Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

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?

It is possible, but I am aware of no documentation on the ECHR site that states that this has happened.

I do not know how long the ECHR waits after communicating an application to a state before it adds that communication to its list of documents.

The time between receipt of an application at ECHR and its communication to the respondent State is, from the cases I have examined so far, highly variable. It may depend upon the complexity of the case, the work load of the ECtHR, and other factors unknown to me.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

In addition, the ECHR might be rather interested in that infamous statement from Perugia police chief Arturo de Felice in the horribly triumphalist press conference held on 6th November 2007:

"Initially the American (Knox) gave a version of events which we knew was not correct. She (then) buckled and made an admission of facts that we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them in."

There are only two possible ways to interpret this statement. Either 1) de Felice was lying when he said these words, or 2) the police clearly suspected Knox of criminality prior to the point at which she "buckled" and made the notorious "confession/accusation".

I think it's easy to conclude - based on this and other evidence that's already been discussed here - that the police did indeed suspect Knox of criminal activity prior to the commencement of her interrogation on 5th/6th November 2007. Whether that suspicion was that Knox aided and abetted the murderer (and lied to protect him) or that Knox directly participated in the murder, she should clearly have been cautioned and provided with legal counsel prior to any questioning.

And (broken record time) the ECHR might also take note of the report from the European Criminal Bar Association about abuses of suspects' rights in the Italian system. The ECBA report explicitly notes an institutionalised tendency amoung Italian police and prosecutors to deliberately hold back on applying the official categorisation of "suspect", precisely in order to be able to squeeze confessions out of people while not cautioning them and being able to deny them access to legal counsel (plus not having to record the interrogations......).

 

[Kauffer]

In addition, the ECHR might be rather interested in that infamous statement from Perugia police chief Arturo de Felice in the horribly triumphalist press conference held on 6th November 2007:

"Initially the American (Knox) gave a version of events which we knew was not correct. She (then) buckled and made an admission of facts that we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them in."

There are only two possible ways to interpret this statement. Either 1) de Felice was lying when he said these words, or 2) the police clearly suspected Knox of criminality prior to the point at which she "buckled" and made the notorious "confession/accusation".

I think it's easy to conclude - based on this and other evidence that's already been discussed here - that the police did indeed suspect Knox of criminal activity prior to the commencement of her interrogation on 5th/6th November 2007. Whether that suspicion was that Knox aided and abetted the murderer (and lied to protect him) or that Knox directly participated in the murder, she should clearly have been cautioned and provided with legal counsel prior to any questioning.

And (broken record time) the ECHR might also take note of the report from the European Criminal Bar Association about abuses of suspects' rights in the Italian system. The ECBA report explicitly notes an institutionalised tendency amoung Italian police and prosecutors to deliberately hold back on applying the official categorisation of "suspect", precisely in order to be able to squeeze confessions out of people while not cautioning them and being able to deny them access to legal counsel (plus not having to record the interrogations......).

And to put the premature nature of de Felice's nonsense within the timeline, probably on the same day, Stefanoni was discovering that the samples recovered from Ms Kercher's body belonged neither to Mr Sollecito or Mr Lumumba. It took two weeks for them to release Lumumba of course, but at this time they had not one scintilla of evidence against Mr Sollecito, but still managed to wing it through the Matteini and Ricciarelli hearings to keep him incarcerated primarily with the made up story of his shoes matching the prints in Ms Kercher's room.

Regarding suspect status, we should not forget Giobbi's order for Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito to be "taken".

 

[anglolawyer]

At least there is no debate here on this thread: Machiavelli, a well connected PGP, has conceded she was already 'strongly suspected' when she arrived at the questura. The PGPs are checkmated by their own arguments: their behaviour after the crime was suspicious. That's what caused the cops to focus on them, bugging their phones and conversations, following them around, busting into Raf's place and fiddling with his computer (before he withdrew his alibi) bugging Le Chic (!) and teeing up an all-night, multi-handed interrogation. It's absurd to pretend they were not suspects.

 

[Planigale]

The difference may be more in the amount of dirt or debris on the hooks than the degree of deformation. I wrote that from memory rather than looking at comparison photos at the time of writing. It's possible that the deformation of the hook occurred when the bra was being pulled off by Guede, and not by being stepped on.

The suggestion is not that the right hand hook as you look at it is pulled out, but that the left hand hook has been crushed closed. I am somewhat equivocal about this , but my memory is that there is another somewhat oblique picture where the closure of the left hand hook subsequent to being trod on? is more apparent. That is I mean the changes between the two pictures I do not mean the right hand hook is undeformed but that the right hand hook is deformed by being pulled at the time of the murder and does not chnage between the two pics, the left hand hook may be pressed closed.

 

[Machiavelli]

At least there is no debate here on this thread: Machiavelli, a well connected PGP, has conceded she was already 'strongly suspected' when she arrived at the questura. The PGPs are checkmated by their own arguments: their behaviour after the crime was suspicious. That's what caused the cops to focus on them, bugging their phones and conversations, following them around, busting into Raf's place and fiddling with his computer (before he withdrew his alibi) bugging Le Chic (!) and teeing up an all-night, multi-handed interrogation. It's absurd to pretend they were not suspects.

There was not clear evidence on them for a charge of murder.

 

[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.

In addition, the ECHR might be rather interested in that infamous statement from Perugia police chief Arturo de Felice in the horribly triumphalist press conference held on 6th November 2007:

"Initially the American (Knox) gave a version of events which we knew was not correct. She (then) buckled and made an admission of facts that we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them in."

There are only two possible ways to interpret this statement. Either 1) de Felice was lying when he said these words, or 2) the police clearly suspected Knox of criminality prior to the point at which she "buckled" and made the notorious "confession/accusation".

I think it's easy to conclude - based on this and other evidence that's already been discussed here - that the police did indeed suspect Knox of criminal activity prior to the commencement of her interrogation on 5th/6th November 2007. Whether that suspicion was that Knox aided and abetted the murderer (and lied to protect him) or that Knox directly participated in the murder, she should clearly have been cautioned and provided with legal counsel prior to any questioning.

And (broken record time) the ECHR might also take note of the report from the European Criminal Bar Association about abuses of suspects' rights in the Italian system. The ECBA report explicitly notes an institutionalised tendency amoung Italian police and prosecutors to deliberately hold back on applying the official categorisation of "suspect", precisely in order to be able to squeeze confessions out of people while not cautioning them and being able to deny them access to legal counsel (plus not having to record the interrogations......).

There are several facts and documented statements that establish that Amanda and Raffaele were suspects before the interrogation of Nov. 5/6 began.

1. The nature of the interrogation. It was scheduled for overnight with a crew of police doing overtime. This required it to have been planned probably at least the day before (that is, Nov. 4) so police could clear their schedules.

2. Giobbi testified that he had planned the interrogation of both Amanda and Raffaele as a simultaneous interrogation.

3. The interrogation was of an intense nature. Giobbi and others reported that Amanda was screaming and crying for help, although Raffaele carried on like a gentleman. This is not typical of a police interview.

4. Amanda was invited into an interrogation room by one of the police. She was not a the station to volunteer further information. She was at the station, from her point of view, because she did not wish to be alone; she followed Raffaele, who had similarly accompanied her when she had been interviewed at the station on previous days.

5. There is apparently a statement from one judge (Matteini) that the anticipated arrival of Amanda's mother on Nov. 6 motivated Amanda's arrest as a precautionary measure (posted earlier by Samson). Obviously, the police needed some excuse to arrest her; thus, the interrogation.

6. Amanda reported being threatened, yelled at, and slapped. These are not measures associated with an interview.

7. The police chief's statement that Amanda had buckled and told the police what they already knew. If this is an accurate translation, it indicates that Amanda was interrogated; to buckle in this context means to bend and give way under pressure or stress (like an overloaded bridge column). Interestingly, to force statements from someone against his/her will is against Italian law, CPP Article 188: Methods or techniques which may influence the freedom of self-determination or alter the capacity to recall and evaluate facts shall not be used, not even with the consent of the person concerned.

8. The actions of the "translator" Donnino as a "mediator" were likewise contrary to CPP Article 188, and apparently she testified to some of her method to influence or alter Amanda's memory in court.

9. Hellmann indicated, in the verdict convicting Amanda of calunnia and which was finalized by the CSC, that she had made the calunnia statements to relieve the pressure of the interrogation, and not to hide her participation in a crime. He stated that she was under suspicion of very serious crimes.

The above list may not be all-inclusive, but IMO it establishes that Amanda was a suspect when the interrogation began, and should have been provided a lawyer and warned of her right to remain silent. Certainly, as soon as the statement about Patrick had made by her, or made for her by the police, she was entitled to a lawyer.

 

[Kauffer]

There was not clear evidence on them for a charge of murder.

Oh I agree with that!!! Doesn't mean they weren't suspects. They didn't even have to be murder suspects to be suspects. I think even you have all but given up defending this now haven't you?

 

[Machiavelli]

Comodi told Amanda in court that she made a call to her mother at 12.00 pm when phone records show the actual time as 12.47 pm. Comodi clearly lied. Machiavelli does not deal with this issue at all but instead writes a load of meaningless drivel.

"Clearly" my cojones. To conclude Comodi lied, you would need at least a consequential purpose for the alleged lie, you would also need to show the relevance of stating falsely about that time difference in that statement, and show how this hypothetical liecwould be relevant. You should also point out why, if the alleged lie was somehow relevant, the defence didn‘t object by correcting the information (maybe because they didn't like to point out that a 12.47 call did occur).

The two officers from the postal police said they arrived 20 minutes earlier than they did and video evidence proved they were lying. There is a section on murderoferedithkercher.com which deals with call to the carbineri in detail.

Prove it then. Maybe I should tell you, before, that the defence failed to prove it in courtroom.
The postal police wrote their briefing before any interrogation of Knox or Sollecito took place. And nobody proved they were wrong.

Machiavelli claims the police and prosecution had nothing to do with the release of the photo of the bathroom after it had been sprayed with a chemical. The police took the photo and were the only people in a position to release the photo and how can anyone claim the police had nothing to do with the release of the photo.

I said the police and prosecution had nothing to do with the publishing of the picture in a British tabloid, which the only thing that would matter when referring to a theory that the police "lied".
As for the release of the photos, what we know is there is no evidence that the "police" (meaning some individual) had anything to do with their release (and surely there is no reason to assume that the prosecution could have something to do with it). This because many parties could access the file. But even if there was evidence that one officer gave the pictures to a third party or sold the photos to the press agency (there isn‘t), this would be meaningless, since the British tabloid bought tge whole set from a press agency and decided alone on their initiative what to publish and write. You should acknowledge that this means the claim that the police "used" a bathroom picture for propaganda is false.

Machiavelli was unable to respond to the other points I made in my post. Surely if you have just committed a murder, the last thing you want to do is return to the crime scene and report it to the police?

There is no point in this, even the FBI handbooks reports that whenevere there is a staging of a crime (burglary, rape) at a murder scene, the stager and murderer is the one leads the police to the discovery of the body.

 

[Machiavelli]

Oh I agree with that!!! Doesn't mean they weren't suspects. They didn't even have to be murder suspects to be suspects. I think even you have all but given up defending this now haven't you?

Of course they would need to be suspected of murder, in order enjoy defendants' protection from a murder investigation. Catching a murder is a priority.
But this also has little relevance after all, since all this is not legally determinant, not even for the ECHR.

 

[Machiavelli]

And to put the premature nature of de Felice's nonsense within the timeline, probably on the same day (...)

I point out that still nobody was able to present a source with a quote from DeFelice's press conference.

 

[Kauffer]

Of course they would need to be suspected of murder, in order enjoy defendants' protection from a murder investigation. Catching a murder is a priority.
But this also has little relevance after all, since all this is not legally determinant, not even for the ECHR.

If they were considered suspects for any criminal offence they are entitled to a lawyer. There is no end run around this. You cannot say the police were investigating a murder but the "witnesses" are not suspects in the murder case when they are minimally suspected of criminal activity connected to the as yet unsolved murder. That would be ridiculous. The ECHR is most assuredly the correct forum for determining whether Ms Knox was indeed a suspect and thus entitled to a lawyer.

They were clearly suspected of involvement of a criminal nature in the murder.

 

[Machiavelli]

Most of us here believe Amanda and Raffaele to be innocent. We generally agree that the crime scene photos and evidence tell a clear story: Meredith was overpowered by an attacker (Guede) who grabbed her from behind, threw her to the floor after a brief struggle, and cut her throat with a knife held in his right hand then dragged her into the middle of the room and sexually assaulted her.

Those who argue for guilt, however, do not care about the crime scene. They are fixated on the prosecution's dossier of "evidence" against Amanda and Raffaele: the kitchen knife, the bra fastener, the luminol, and an assortment of shambling, peripheral witnesses. These vague elements cannot possibly add up or tell a story, but they can be used to suggest that something else happened.

The guilters have no idea what, and they don't care. Any wild fable will do, as long as it involves Amanda Knox.

Actually, nobody among the innoocentisti is able to sort out the ludicrous contradictions of their lone wolf scenario (take just the failure to explain latest simple points such as how did Guede manage to step on pillow, or deal with evidence contrary to post mortem sexual abuse theory). Let alone prove the maybe 15-20 unsupported postulates they require to make their conspiracy theory work (all of them have a burden of proof on the claimant, besides being foolish, like for examole LJ's suggestion that the "police" placed the pillow in that position under Meredith's body). We won't go so far as how they would deal with the autopsy report, or with the alterative substance and dynamic for the luminol prints, or with the measurements of the bathmat print, or with the repeated calunnia by Knox... etc..)

 

[Numbers]

There are several facts and documented statements that establish that Amanda and Raffaele were suspects before the interrogation of Nov. 5/6 began.

1. The nature of the interrogation. It was scheduled for overnight with a crew of police doing overtime. This required it to have been planned probably at least the day before (that is, Nov. 4) so police could clear their schedules.

2. Giobbi testified that he had planned the interrogation of both Amanda and Raffaele as a simultaneous interrogation.

3. The interrogation was of an intense nature. Giobbi and others reported that Amanda was screaming and crying for help, although Raffaele carried on like a gentleman. This is not typical of a police interview.

4. Amanda was invited into an interrogation room by one of the police. She was not a the station to volunteer further information. She was at the station, from her point of view, because she did not wish to be alone; she followed Raffaele, who had similarly accompanied her when she had been interviewed at the station on previous days.

5. There is apparently a statement from one judge (Matteini) that the anticipated arrival of Amanda's mother on Nov. 6 motivated Amanda's arrest as a precautionary measure (posted earlier by Samson). Obviously, the police needed some excuse to arrest her; thus, the interrogation.

6. Amanda reported being threatened, yelled at, and slapped. These are not measures associated with an interview.

7. The police chief's statement that Amanda had buckled and told the police what they already knew. If this is an accurate translation, it indicates that Amanda was interrogated; to buckle in this context means to bend and give way under pressure or stress (like an overloaded bridge column). Interestingly, to force statements from someone against his/her will is against Italian law, CPP Article 188: Methods or techniques which may influence the freedom of self-determination or alter the capacity to recall and evaluate facts shall not be used, not even with the consent of the person concerned.

8. The actions of the "translator" Donnino as a "mediator" were likewise contrary to CPP Article 188, and apparently she testified to some of her method to influence or alter Amanda's memory in court.

9. Hellmann indicated, in the verdict convicting Amanda of calunnia and which was finalized by the CSC, that she had made the calunnia statements to relieve the pressure of the interrogation, and not to hide her participation in a crime. He stated that she was under suspicion of very serious crimes.

The above list may not be all-inclusive, but IMO it establishes that Amanda was a suspect when the interrogation began, and should have been provided a lawyer and warned of her right to remain silent. Certainly, as soon as the statement about Patrick had made by her, or made for her by the police, she was entitled to a lawyer.

I bumped this down rather than do an ETA.

Another point to emphasize is that the ECtHR in the course of its investigation (or trial) of an application is empowered by the Convention to ask questions and request documents of the respondent State and the applicant. Thus, ECtHR could ask for police records to help establish what the police believed before the interrogation, for example. They may also send a team of lawyers to interview persons, in accordance with the Convention, although this is rarely done.

If the requested documents are not supplied within the time limit established by the ECtHR (or any extension agreed to) and no valid reason (as judged by ECtHR) is provided for the failure to supply the records, the ECtHR is entitled to "make inferences". The Convention obligates the State to cooperate and facilitate the ECtHR efforts; to not supply information or records without a valid reason would be an additional violation of the Convention.

 

[Machiavelli]

If they were considered suspects for any criminal offence they are entitled to a lawyer. There is no end run around this. You cannot say the police were investigating a murder but the "witnesses" are not suspects in the murder case when they are minimally suspected of criminal activity connected to the as yet unsolved murder. That would be ridiculous. The ECHR is most assuredly the correct forum for determining whether Ms Knox was indeed a suspect and thus entitled to a lawyer.

They were clearly suspected of involvement of a criminal nature in the murder.

The latter statement is simply false under the law.

But besides this, I repeat the concept that this is also basically irrelevant. Fairness of trial is not determined by police procedures.

 

[Machiavelli]

In these days, in Sicily an investigation is going on about the death of a 8 year old boy named Loris Stival. The murder happened nine days ago. Now it's been a week since everybody knows that the boy's mother is suspected of being the murderer, probably with an accomplice. The fact that she is lying and covering up is evident, and there is also additional elements of circumstantial evidence. But she has not been declared a formal suspect yet.

 

[Numbers]

The latter statement is simply false under the law.

But besides this, I repeat the concept that this is also basically irrelevant. Fairness of trial is not determined by police procedures.

{My emphasis above.}

Mach,
I'm sure you know, from your extensive knowledge of ECHR law, that your statement "fairness of trial is not determined by police procedures" is absolutely totally incorrect. See, for example, Salduz v. Turkey 36391/02:

Against this background, the Court finds that in order for the right to a fair trial to remain sufficiently “practical and effective” (see paragraph 51 above), Article 6 § 1 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 (see, mutatis mutandis, Magee, cited above, § 44). 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.

{emphasis added}

 

[Kauffer]

I point out that still nobody was able to present a source with a quote from DeFelice's press conference.

I can:

"Initially the American gave a version of events we knew was not correct," Perugia police chief Arturo de Felice told reporters. "She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them all in. They all participated but had different roles."

As reported in "Newsweek" 15th November 2007


http://www.newsweek.com/perugias-extreme-sex-murder-97137

And here's the kicker: It's Barbie Nadeau!

LJ quotes most accurately in his post near the top of this page.

You have lost your deniability.

 

[Kauffer]

In these days, in Sicily an investigation is going on about the death of a 8 year old boy named Loris Stival. The murder happened nine days ago. Now it's been a week since everybody knows that the boy's mother is suspected of being the murderer, probably with an accomplice. The fact that she is lying and covering up is evident, and there is also additional elements of circumstantial evidence. But she has not been declared a formal suspect yet.

I know nothing of this case but if what you report is true and she is being interviewed by the police, then it is illegal - without a lawyer.

 

[Kauffer]

The latter statement is simply false under the law.

But besides this, I repeat the concept that this is also basically irrelevant. Fairness of trial is not determined by police procedures.

I have already posted the ECHR's rebuttal of your contention. Article 6 rights kick in before trial and specifically apply to the failure to provide counsel.

Itally has been caught out doing this sort of thing on so many occasions. The ECHR is clear: you cannot rely on incriminating statements made without benefit of counsel.

PS And I see that Numbers has given you the extract from the relevant court fact sheet with case law.