
I'm using Safari as well but on a Macbook Air. Is it playing up?
Ummmm, in my 15.10 post you can see I used two of the things you mentioned at the start of quoting another poster and they are shown, but there was another pair of them at the end of the quote after "cases".
I then started another paragraph and that disappeared. So you could say, after the last two unmentionables, the rest disappeared. Twice.
In the light of what you have said I'd better stop using them. Thanks.
Ummmm, in my 15.10 post you can see I used two of the things you mentioned at the start of quoting another poster and they are shown, but there was another pair of them at the end of the quote after "cases".
I then started another paragraph and that disappeared. So you could say, after the last two unmentionables, the rest disappeared. Twice.
In the light of what you have said I'd better stop using them. Thanks.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Crosswords3 mins ago
More Attacks On Freedom Of Speech
News9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
News29 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.