Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[AmyStrange]

-

The law is not complicated to read. It is complicated to interpret. That's why law schools and accreditations exist.

-

I have to agree g. Most of the discussion here is not about law so much as an interpretation of same,

d

-

 

[Numbers]

The law is not complicated to read. It is complicated to interpret. That's why law schools and accreditations exist.

An interesting point.
But you can find the ECHR law and it is available in plain language on its site.
The ECHR has a project underway to make the Convention law available not only in English and French, the official ECHR languages, but also in each language of the Council of Europe States.
And the ECHR has handbooks aimed at explaining the law to non-lawyers as well as lawyers.
The application to ECHR does not require a lawyer, although ECHR recommends use of one when the application is accepted.
You and any interested person can verify these statements at the ECHR web site.
The claim that a lawyer is required to understand the fundamental issues of human rights law is contradicted by the efforts of ECHR to explain those rights in plain language.

 

[Numbers]

-


-

I have to agree g. Most of the discussion here is not about law so much as an interpretation of same,

d

-

Since the interpretation of law, especially in a foreign country where a foreign language is spoken may require a lawyer who speaks that language and an interpreter, one can understand the problems Amanda had during her interrogation overnight by a team of police where she had no lawyer and was provided with an interpreter who was really a "mediator" for the police.

 

[griffinmill]

-


-

I have to agree g. Most of the discussion here is not about law so much as an interpretation of same,

d

-

Well, we agree on something Amy. Fortunately, someone quite learned in law in the abstract, Italian law particularly, is posting in this thread. Those responding are internet trained, and are determined to see law simplistically, not nuanced.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Since the interpretation of law, especially in a foreign country where a foreign language is spoken may require a lawyer who speaks that language and an interpreter, one can understand the problems Amanda had during her interrogation overnight by a team of police where she had no lawyer and was provided with an interpreter who was really a "mediator" for the police.

-

Yup. You're pretty much at the mercy of the cops. The only information you have to go on comes from them.

I really wish they had taped that interrogation. It would prove what really happened. I'm not afraid of the truth. Just because I believe they are probably innocent doesn't mean I can't be convinced otherwise,

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Well, we agree on something Amy. Fortunately, someone quite learned in law in the abstract, Italian law particularly, is posting in this thread. Those responding are internet trained, and are determined to see law simplistically, not nuanced.

-

Yup. If the law was that simple, you wouldn't need to go to court,

d

-

 

[Numbers]

Well, we agree on something Amy. Fortunately, someone quite learned in law in the abstract, Italian law particularly, is posting in this thread. Those responding are internet trained, and are determined to see law simplistically, not nuanced.

griffin,

Have you found those references you were seeking about ECHR cases where interrogation subjects or those in custody without lawyers who made incriminating statements were not acknowledged as having their rights violated?

You can do the research. No need for a law degree. The information is available in English and French, and in several other languages.

 

[griffinmill]

griffin,

Have you found those references you were seeking about ECHR cases where interrogation subjects or those in custody without lawyers who made incriminating statements were not acknowledged as having their rights violated?

You can do the research. No need for a law degree. The information is available in English and French, and in several other languages.

Is this the Twilight Zone? I asked you if you had those citations.

 

[TomB]

I've been reading this for a while without participating. Just wanted to comment on this:

However those stipulations do occur in the US system on plea-bargains, where the prosecution may offer a plea to Mr.A in exchange of a testimony against Mr.B. What happens is that even if Mr.B doesn't agree to the stipulation, he won't be able to challenge it and won't be able to challenge the content of the testimony substantially, since it is agreed upon with the prosecution, and the witness receives a life pass in exchange for it.

Unless I misunderstand, this is false. If Mr. A plea bargains and is convicted in exchange for testimony, he be comes a witness in Mr. B's trial just like any other witness. He (and his testimony) would be subject to full cross-examination. In fact, most defense attorneys will bring the deal up in order to discredit the witness by illustrating his motive to say what the prosecution wants.

There have been cases where two co-defendants were tried at the same time with two separate juries. In those cases, there is some evidence or testimony that one jury or the other is not allowed to hear.

I think that in the US, the conviction of a co-defendant would be considered prejudicial, and not considered admissible.

 

[Numbers]

Is this the Twilight Zone? I asked you if you had those citations.

griffin,
If I understand, you are asking for any citations in which a subject was interrogated without a lawyer, or held in police custody without a lawyer, and made incriminating statements, was convicted based on those statements, and applied to ECHR with a complaint of a violation of rights. But, rather than judging that the human rights of the applicant had been violated, the ECHR had found no violation.

I am not immediately aware of any such cases. There could be cases of that type which were found inadmissible, for example, if they were filed out-of-time (more than six months after the finalization date), or if the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies (typically, meaning appealing all the way to the highest domestic appeal court). There may also be cases where the applicant did not follow-up the case with the ECHR (for example, did not timely respond to requests for information), and the case was struck from the list of cases.

But again, you are free to do your own research work.

 

[Numbers]

I've been reading this for a while without participating. Just wanted to comment on this:


Unless I misunderstand, this is false. If Mr. A plea bargains and is convicted in exchange for testimony, he be comes a witness in Mr. B's trial just like any other witness. He (and his testimony) would be subject to full cross-examination. In fact, most defense attorneys will bring the deal up in order to discredit the witness by illustrating his motive to say what the prosecution wants.
There have been cases where two co-defendants were tried at the same time with two separate juries. In those cases, there is some evidence or testimony that one jury or the other is not allowed to hear.

I think that in the US, the conviction of a co-defendant would be considered prejudicial, and not considered admissible.

Welcome, TomB.
You are absolutely correct (highlighting added) in each of your statements.
The post you quote was incorrect due either to lack of knowledge or to intent to mislead on the part of the poster.

 

[griffinmill]

griffin,
If I understand, you are asking for any citations in which a subject was interrogated without a lawyer, or held in police custody without a lawyer, and made incriminating statements, was convicted based on those statements, and applied to ECHR with a complaint of a violation of rights. But, rather than judging that the human rights of the applicant had been violated, the ECHR had found no violation.

I am not immediately aware of any such cases. There could be cases of that type which were found inadmissible, for example, if they were filed out-of-time (more than six months after the finalization date), or if the applicant had not exhausted domestic remedies (typically, meaning appealing all the way to the highest domestic appeal court). There may also be cases where the applicant did not follow-up the case with the ECHR (for example, did not timely respond to requests for information), and the case was struck from the list of cases.

But again, you are free to do your own research work.

Again, refer to my posts 3951, 3953, and 3959.

You can't cite cases that are truly specific to AK. You can only cite cases that you believe generally relate to AK and assume they apply.

Where is the calunnia case, for example, that proves your assertions?

 

[Numbers]

Again, refer to my posts 3951, 3953, and 3959.

You can't cite cases that are truly specific to AK. You can only cite cases that you believe generally relate to AK and assume they apply.

Where is the calunnia case, for example, that proves your assertions?

griffin,
Sad to see you haven't understood about common law.
Cases don't need to be identical in every detail.
There are certain general principles that apply from one to the next.
Perhaps you should check with a lawyer on how that works.

I assume you live in a common-law country. But if not, here is some info:

Civil code law is similar to common law in having general principles, but there the general principles are all written down ahead of time, supposedly, and precedent is not used.

In common law, the idea is that law-makers can't know every situation that will arise, therefore (at least in the US) laws may be somewhat broad [but of course, not too broad], so the courts are relied upon to interpret law and use precedent.

ETA: The European Convention on Human Rights is written broadly (that is, broad principles rather than a lot of specific detailed laws). It is similar to the US Constitution Bill of Rights that way. In order to apply it to everyday situations, the European Court of Human Rights, as was anticipated when the Council of Europe set their system in place, uses common law. The ECtHR judges a case, and that judgment becomes precedent to judge other cases when the Court (or any reasonable person) finds similarities. The basis for having a person in police custody having a lawyer from the first questioning is based on the Salduz v Turkey case, which was about a boy arrested for terrorism (IIRC, one specific charge was that he had written an antigovernment statement on a banner that was displayed over a highway, apparently a very serious offense in Turkey at that time. I am not joking.) That judgment has been referenced by the ECtHR in many other cases, and applies generally. It is not restricted to boys, Turkey, terrorism, or being arrested for writing on a banner.

Hope this little discussion is clear! But you can always look up the meaning and use of common law in references.

 

[analemma]

I think that the issue with the judges goes beyond gullibility. It may be more accurate to say that the judges were mere agents of the prosecution, that is, lacking in independence. It would be desirable for the ECtHR to censure that failure of independence on the part of the judges.

Did you hit this one on the head.
The obvious lack of judicial independence is the most egregious aspect of the entire case: Not one of the "judges" acts as a judge in terms of assessing the evidence or viewing the defendants as anything but guilty of whatever ludicrous motive or activity the police and prosecution propose, be it "satanic rite", "sex game gone wrong", "choice for evil", "turds in the toilet", whatever.
Most of the Guede ruling is spent talking about the saintly nature of the victim and slutty nature of the accused.
And every evaluation of evidence is made by following a twisted path that ALWAYS applies the most unfavorable interpretations to the actions(Why would Knox shower every day? It is suspicious and evil that she was taught to not want to stink like we do!!!), or even inactions("it is unusual for lovers to not want to be disturbed, they must be doing something evil"), of the accused.

 

[acbytesla]

-


-

Yup. You're pretty much at the mercy of the cops. The only information you have to go on comes from them.

I really wish they had taped that interrogation. It would prove what really happened. I'm not afraid of the truth. Just because I believe they are probably innocent doesn't mean I can't be convinced otherwise,
d

-

I feel the same way. I would just like to add that I'm confident if the interrogation had been recorded, no one, at least no one who's native tongue is English would think that Amanda had actually confessed and that her statements were totally coerced. I've always been convinced that the Italian police and prosecutors misunderstood Amanda in every way and the language barrier was probably the foremost reason for that misunderstanding.

 

[Samson]

I feel the same way. I would just like to add that I'm confident if the interrogation had been recorded, no one, at least no one who's native tongue is English would think that Amanda had actually confessed and that her statements were totally coerced. I've always been convinced that the Italian police and prosecutors misunderstood Amanda in every way and the language barrier was probably the foremost reason for that misunderstanding.

I love the adulation on PMF of Machiavelli.
Another Italian recently said he is enjoying reading his lectures on law and humanity to the fools and knaves on this forum.
But he did not mention a lecture on justice, because justice is a very different concept. Justice is what the people crave, but the people are invisible to Machiavelli and his disciples.

 

[MichaelB]

Here's a translation of Mignini's talk at Universita Pegaso, Naples on 24th November, on 'Il Giallo di Perugia: L'omicidio di Meredith Kercher'

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.org/viewtopic.php?p=151265#p151265

There's another interview he gave posted there as well.

 

[Annella]

Here's a translation of Mignini's talk at Universita Pegaso, Naples on 24th November, on 'Il Giallo di Perugia: L'omicidio di Meredith Kercher'

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.org/viewtopic.php?p=151265#p151265

There's another interview he gave posted there as well.

Dio mio! How revealing is that interview! Mignini spills and many questions are answered. This will NOT go down well with Dottore Mignini when he discovers he has been translated for all to see. Or maybe, like Nencini, he figures it all helps the cause. Lets wait and see who gets sued next. Oh, and lets see what Machiavelli's take on this and what's to follow is.

 

[Kauffer]

Here's a translation of Mignini's talk at Universita Pegaso, Naples on 24th November, on 'Il Giallo di Perugia: L'omicidio di Meredith Kercher'

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.org/viewtopic.php?p=151265#p151265

There's another interview he gave posted there as well.

Well well! Here is Mignini talking about why Ms Kercher's rectal temperature was not taken. There was a risk of contamination, according to Stefanoni, Mignini recounts, simply from opening the door to the bedroom! But later, he refers to the ISC ruling that contamination must be proved. Extraordinary! The failure to collect one of the most important pieces of evidence in the case in order to determine time of death is justified by a fear of contaminating the crime scene merely by opening a door but the later re-examination of the crime scene 46 days later after it has been utterly compromised, he does not refer to. How can Stefanoni's fear of contaminating the scene simply by opening a door be reconciled with the December 18th collection of the bra clasp behind the very same door?

"Now I want to turn, to go to another point which was underlined… the hour of death. I want to say here…. The medicolegal professor will understand this, I hope you understand, but at a certain point the medico-legal doctor, Dr Lalli arrived a bit later… so… arrived after… he was phoned, but he arrived after the intervention of Dottoressa Stefanoni and had begun… I should say that the body had been found… the door was closed so that ther could be no evident contamination that was proved.. if there is contamination it has to be proved by those who invoke it… this is another principle affirmed by the Supreme Court. And so once the body was found in the room the room was closed… no access was possible for anybody.. who was not authorized and who did not put on the famous protective suit that made me feel like dying because… so, I remember this, this I want to say. The pathologist said.. ‘Go and measure the rectal temperature’. Dottoressa Stefanoni, and I understand her… said’No, doctor, for goodness sake, we run the risk of contamination. We will wait a bit.’. He waited. This I want to say, but it is not quotable.. then at a certain point the pathologist says nothing, doesn’t disagree, and then goes … enough… I’m bored… enough… But I remember that I found myself in this embarrassing situation, because…. (difficult to understand) a battle already done. You have to try, and yes, there is the danger of contamination….therefore I want to say that I take count of this and there is the need to measure the rectal temperature, what am I to do?"

 

[toto]

Thanks for posting. I found this interesting:

I didn’t know Meredith. I met her fellow national friends, and remember that in fact there was an attachment that was not particularly friendly versus Amanda that evidently reflected that of Meredith… thus I believe that there was probably a very strong confrontation… Meredith accused Amanda,and was probably wrong..we don’t know.. of having stolen the rent money..of bringing boys home..she had an attitude, a culture perhaps probably a bit puritanical… this is probable… but, in sum like this, in sum.. I remember that the attitude that emerged was an attitude of, in summary, strong contrast…after a period of reasonable friendship, then bit by bit…. And when you live together these situations can explode, by which a murder, in my opinion, unless it is Rudy, and this will extend the discussion for too long. The discussion runs like this. That evening they were free. Amanda could amuse herself… but how??… You are too in my opinion… you are too much of a moralist, because you suffer and don’t support this justice which condemns morals… that came from the British girl.​

I don't think this is a particularly effective talk by Mignini.