Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

Well I asked him, and he told me. Then I also asked the police officer who picked him up at home that night and told me the same thing.

I for one appreciate it when you answer with this kind of specificity. Usually you make only unverifiable assertions.

Please say more about your contact with Mr. Mignini, or at the very least in the future when you are making an assertion - it would be helpful if you made reference to some sort of source like you did above.

For instance, when did this conversation between you and Mr. Mignini take place? Why would he give this kind of answer to you?

 

[anglolawyer]

I guess, less then 10 minutes at night.

Thank you. FWIW this makes Follain's account suspect.

 

[acbytesla]

No, what I actually deny is the alleged connection between the rights expressed above and the committing of a calunnia. There can't be a consequential link between external circumstances and a behaviour which was found to be voluntary and malicious. The judges found that in the merits of facts there was a decision by the person to make false accusation. There was a decision, understand? The person retained the capacity to decide differently if she wanted, she was not out of her faculties or coerced. The action was found to be determined by a decision, not by hypothetical violation of rights.
This is a finding of facts that was made by judges, an inference drawn from behaviours of Knox that were subsequent to the interrogation.

The biggest problem with your analysis is that you're ignoring the poisonous tree concept. If Amanda is entitled to a lawyer during questioning and she didn't have one, it doesn't matter whether the crime was shoplifting, callunia or murder. Everything Amanda said during questioning would be inadmissible because they are branches of that poisoned tree. Hell, it's not very far up the tree Mach Whether what she said was malicious or voluntary is inconsequential because Amanda's act of callunia was DURING the interrogation where are an attorney representing Amanda was REQUIRED.

Now this might not be the case in Italy, but it would be the case in the US and it seems according to the precedence that Numbers has been presenting that it is true in the European Court as well.

I'd be the first to admit, I don't know how the European court operates, but not once have you provided any ECHR case law that supports your opinion which is in contrast to all the case law that Numbers has presented.

Now Numbers may be wrong, but if you both were arguing the case in front of me as a judge, you would lose the argument because you haven't presented any citations that back up your analysis. Either Numbers has done his homework and you haven't...or there is no case law to support your argument. Either way you lose.

It's a good thing that you aren't arguing the case before the ECHR, isn't it?

 

[anglolawyer]

I for one appreciate it when you answer with this kind of specificity. Usually you make only unverifiable assertions.

Please say more about your contact with Mr. Mignini, or at the very least in the future when you are making an assertion - it would be helpful if you made reference to some sort of source like you did above.

For instance, when did this conversation between you and Mr. Mignini take place? Why would he give this kind of answer to you?

I don't see why you need to know this. I take Mach at his word on such things. We have long speculated that Mach is closely connected with those involved in the prosecution, in the sense of having contact with some of them. So what? You were strenuously objecting to similarly intrusive questions about your own links to the defendants not very long ago, stressing your right to privacy. Why the different rules for Machiavelli?

For my part, I will (this time) remember it's Mignini who says he arrived at 2.00 a.m. I am skeptical about it and will await more information. I think it's an important point.

 

[Machiavelli]

{highlighting added to quote}
Mach,
As you are perhaps aware, the ECHR case law goes against any statement made by a person in police custody or under interrogation being used in a trial to convict that person, of a crime, when the person does not have a lawyer present to provide counsel. (And there is case law that it must be a fair lawyer, not a police lawyer.) So the situation regarding the allegation and conviction for calunnia against Amanda is that simple.

Repeating: ANY statement from a person under interrogation or police custody, who does not have the counsel of her lawyer who is present with her, cannot be used to convict her. It does not matter whether or not one considers the statement "incriminating" or not. The use of the statement is a violation of ECHR Article 6.1 with 6.3c.
The ECHR in the Guide to Article 6 specifically mentions that the intent of such provisions to guard against coercion by the police. See that official publication or the post (#3762) where I copied relevant excerpts from it.

I repeat: no. It is not true that the ECHR case law extends up to an the absolute category encompassing any possible situation of any person in custody without a lawyer and any possible statement. It seems you like to pick up cases to deduce the existence of categories that you stretch up to the most absolute set in order to cover under the same umbrella any possible case with just something in common.
But this theory is disproven even by very simpe examples such as Luciano Aviello: a person under judicial custody, who is not assisted by a lawyer, releases statements before a magistrate as a person informed about facts, and is later charged based on those statements. Are you saying the ECHR would declare those statements inadmissible as evidence against him for the charge of cakunnia? This is obviously unrealistic.
Even as for common sense, the substantial rights of Amanda Knox were clearly not violated. Even if the interrogation was considered not good evidence for a charge of calunnia, Knox was aware about her right to sikence before releasing the 05:45 statement, and her written memorials were voluntary. She was not a suspect not even informally, because the investigators could not be aware that a calunnia was being committed. Calunna is a crime under any circumstance no matter what others behaviour is, no matter if procedures are correct or not, just like any other crime, and the ECHR never disputed the nature of this crime. Actions committed during police interrogation or during custody are not protected preliminarily by any special licence or privilege, citizens always have to respect the law even under custodywithout lawyer, so the whole point is moot.

 

[Kauffer]

No, what I actually deny is the alleged connection between the rights expressed above and the committing of a calunnia. There can't be a consequential link between external circumstances and a behaviour which was found to be voluntary and malicious. The judges found that in the merits of facts there was a decision by the person to make false accusation. There was a decision, understand? The person retained the capacity to decide differently if she wanted, she was not out of her faculties or coerced. The action was found to be determined by a decision, not by hypothetical violation of rights.
This is a finding of facts that was made by judges, an inference drawn from behaviours of Knox that were subsequent to the interrogation.

I don't know why you can't understand this. Whatever the Italian judges concluded about Ms Knox's capacity or intent or anything else for that matter, is irrelevant. The ECHR will not permit that her statements made without benefit of counsel, are to be treated as anything other than incited.

 

[Diocletus]

Even as for common sense, the substantial rights of Amanda Knox were clearly not violated. Even if the interrogation was considered not good evidence for a charge of calunnia, Knox was aware about her right to sikence before releasing the 05:45 statement, and her written memorials were voluntary. She was not a suspect not even informally, because the investigators could not be aware that a calunnia was being committed. Calunna is a crime under any circumstance no matter what others behaviour is, no matter if procedures are correct or not, just like any other crime, and the ECHR never disputed the nature of this crime. Actions committed during police interrogation or during custody are not protected preliminarily by any special licence or privilege, citizens always have to respect the law even under custodywithout lawyer, so the whole point is moot.

Why don't you try actually reading some ECHR cases, so you know what you're talking about, and then come back and tell us about some specific cases that help you out here. It's not like these ECHR cases are all secret.

 

[acbytesla]

Why don't you try actually reading some ECHR cases, so you know what you're talking about, and then come back and tell us about some specific cases that help you out here. It's not like these ECHR cases are all secret.

I think the answer is obvious Diocletus. He's afraid that he might not find any that supports his argument. My guess is if there were, Mach would have cited them already.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Why don't you try actually reading some ECHR cases, so you know what you're talking about, and then come back and tell us about some specific cases that help you out here. It's not like these ECHR cases are all secret.

Have you seen Amanda Knox's caluunia application to ECHR?

 

[Diocletus]

But this theory is disproven even by very simpe examples such as Luciano Aviello: a person under judicial custody, who is not assisted by a lawyer, releases statements before a magistrate as a person informed about facts, and is later charged based on those statements. Are you saying the ECHR would declare those statements inadmissible as evidence against him for the charge of cakunnia? This is obviously unrealistic.

This is really very simple: Avielleo wasn't a "suspect or accused person" in Kercher's murder; whereas Amanda Knox was, as evidenced by the fact that she was arrested for that crime on the basis of the "statements" that the police had her sign. Also, as far as I know, Aviello wasn't interrogated by the police--he was interrogated by the defendants. So, Avilello wasn't a suspect and he wasn't interrogated.

 

[Diocletus]

Have you seen Amanda Knox's caluunia application to ECHR?

Have you seen Jimmy Hoffa?

FWIW, the Knox application was last spotted in Strasbourg. Hoffa, I believe, Detroit.

 

[Kauffer]

Have you seen Amanda Knox's caluunia application to ECHR?

The core arguments in the application were predictable. You can reverse engineer them from the case law.

 

[Desert Fox]

This is really very simple: Avielleo wasn't a "suspect or accused person" in Kercher's murder; whereas Amanda Knox was, as evidenced by the fact that she was arrested for that crime on the basis of the "statements" that the police had her sign. Therefore, the police had to get her a lawyer before they had her sign those statements.

One item that it appears that Machiavellian (and the Italian legal system) does not seem to understand is the inequity of arms. In just about every country in the world, the defendant is always at a disadvantage in legal cases. This is why the prosecution has more of an obligation to play fair than the defense in most jurisdictions.

 

[Vibio]

"…but as I said before, our role is to ensure that any American citizen is treated fairly, according to local law. The Italian court system is not the same as the American court system. It’s still early days, but as I said, we haven’t received any indications necessarily that Italian law was not followed."

"And so it is – we need to let this process play out. I mean, this – Italy is a democratic country that has an established and transparent legal system. And as I said, we will monitor this, this procedure as it goes forward, to make sure that Amanda Knox enjoys all the rights that she’s entitled to under Italian local law."

"The Italian Government has allowed our consular officers to sit in on these trials. "

QUESTION: Is it your belief that Amanda – excuse me, Amanda Knox was treated fairly under local law?

MR. KELLY: Well, I don’t have any indications to the contrary. I do know that our Embassy in Rome was very closely involved in this. They visited Amanda Knox. They have monitored the trial.

Ian Kelly
State Department Spokesman
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
December 7, 2009 (2 years after Knox's interrogatiobn)

-------------

Count to 3 and let the comments begin about what Ian Kelly really meant to say:

1

2

3

GO!

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Have you seen Jimmy Hoffa?

I’m not sure the President of the Italian Supreme Court looks like Jimmy Hoffa, his younger brother is a senior ECHR judge.

So have you seen Amanda Knox's calunnia application ECHR?

 

[Vibio]

I’m not sure the President of the Italian Supreme Court looks like Jimmy Hoffa, his younger brother is a senior ECHR judge.

Ooooops!

 

[Diocletus]

"…but as I said before, our role is to ensure that any American citizen is treated fairly, according to local law. The Italian court system is not the same as the American court system. It’s still early days, but as I said, we haven’t received any indications necessarily that Italian law was not followed."

"And so it is – we need to let this process play out. I mean, this – Italy is a democratic country that has an established and transparent legal system. And as I said, we will monitor this, this procedure as it goes forward, to make sure that Amanda Knox enjoys all the rights that she’s entitled to under Italian local law."

"The Italian Government has allowed our consular officers to sit in on these trials. "

QUESTION: Is it your belief that Amanda – excuse me, Amanda Knox was treated fairly under local law?

MR. KELLY: Well, I don’t have any "indications" to the contrary. I do know that our Embassy in Rome was very closely involved in this. They visited Amanda Knox. They have monitored the trial.

Ian Kelly
State Department Spokesman
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
December 7, 2009 (2 years after Knox's interrogatiobn)

-------------

Count to 3 and let the comments begin about what Ian Kelly really meant to say:

1

2

3

GO!

I have no idea what relevance this has. There is no way that state department diplomats would say otherwise.

That said, I wonder if they will see any indications if the ECHR admits the appeal, or enters judgment in favor of Knox?

 

[Diocletus]

I’m not sure the President of the Italian Supreme Court looks like Jimmy Hoffa, his younger brother is a senior ECHR judge.

So have you seen Amanda Knox's calunnia application ECHR?

So you're hoping that this younger brother will use his position to effect the merits of the judgment on Knox's case, notwithstanding the fact that he will be recused?

I guess you don't think too highly of Italian judges. But no worries, I'm right there with you.

 

[Dan O.]

Speaking of decisions made that night, what about the decision that Giobbi talks about to meet at the police station after 5PM to prepare for the night of interrogations and that the interrogations would begin around 10PM. What was the purpose of such a late starting time and why didn't Mignini and the interpreter get the memo?

 

[Kauffer]

"…but as I said before, our role is to ensure that any American citizen is treated fairly, according to local law. The Italian court system is not the same as the American court system. It’s still early days, but as I said, we haven’t received any indications necessarily that Italian law was not followed."

"And so it is – we need to let this process play out. I mean, this – Italy is a democratic country that has an established and transparent legal system. And as I said, we will monitor this, this procedure as it goes forward, to make sure that Amanda Knox enjoys all the rights that she’s entitled to under Italian local law."

"The Italian Government has allowed our consular officers to sit in on these trials. "

Ian Kelly
State Department Spokesman
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
December 7, 2009 (2 years after Knox's interrogatiobn)

-------------

Count to 3 and let the comments begin about what Ian Kelly really meant to say:

1

2

3

GO!

I'm sure he said what he meant to say. He's a diplomat whose main brief is to avoid a row with Italy in his public pronouncenents. What's going on behind the scenes is not meant for your consumption. But note the reference to "monitoring this procedure as it goes forward". Earlier he says "necessarily". It's all good diplomat stuff.

You didn't think this was the extent of the State Department's opinion about the whole case, given at a time when it could be foreseen that it had years to run, did you?