Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[anglolawyer]

{bolded, italized emphasis added above}

1. You raise a point that I don't believe has been addressed. How does the calunnia charge - as a criminal offense - survive, since apparently the CSC did not allow at least some of Amanda's statements from Nov. 5/6, 2007 to be used? I recall one statement was not to be used against her or anyone else, and the other could be used against her but not against anyone else, but I haven't seen any written translation of a court document on this. It would be informative to see the documentation, which apparently was a CSC ruling.

snip

My understanding is that her statements were judged usable for the purpose of proving calumny but not murder. There is a translation of the relevant CS ruling somewhere.

 

[Numbers]

From: CASE OF NAVALNYY AND YASHIN v. RUSSIA 76204/11 04/12/2014

{Comment: This relates to the interrogation of Amanda Knox Nov. 5/6, 2007, in that the only witnesses are the police and Amanda.}

Press Release

Article 6
The Court observed that the circumstances of the applicants’ confrontation with the police were in dispute between the parties. However, in the administrative proceedings, the Russian courts had decided to base their judgment exclusively on the version put forward by the police and they had refused to accept additional evidence, such as video recordings, or to call other witnesses. The Court underlined that, in a dispute over key facts underlying the charges where the only witnesses for the prosecution were police officers who had played an active role in the events in question, the failure to exhaust all possibilities to verify the officers’ incriminating statements ran contrary to the basic requirements of criminal law, which were also applicable to the administrative proceedings in the present case. Moreover, the Russian courts had limited the scope of the case to the applicants’ alleged disobedience, without examining whether the police had acted lawfully.

Those considerations were sufficient for the Court to conclude that the administrative proceedings against the applicants, taken as a whole, had been in violation of the applicants’ right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1.

 

[Numbers]

Duplicate. Deleted.

 

[carbonjam72]

My understanding is that her statements were judged usable for the purpose of proving calumny but not murder. There is a translation of the relevant CS ruling somewhere.

Ok, I'll accept that's the ruling.

But if the statement is unreliable for use in a murder charge, why is it allowable in another charge?

Is the statement itself reliable? Or was it taken under questionable or unfair circumstances?

Seems like these are two separate questions. First, is the statement legit? If not, then what difference does it make towards what charge it is being used?

And even if one relies on a different standard for civil and criminal (although the calumnia conviction is criminal), then how is it reasonable to have the same judges hearing the criminal case being exposed to excluded evidence?

Its a shady side-step they have going on there.

 

[carbonjam72]

Right, and if they interrogated her in violation of her rights, and then used the ensuing statement to convict her, then the entire Calunnia proceeding is unfair. This is obvious.

MACH: What? The calunnia proceeding started only weeks later.
The calunnia is a crime that was committed by Amanda Knox, long before any calunnia charges were filed.
She committed a crime and there is no "status" excuse for those who commit crimes. You commit a crime if you commit a calunnia no matter what your legal status is or what you are doing, or whether others are doing well or not their job. You may not commit crimes, and can't use alleged violations to justify them: can't stab a police officer, not even if he is doing something that turns out to be irregular. Knox was not a person being interrogated as a suspect of calunnia without a lawyer, neither formally nor informally, so there can't be any failure to provede a "status" of suspect for the charge of calunnia: she was not. She only committed a calunnia, and this is a crime.

DIOCLETUS: This is garbage. There's not a single case that says that the police can interrogate a suspect sans counsel and then use the ensuing statements as the basis for a conviction. In fact some countries have been censured for the practice of arresting suspects for minor crimes and then using illegally-extracted confessions to prosecute more serious crimes.

The question is whether Amanda's statements could be said to be voluntary and intentional, or were they coerced and the result of an intentionally induced mental confusion imposed by the police on both Amanda and Raf.

I maintain no reasonable person could believe that Amanda's statements were voluntary and intentional. She was a victim, not a criminal. And remains so.

Mach, in your story, you seem to ignore the culpability of the police in the matter. Now why is that?

 

[anglolawyer]

Ok, I'll accept that's the ruling.

But if the statement is unreliable for use in a murder charge, why is it allowable in another charge?

Is the statement itself reliable? Or was it taken under questionable or unfair circumstances?

Seems like these are two separate questions. First, is the statement legit? If not, then what difference does it make towards what charge it is being used?

And even if one relies on a different standard for civil and criminal (although the calumnia conviction is criminal), then how is it reasonable to have the same judges hearing the criminal case being exposed to excluded evidence?

Its a shady side-step they have going on there.

First, 'unusable' or 'inadmissible' are preferable to 'unreliable' which has a different connotation. Second, the purpose of laws which render inadmissible statements which would otherwise be probative of guilt is to prevent unfairness and oppression. That purpose does not extend to giving the suspect/detaineee a free pass to break any law which may be broken by speech. The suspect/accused only has a right not to incriminate himself, not a license to falsely implicate others.

 

[Desert Fox]

I am curious about something. . . . .

Even the Italian pro guilt people support that the plan was to have Amanda interrogated that night? Assuming that, they did not have an Italian interpreter ready beforehand. As well, this interrogation was effectively during weird hours, effectively when Amanda was extremely tired.

Everything seems targeted towards having her be disoriented.

 

[Kauffer]

The question is whether Amanda's statements could be said to be voluntary and intentional, or were they coerced and the result of an intentionally induced mental confusion imposed by the police on both Amanda and Raf.

I maintain no reasonable person could believe that Amanda's statements were voluntary and intentional. She was a victim, not a criminal. And remains so.

Mach, in your story, you seem to ignore the culpability of the police in the matter. Now why is that?

The circumstances which gave rise to the calunia charge and later conviction cannot be separated out from the illegal interrogation. It is all poisonous fruit - a product of a process where the defendant's rights were compromised.

 

[anglolawyer]

I am curious about something. . . . .

Even the Italian pro guilt people support that the plan was to have Amanda interrogated that night? Assuming that, they did not have an Italian interpreter ready beforehand. As well, this interrogation was effectively during weird hours, effectively when Amanda was extremely tired.

Everything seems targeted towards having her be disoriented.

Their view is that if she was innocent she had nothing to fear. No innocent person ever confesses to anything in guilterland.

 

[Diocletus]

Under Machiavelli's version, a person who is illegally denied access to counsel in the course of an investigation could be charged with obstruction of justice for falsely confessing, and convicted of the crime unless the person can prove incitement by the police. This isn't the law.

Moreover, as to incitement, according to the ECHR, “[t]he admission of some evidence can render a trial unfair. Such has been found to be the case, for instance, of evidence obtained as a result of ill-treatment with the aim of extracting a confession or of evidence obtained by way of police incitement or entrapment.” Pareniuc v. Moldova. The ECtHR’s procedure for adjudicating such claims is as follows: “where the information disclosed by the prosecution authorities does not enable the Court to conclude whether the applicant was subjected to police incitement, it is essential that the Court examine the procedure whereby the plea of incitement was determined in each case in order to ensure that the rights of the defence were adequately protected, in particular the right to adversarial proceedings and to equality of arms.” Pareniuc.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I am curious about something. . . . .

Even the Italian pro guilt people support that the plan was to have Amanda interrogated that night? Assuming that, they did not have an Italian interpreter ready beforehand. As well, this interrogation was effectively during weird hours, effectively when Amanda was extremely tired.

Everything seems targeted towards having her be disoriented.

Didn’t the police contact Raffaele that night and asked him to come in to clarify previous statements, if they were both suspects why not contact Amanda as well?

 

[Kauffer]

Didn’t the police contact Raffaele that night and asked him to come in to clarify previous statements, if they were both suspects why not contact Amanda as well?

There was an order given for her to be "taken". The reasonable speculation is that if she hadn't come in, they would have arrested her triumphantly after they had broken Mr Sollecito.

In any case, just because she was not asked in immediately doesn't mean she wouldn't have been. And there was an order.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

some questions regarding the his and hers interrogations

Didn’t the police contact Raffaele that night and asked him to come in to clarify previous statements, if they were both suspects why not contact Amanda as well?

CoulsdonUK,

Exactly what did they want him to clarify, and why did it have to be done right then?

If they were not suspects,
Why did Giobbi testify that he said to bring them both in?
Why did a cop put the business card of a lawyer into Raf's hands the day before?
Why did Castellini later write that the police kept reporters away from Raf and Amanda and indicate that arrests were soon to follow?
Why did someone in the Italian media say that one or more witnesses might soon to be converted into suspects on 5 November?
Why was there a report in the Italian media that Meredith knew her killer?
And so forth.
ETA
What were the cops doing on Raf's computer circa 10 PM?
Why had Lumumba's place been bugged?

 

[Diocletus]

Didn’t the police contact Raffaele that night and asked him to come in to clarify previous statements, if they were both suspects why not contact Amanda as well?

Because first they needed either (i) to get Raffaele to retract her alibi, or (ii) confuse him enough (or say they confused him enough) so that they could disregard his statements on the alibi issue.

 

[Numbers]

The legal argument that I believe Mach has is: If a person is interrogated by police about one crime, murder [and the interrogation is against ECHR because the person has no lawyer], but the person (falsely) makes a statement implicating himself in a different crime - of a different type, calunnia, and then the person is tried for that different crime - calunnia - is the trial fair according to ECHR?

I believe since the calunnia in this case relates to the murder, it is certainly covered by the ECHR case-law. The calunnia was induced by the police coercion in their seeking information about the murder. And the statement itself is the crime!

If the calunnia had been about some completely separate crime, let's say a bank robbery clearly not related to the murder - then there could be some question about whether that calunnia was the result of coercion. Hypothetically, suppose that the police in their interrogation had asked a question such as: "Tell us what you know about the crimes of Mr. X ... or else you will go to prison!" In response, the person being interrogated (with no lawyer) then falsely states that Mr. X had robbed a bank. That statement is the product of coercion. I believe that a trial and conviction for calunnia in the hypothetical would be unfair according to ECHR.

But if in the interrogation there were no questions about Mr. X or about bank robbery from the police, and the person being interrogated arbitrarily volunteered that he had observed Mr. X robbing a bank, then there may be a valid question of calunnia. But since the subject of the interrogation - which is conducted without a lawyer for the subject - may not understand his rights against self-incrimination and the laws against calunnia, I would say that no inculpatory information provided by the subject can be used against him, including any statement that could be calunnia.

 

[anglolawyer]

The legal argument that I believe Mach has is: If a person is interrogated by police about one crime, murder [and the interrogation is against ECHR because the person has no lawyer], but the person (falsely) makes a statement implicating himself in a different crime - of a different type, calunnia, and then the person is tried for that different crime - calunnia - is the trial fair according to ECHR?

I believe since the calunnia in this case relates to the murder, it is certainly covered by the ECHR case-law. The calunnia was induced by the police coercion in their seeking information about the murder. And the statement itself is the crime!

If the calunnia had been about some completely separate crime, let's say a bank robbery clearly not related to the murder - then there could be some question about whether that calunnia was the result of coercion. Hypothetically, suppose that the police in their interrogation had asked a question such as: "Tell us what you know about the crimes of Mr. X ... or else you will go to prison!" In response, the person being interrogated (with no lawyer) then falsely states that Mr. X had robbed a bank. That statement is the product of coercion. I believe that a trial and conviction for calunnia in the hypothetical would be unfair according to ECHR. But if in the interrogation there were no questions about Mr. X or about bank robbery from the police, and the person being interrogated arbitrarily volunteered that he had observed Mr. X robbing a bank, then there may be a valid question of calunnia. But since the subject of the interrogation - which is conducted without a lawyer for the subject - may not understand his rights against self-incrimination and the laws against calunnia, I would say that no inculpatory information provided by the subject can be used against him, including any statement that could be calunnia.

Italy will say she was not asked about the crimes of Mr X, that they never heard his name before and that she was the one who brought his name up. When examining her before Massei, Mignini asked why she never mentioned Patrick at any time during all the questioning (correct answer: because he was not relevant on her understanding of what had happened). The fact he asked this proves she never mentioned him which further proves they didn't ask her about him before the night of the 5th-6th. Since we know they bugged Le Chic before this, we can infer they were playing a game and closing in on their GUT in which he was the black guy they were looking for and, confirmation bias being what it is, her failure to mention him proved she was covering for him.

But, given all that, how will she prove they brought his name up? It's not my understanding of her evidence that she says in so many words that they did.

 

[Desert Fox]

Didn’t the police contact Raffaele that night and asked him to come in to clarify previous statements, if they were both suspects why not contact Amanda as well?

Clarifications are not in the middle of the night, they are during normal working hours. . . .Even if you assume that he is going to school, one might expect early afternoon.

Even if I was to stretch to accepting the strange choice of interrogation time (actually interrogations vs interviews are often done at odd hours just for the reason to disorient the target), why then invite Amanda to be "questioned" without an interpreter present?

Let us be blunt here, the Perugia authority should have just waited for the physical evidence. The physical evidence is that one person committed the crime, one Rudy Guede. . . . .

 

[Kauffer]

Italy will say she was not asked about the crimes of Mr X, that they never heard his name before and that she was the one who brought his name up. When examining her before Massei, Mignini asked why she never mentioned Patrick at any time during all the questioning (correct answer: because he was not relevant on her understanding of what had happened). The fact he asked this proves she never mentioned him which further proves they didn't ask her about him before the night of the 5th-6th. Since we know they bugged Le Chic before this, we can infer they were playing a game and closing in on their GUT in which he was the black guy they were looking for and, confirmation bias being what it is, her failure to mention him proved she was covering for him.

But, given all that, how will she prove they brought his name up? It's not my understanding of her evidence that she says in so many words that they did.

The information that must be brought out you touch on. What exactly were the police's involvement with Lumumba prior to the interrogations of the 5th and 6th. You mention bugging. Where are the cites? What else?

 

[carbonjam72]

First, 'unusable' or 'inadmissible' are preferable to 'unreliable' which has a different connotation. Second, the purpose of laws which render inadmissible statements which would otherwise be probative of guilt is to prevent unfairness and oppression. That purpose does not extend to giving the suspect/detaineee a free pass to break any law which may be broken by speech. The suspect/accused only has a right not to incriminate himself, not a license to falsely implicate others.

I thought Amanda had he false memory when Ficarra flashed her the text message from Patrick on her cell phone?

It's pretty leading, that at first they won't accept the truth of where she was and who was there, and THEN flash a message from Patrick that they can conveniently construe as "let's meet'.

Unlike most here, I don't believe some in the police present, were not aware that they might be looking for Rudy Guede, whom they had helped to free from the Milan police just five days earlier.

I include Napoleone, Mignini and Zugarini for reasons I have listed before.

Dumbell cope in the room can have their marching orders, but I believe Mignini, Napoleone and Zugarini at a minimum, absolutely knew that Amanda and Raf were innocent, and just wanted to pressure a confession, because fundamentally they are amoral thugs. None of these mistakes are honest.

 

[carbonjam72]

First, 'unusable' or 'inadmissible' are preferable to 'unreliable' which has a different connotation. Second, the purpose of laws which render inadmissible statements which would otherwise be probative of guilt is to prevent unfairness and oppression. That purpose does not extend to giving the suspect/detaineee a free pass to break any law which may be broken by speech. The suspect/accused only has a right not to incriminate himself, not a license to falsely implicate others.

Thanks for pushing me on my casual language use, fair enough.

But what I'm hearing is a disturbing tendency to compartmentalize a set of facts, then cherry pick the elements necessary to create a false picture that suits a predetermined conclusion.

If a statement that is "self-incriminating" results from an "oppressive" interrogation without an attorney, then why would the statement that emerges be considered inadmissible due to a right against self-incrimination - yet culpable even though the product of coercion?

The element of willful intent to commit a crime was never present, in this circumstance.

The objective fact is about a right not to self-incriminate.

But the subjective fact is about the motivation of the speaker, coercion, loss of free will, and intentional malfeasance by the police.

So do you agree that the ISC got it right in allowing amanda's statement to be considered a crime of calumnia, YET ALSO NOT ADMISSIBLE as evidence in a murder case?

I can't tell if you we're helping our Italian friends to explain their legal position, or whether you actually bought it as well?