Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

The calunnia case that will come before the ECtHR only applies to Amanda.
Thus, the first judgment relating to interrogation without a lawyer will apply to her calunnia case specifically.

However, Raffaele was also interrogated without a lawyer Nov. 5/6, 2007. This violation of Article 6.3c of the Convention would come up before the ECtHR if the larger murder/rape becomes finalized with a conviction.

The Council of Europe States and their agents, including the domestic (Italian) courts are, by the terms of the Convention, required to enforce its provisions - ensuring that the human rights of individuals, including defendants - are respected. The CSC should, if it is to follow the solemn obligations Italy has undertaken in signing the Convention, examine the interrogation without lawyers and other issues of unfairness before finalizing the case. But the CSC has already failed in this respect regarding Amanda's calunnia case.

Let us go by the argument that the ECtHR sees the calunnia case against Amanda Knox. I am not really seeing any way that Italy can defend the decision, can you? Would hate to be he Italian lawyer defending it.

 

[JREF2010]

I'm convinced that Raffaele's DNA WAS NEVER on the bra clasp. That this was the result of laboratory contamination. Keep in mind that the test was never duplicated and it is very clear that there were issues with the machine and some of the runs. We'll never know for sure. I think what the RIS technician said during the last trial and that was a single test would never be considered evidence.

Im with this train of thought,it was the lab and handling, but sadly we have a person like Stefoni who will never tell the truth. How many recall MAssei having to hold the trial up for her to produce the documents only to have her toss it in a heap of mess, and stuff it to the defense to have to organize it and piece part it all into a organized set of evidence.
What kind of "public servant" does this?

 

[Desert Fox]

Im with this train of thought,it was the lab and handling, but sadly we have a person like Stefoni who will never tell the truth. How many recall MAssei having to hold the trial up for her to produce the documents only to have her toss it in a heap of mess, and stuff it to the defense to have to organize it and piece part it all into a organized set of evidence.
What kind of "public servant" does this?

Sadly, this is far more common than one would like. . . . .
We have somebody on the SGU Forums that works for the prosecutor's office and he has stated that he often has problems with the police not wanting to give the defense all the evidence.

 

[anglolawyer]

Thanks for bumping the post describing the Matytsina v Russia case.

The relevance is shown in the emphasized (highlighted, bolded) text. The convicting judge arbitrarily ignored expert witness opinion favorable to the defense and arbitrarily admitted other expert witness opinion, which a previous judge had found unreliable and thus inadmissible, favorable to the prosecution.

This was a violation of the "equality of arms" required by the European Convention on Human Rights, and thus resulted in an unfair trial.

These issues are the elements of similarity with the case of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

tsig was only giving a prod to the deluded.

 

[Numbers]

tsig was only giving a prod to the deluded.

I sincerely appreciate the efforts of those who help us bring out the issues in the case, even if their intentions are questionable.

When one examines the Convention case law, there is no doubt that the human rights of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were violated by the Italian authorities, in their interrogations without lawyers, arrests and detentions in bad faith, and unfair trials.

To those readers who have not yet signed the petition to the executive authorities, please read it and, if you agree, please sign it:

https://www.change.org/p/ministero-...f-the-death-of-meredith-kercher-in-perugia-it

 

[CoulsdonUK]

The calunnia case that will come before the ECtHR only applies to Amanda.
Thus, the first judgment relating to interrogation without a lawyer will apply to her calunnia case specifically.

However, Raffaele was also interrogated without a lawyer Nov. 5/6, 2007. This violation of Article 6.3c of the Convention would come up before the ECtHR if the larger murder/rape becomes finalized with a conviction.

The Council of Europe States and their agents, including the domestic (Italian) courts are, by the terms of the Convention, required to enforce its provisions - ensuring that the human rights of individuals, including defendants - are respected. The CSC should, if it is to follow the solemn obligations Italy has undertaken in signing the Convention, examine the interrogation without lawyers and other issues of unfairness before finalizing the case. But the CSC has already failed in this respect regarding Amanda's calunnia case.

As ever it depends on the content of calunnia application to ECHR and officially when did Amanda stop being a witness of interest and became a suspect.

 

[Bill Williams]

As ever it depends on the content of calunnia application to ECHR and officially when did Amanda stop being a witness of interest and became a suspect.

..... and if this transition was unclear, then one would think it would then sit in favour of the applicants. Surely it is up to the Italian authorities to show that there is transparency in how this transition was legally managed.

 

[Samson]

As ever it depends on the content of calunnia application to ECHR and officially when did Amanda stop being a witness of interest and became a suspect.

Amanda officially was a suspect before she came to the questura. When they discovered her mother was arriving on the 6th Matteini said she had been arrested before this time as a precautionary measure.

 

[Desert Fox]

As ever it depends on the content of calunnia application to ECHR and officially when did Amanda stop being a witness of interest and became a suspect.

When they interrogate you, you are a suspect. . . . .Whatever word games they try to play, this is a fact.

 

[Bill Williams]

But what Donnino says is that Knox did not want to talk. As a mediator, she suggested that maybe Knox could have "removed" the traumatic experience: this is "mediation" since it means give Knox an opportunity and a safe justification for "forgetting" and thus for possibly change her story, so allow her to remember something new safely, without being implicitly accused of being a liar or presented as a liar.
This is called mediation, it's diplomacy, it's work of removal of psycological defence obstacles, and it's routine.
But in fact, this does not equate to describing Knox as confused.

This is incredible, Machiavelli. You are admitting that Knox did not have a translator. Translators are not there to "soften up" the suspect.

Keep typing, Machiavelli, keep typing. Knox needed an unbiased translator that night, not someone imposing her agenda onto someone who could not speak the language.

This post is a keeper, Machiavelli. You are providing the rationale for the wrongful conviction and the place Donnino occupies in it.

This needs to be continually bumped, or pegged to Machiavelli.

Machiavelli is openly admitting that Knox did not have a translator that night of the interrogation, but someone intent on softening her up.

Please remember, Machiavelli/Yummi is one of the chief purvayors of the pro-guilt lobby. And even he admits what Donnino did wrong. The only difference, is that he does not see it as wrong.

ETA - Machiavelli has now given conflicting testimony. Doninno says that Amanda did not want to talk, yet Mignini says she does. Donnino says that this unwillingness to talk needed to be met with "mediation" so as to get her to implicate herself. Yet, Mignini says Amanda freely and without coercion needed to talk, to "rid herself of a burden."

 

[Magister]

What does this have to do with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and the case against them? What outstanding question in the case against the already convicted Rudy Guede does this relate to? The mechanics of the movement of Guede in the course of killing Ms Kercher really don't interest me because they are not relevant to the question of the guilt or innocence of either the protagonist or the wrongfully convicted. If Guede was not the only person in the room when Ms Kercher was killed or indeed not the only other person in the flat, then show me some convincing physical evidence. The idea that more than one assailant is responsible and yet there is cast iron evidence only against one, is utterly preposterous. I am interested in the merits or otherwise of criminal convictions not in tangential matters.

Some of us here have believed in the innocence of Amanda and Raffaele from the beginning.
It is clear that Guede was given special treatment by the prosecution.
What has since become apparent is that there may be more to what happened that night than has so far been disclosed.*
Surely it is of interest if it leads to an official inquiry and justice is seen to be done for Meredith, Amanda and Raffaele?

*
1. 13 unidentified prints found in Meredith's room
2. Human blood found in the downstairs apartment amidst a scene of disarray
- if this belonged to Meredith or Guede we surely would have heard by now.
- the only prints/swabs taken were from the girls upstairs and Giacomo Silenzi.
3. A dark car was seen parked inside the driveway of the cottage that night.
4. Guede mentioned a white car with 2 occupants, engine running, outside in the road - was this investigated?
5. Kokomani's phone pinged in the area at 8.01 pm
6. Antonio Aviello , accused of the murder by his brother, and apparently never investigated, was later reported dead. Both were mafiosi.
7. Guede was beaten up in prison by 2 inmates. He did not fight back.
8. This was a particularly brutal murder - Guede had no history of violence, he was not a loner, in fact he had several friends, male and female.
- that is of course no excuse whatsoever for his sexual assault and failure to summon help.
9. It is possible for someone wearing gloves to have stabbed Meredith by holding her from behind without leaving much, if any evidence.
10. The cottage was situated in an area where drug deals took place.
- Perugia being the gateway to the north for the drugs trade controlled by factions of the Italian and Albanian mafia.
11. Meredith's attempted phonecall home at 8.55 pm might indicate something other than a dropped connection.

 

[Kauffer]

This needs to be continually bumped, or pegged to Machiavelli.

Machiavelli is openly admitting that Knox did not have a translator that night of the interrogation, but someone intent on softening her up.

Please remember, Machiavelli/Yummi is one of the chief purvayors of the pro-guilt lobby. And even he admits what Donnino did wrong. The only difference, is that he does not see it as wrong.

ETA - Machiavelli has now given conflicting testimony. Doninno says that Amanda did not want to talk, yet Mignini says she does. Donnino says that this unwillingness to talk needed to be met with "mediation" so as to get her to implicate herself. Yet, Mignini says Amanda freely and without coercion needed to talk, to "rid herself of a burden."

Donnino was employed as a translator. There is no position of mediator. We have already established that anyone who interferes with a suspect or attempts to procure in such a manner as Donnino did, the answers to questions by, or the giving of a statement from a suspect, is in breach of Italian law and the European Convention. And we haven't even mentioned the denial of right to counsel at this point.

With reference to the ECHR, Coulsdon take note.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

..... and if this transition was unclear, then one would think it would then sit in favour of the applicants. Surely it is up to the Italian authorities to show that there is transparency in how this transition was legally managed.

Amanda officially was a suspect before she came to the questura. When they discovered her mother was arriving on the 6th Matteini said she had been arrested before this time as a precautionary measure.

When they interrogate you, you are a suspect. . . . .Whatever word games they try to play, this is a fact.

I didn’t say it was unclear, actually I think that will be the Italian position, she was a witness of interest not suspect. Much of what is stated above are assertions.

Anyway, still don’t we will hear anything from ECHR before third level trial.

 

[Kauffer]

Some of us here have believed in the innocence of Amanda and Raffaele from the beginning.
It is clear that Guede was given special treatment by the prosecution.
What has since become apparent is that there may be more to what happened that night than has so far been disclosed.*
Surely it is of interest if it leads to an official inquiry and justice is seen to be done for Meredith, Amanda and Raffaele?

*
1. 13 unidentified prints found in Meredith's room
2. Human blood found in the downstairs apartment amidst a scene of disarray
- if this belonged to Meredith or Guede we surely would have heard by now.
- the only prints/swabs taken were from the girls upstairs and Giacomo Silenzi.
3. A dark car was seen parked inside the driveway of the cottage that night.
4. Guede mentioned a white car with 2 occupants, engine running, outside in the road - was this investigated?
5. Kokomani's phone pinged in the area at 8.01 pm
6. Antonio Aviello , accused of the murder by his brother, and apparently never investigated, was later reported dead. Both were mafiosi.
7. Guede was beaten up in prison by 2 inmates. He did not fight back.
8. This was a particularly brutal murder - Guede had no history of violence, he was not a loner, in fact he had several friends, male and female.
- that is of course no excuse whatsoever for his sexual assault and failure to summon help.
9. It is possible for someone wearing gloves to have stabbed Meredith by holding her from behind without leaving much, if any evidence.
10. The cottage was situated in an area where drug deals took place.
- Perugia being the gateway to the north for the drugs trade controlled by factions of the Italian and Albanian mafia.
11. Meredith's attempted phonecall home at 8.55 pm might indicate something other than a dropped connection.

With the notable exception of the downstairs apartment where evidence has clearly been withheld by the prosecution, which points to the existence of additional inculpatory evidence against Guede and nothing against Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito, most of your list is a combination of inaccuracy, irrelevance, rank amateur speculation and tittle tattle. There is nothing of any importance in this case to lead any rational enquiry towards any scenario other than that this dreadful murder was the result of a botched burglary by a high risk low reward criminal of low repute with form and a well established modus operandi.

 

[Numbers]

As ever it depends on the content of calunnia application to ECHR and officially when did Amanda stop being a witness of interest and became a suspect.

I didn’t say it was unclear, actually I think that will be the Italian position, she was a witness of interest not suspect. Much of what is stated above are assertions.

Anyway, still don’t we will hear anything from ECHR before third level trial.

{Highlighting added as part of response}

Coulsdon,
You raise good points for consideration. However, when the applications (cases) go before the ECtHR (Court), it is the definitions and opinions of the Court, based on the Convention (ECHR), its interpretation of the ECHR, and previous judgments (case law) which determine the Court's evaluation and judgment.

Thus, the official position of Italy will be only one factor the Court considers. The Court will also consider the information provided by the applicant and other documents, official or otherwise credible. The Court states from time-to-time in its written judgments that: 1) it is the master of the facts and 2) the rights provided under the Convention must be sufficiently practical and effective, and not theoretical or illusory. By this, it means that even a States' official, legal, or constitutionally allowed action may be contrary to the Convention, and the Court may point this out as a violation of individual human rights.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the Court considers certain concepts "autonomous" and not dependent on the definition of a particular State. IIRC, "suspect" is among these concepts. Here is a case that may shed light on this:

Brusco v France 1466/07

The applicant, who was suspected of having masterminded an aggression, was taken into police custody and questioned as a witness, after being made to swear to tell the truth.

The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (right to
remain silent and not to incriminate oneself) of the Convention. According to the Court, the applicant was not a mere witness but a person “charged with a criminal offence”, and as such should have had the right to remain silent and not to incriminate himself, guaranteed by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention. The situation was aggravated by the fact that the applicant was not assisted by a lawyer until his 20th hour in police custody. Had a lawyer been present, he would have been able to inform the applicant of his right to remain silent.

 

[Diocletus]

I didn’t say it was unclear, actually I think that will be the Italian position, she was a witness of interest not suspect. Much of what is stated above are assertions.

That would be a very peculiar position to take, given the fact that the court that convicted her in the second instance (affirmed by the supreme court) held that she was a suspect.

 

[Numbers]

That would be a very peculiar position to take, given the fact that the court that convicted her in the second instance (affirmed by the supreme court) held that she was a suspect.

It would not surprise me if a State did take an inconsistent position before the ECtHR. They sometimes act just like criminals before the Court, refusing to provide documentation or misstating events, even though the "punishment" is verbal ("there has been a violation of Article X.X") and typically a very small payment (often of the order of 1000 to 10,000 EUR) to the victim.

 

[Desert Fox]

I didn’t say it was unclear, actually I think that will be the Italian position, she was a witness of interest not suspect. Much of what is stated above are assertions.

Anyway, still don’t we will hear anything from ECHR before third level trial.

Calling it an assertion is a game. . . . Well documented from police in other cases that such interviews are really interrogations. If you have never watched it, I would see if yiou can watch "The Confessions" on PBS.

 

[Kauffer]

It would not surprise me if a State did take an inconsistent position before the ECtHR. They sometimes act just like criminals before the Court, refusing to provide documentation or misstating events, even though the "punishment" is verbal ("there has been a violation of Article X.X") and typically a very small payment (often of the order of 1000 to 10,000 EUR) to the victim.

Numbers, would you agree that it is possible the ECHR may already have written to Italy asking for a response to Ms Knox's application prior to issuing a decision on whether or not to admit it?

 

[Kauffer]

I didn’t say it was unclear, actually I think that will be the Italian position, she was a witness of interest not suspect. Much of what is stated above are assertions.

Anyway, still don’t we will hear anything from ECHR before third level trial.

I've posted this before but I'll do it again just to set your mind along the right lines when considering this matter from the European Court's perspective:

"Certainly the primary purpose of Article 6 [of the Convention] as far as criminal matters are concerned is to ensure a fair trial by a tribunal competent to determine any criminal charge, but it does not follow that the Article has no application to pre-trial proceedings.” (Imbriosca v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 November 1993, § 36).

« n order for the right to a fair trial to remain sufficiently “practical and effective” ..., Article 6 § 1 [of the Convention] requires that, as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right. Even where compelling reasons may exceptionally justify denial of access to a lawyer, such restriction – whatever its justification – must not unduly prejudice the rights of the accused under Article 6 ... The rights of the defence will in principle be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction.” (Salduz v. Turkey, Grand Chamber judgment of 27 November 2008, § 55)."

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Police_arrest_ENG.pdf

Is that clearer?